Macro and Micro evolution

[Shermana]

Why do you consider the notion that things simply materialized from nothingness, albeit in a nonsensical Rube Goldberg-esque fashion (why would god need dust and ribs, for example?), is worth looking into? There really isn't any depth or substance, nor is there any evidence or logical coherency.

Why its not far removed from the "Big Bang",
Do they think this "matter" was some sound vibration that rang?
It's okay for "free matter"
to explode and to splatter,
As long as you're not part of that "religious gang".

 

[painted wolf]

And that's fine, but science doesn't just describe and measure but also say how and why.

Well, how is mutations.... why from a physical standpoint is a bit more complex.

Evolution isn't just hard natural selection... but some people (even some scientists) like to try to make everything an issue of selective pressure.

If you like, we could get into some of the whys and hows of human bipedalism in more detail... either in this thread or in my questions about evolution thread.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/124429-evolution-questions-round-3-a.html

For example our VLDLR gene is key to our ability to walk upright... Some humans carry an allele of this gene with just two single nucleotide mutations, and as a result are obligatory quadrupeds. They can not walk upright.

It's not the whole cause of our bipedalism, but it clearly plays a very key role in how and why it developed.

wa:do

 

[Father Heathen]

Why its not far removed from the "Big Bang",
Do they think this "matter" was some sound vibration that rang?
It's okay for "free matter"
to explode and to splatter,
As long as you're not part of that "religious gang".

Except things didn't emerge fully formed from the big bang. It also has evidence to support it, along with models to explain the process and progress of the universe's development.

 

[Shermana]

Except things didn't emerge fully formed from the big bang. It also has evidence to support it, along with models to explain the process and progress of the universe's development.

The "Evidence" is in dispute,
There's more theories now more acute,
Like "inflation", for the astute,
But the issue at stake,
From whence did this matter make?
Once-ridiculed Halton Arp now works at the Max Planck Institute

 

[painted wolf]

Actually, to her credit, she said that was one hypothesis put forth; she never said she agreed with it.

Ah, well... in that case. Makes a little more sense.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

Why do you consider the notion that things simply materialized from nothingness, albeit in a nonsensical Rube Goldberg-esque fashion (why would god need dust and ribs, for example?), is worth looking into? There really isn't any depth or substance, nor is there any evidence or logical coherency.

Oh, I don't know, I find it fascinating to ask questions about the cause of all things and who we are as a species. I suppose I could play World of War craft all day but....

FH, let me ask you. How much of Aristotle have you read? What about Plato? My point is that I suspect you are confusing logical coherency (which is a philosphical argument) with the scientific method. Do you think something can have logical coherency and not have evidence?

 

[Quiddity]

Well, how is mutations.... why from a physical standpoint is a bit more complex.

Evolution isn't just hard natural selection... but some people (even some scientists) like to try to make everything an issue of selective pressure.

If you like, we could get into some of the whys and hows of human bipedalism in more detail... either in this thread or in my questions about evolution thread.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/124429-evolution-questions-round-3-a.html

For example our VLDLR gene is key to our ability to walk upright... Some humans carry an allele of this gene with just two single nucleotide mutations, and as a result are obligatory quadrupeds. They can not walk upright.

It's not the whole cause of our bipedalism, but it clearly plays a very key role in how and why it developed.

wa:do

Actually, I would like to join that conversation. Just not at the moment. I'll bookmark it.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually, I would like to join that conversation. Just not at the moment. I'll bookmark it.

I look forward to it.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

I look forward to it.

wa:do

With that grin I dont' know if I want to anymore...:cover:

Did you plant mines in that thread or something...lol

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh, I don't know, I find it fascinating to ask questions about the cause of all things and who we are as a species. I suppose I could play World of War craft all day but....

FH, let me ask you. How much of Aristotle have you read? What about Plato? My point is that I suspect you are confusing logical coherency (which is a philosphical argument) with the scientific method. Do you think something can have logical coherency and not have evidence?

Of course something can be logically coherent yet lack evidence to support it. I could claim that I drive a Buick and have a brother named Hank, and even without offering any evidence there's still nothing illogical about that claim. Now if I said that I could fire lasers out of my eyes, that would be an illogical claim on top of lacking evidence.

 

[Quiddity]

Of course something can be logically coherent yet lack evidence to support it. I could claim that I drive a Buick and have a brother named Hank, and even without offering any evidence there's still nothing illogical about that claim. Now if I said that I could fire lasers out of my eyes, that would be an illogical claim on top of lacking evidence.

Then why would you say that looking into the notion that things simply materialized from nothingness is not worth looking into if the claims that revolve around said notion are more complex then the caricature you painted?

 

[painted wolf]

With that grin I dont' know if I want to anymore...:cover:

Did you plant mines in that thread or something...lol

It's a surprise!

wa:do

 

[Alex_G]

painted wolf said:
I'm saying that there isn't a significant reason to devide micro and macro. We can see micro and interact with it. There is no reason to assume that macro is different.
Infact there is no difference at all between micro and macro... its all just evolution.
Its like trying to make a difference between what causes gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

Now, I'm certainly no science guru (I'm a wannabe... ) but the red jumped out at me. I always thought macro evolution was far more complex and had much less emperical data we can test today. With fossils being the best we got.

Why would we assume it's the same? I can't help but see a naturalist philosophy being applied here and hopefully there is more then what I am seeing.

I dont really see a fundamental difference either. It seems its just looking at things on a different scale and in context of a larger timeframe.

I actually dislike words like macro/micro-evolution for their tendency to become such easy buzz words.
God knows we enjoy labelling and categorising things as humans, but i often think we have biases that have a profound effect on how we see our categories, and what extent differences we feel are large actually affect or relate to the said categories and how/why they were initially devised.

(Whilst keeping quite abstract still, such and example might be 3 sets of creatures, all separated by the fact they dont interbreed. 2 might look quite similar to some1, and the other very different. But on closer study of their genetics it might be revealed that one of the similar looking groups is in fact much more closely related to the odd one out than the other. This sort of error for me might highlight how someone can mistakenly get hung up on groups and identities without relating it well to the underlying mechanisms and genetics.)

For me i think its quite wonderful to see the way genetic similarities can be matched up over the tree of life, illuminating which species are more closely related, sharing a more recent common ancestor.
Without reiterating the mechanism of evolution and natural selection, i see no reason why said mechanism wouldn’t produce the diversities we see today.

In a way my sensibilities tell me that it might make sense for creatures to distil into quite separate groups. Once a certain degree of differentiation has occurred, (say due to a geographic separation for example) it might be that further changes would benefit each group differently based on their already underlying differences, propelling the differentiation. (eg stronger talon grip might be now more beneficial to one group than the other, with another trait being more useful to the other group. As these changes increase, what might benefit one group will become more distinct from the other.)

Alex

 

[Father Heathen]

Then why would you say that looking into the notion that things simply materialized from nothingness is not worth looking into if the claims that revolve around said notion are more complex then the caricature you painted?

Because the tale makes absolutely no logical sense when taken literally? Accepting it as a literal truth also requires ignoring the insurmountable mountain of evidence against it, which is dishonest.

 

[Quiddity]

Because the tale makes absolutely no logical sense when taken literally? Accepting it as a literal truth also requires ignoring the insurmountable mountain of evidence against it, which is dishonest.

No, it doesn't. Arguments for the existance of God get into logical possibilites, not a scientific inquiry. In fact, science (scientific method) has nothing to say about it other then "we have no evidence", but that's not even something a scientist would get into.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, it doesn't. Arguments for the existance of God get into logical possibilites, not a scientific inquiry. In fact, science (scientific method) has nothing to say about it other then "we have no evidence", but that's not even something a scientist would get into.

I'm not talking about god. I'm talking about literal interpretations of creation myths concocted by men. We most certainly can critique and scrutinize the silly things man has attributed to god. There's a difference between the idea of god, and how people perceive and portray the idea of god. Could there be an entity or force that set things into motion and perhaps even guided things? Okay, sure. But should I trust the nonsensical and unsubstantiated fables of ancient goat herders regarding such a being? Nope. For one, why would god find it necessary to do things in such a convoluted, inefficient Rub Goldberg-esque manner, and how is the lack of genetic diversity necessary for a species survival addressed, etc? Again, such a portrayal of god is rather cartoonish. And then one also take into account the evidence that suggests it simply didn't happen this way anyway.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not talking about god. I'm talking about literal interpretations of creation myths concocted by men. We most certainly can critique and scrutinize the silly things man has attributed to god. There's a difference between the idea of god, and how people perceive and portray the idea of god. Could there be an entity or force that set things into motion and perhaps even guided things? Okay, sure. But should I trust the nonsensical and unsubstantiated fables of ancient goat herders regarding such a being? Nope. For one, why would god find it necessary to do things in an convoluted, inefficient Rub Goldberg-esque manner, and how is the lack of genetic diversity necessary for a species survival addressed? Again, such a portrayal of god is rather cartoonish.

"Notions that things simply materialized from nothingness".....doesn't necessarily entail creationism...FYI.

 

[Shermana]

Because the tale makes absolutely no logical sense when taken literally? Accepting it as a literal truth also requires ignoring the insurmountable mountain of evidence against it, which is dishonest.

Dishonesty is saying something's true
When in fact there's far more research to do
If you trust "scientists" like preachers,
as if they're not paid to be "teachers",
then it certainly says something about you!

Isotope-dating's no guarantee
When there's things like a 40 foot fossil tree!
Of that things called so old,
Such claims are so bold
When actual results they don't want you to see!

 

[shawn001]

The big bang is as strong a theory as evolution.

Oddity,

Here is work being done to reverse engineer a chicken back to a dinosaur.

Can We Make Jurassic Park Yet? | LiveScience


You also should really read this site on human origins new hall at the Smithsonian on human evolution.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

You might find this part interesting as well.

Human Characteristics: Walking Upright

Walking Upright | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


A really fast evolutionary changing speicies are the cichlids fish, this was from a science channel show called mutant planet. These fish were totally amazing and evolved along with the lakes themselves.

African Rift Valley Lakes​

Africa’s Rift Valley Lakes are teeming with a group [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]of [COLOR=blue !important]fish[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] called cichlids, represented by over 1,000 species. Down here, life among the cichlids shows surprising parallels with the highly evolved behaviours of their intelligent chimpanzee neighbours on the shores. In communities of these super-smart fish, there is as much drama and conflict, [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]bullying[/COLOR][/COLOR] and back-stabbing as life in any troop of chimpanzees. Among the cichlids there’s an ambush predator that buries itself in the sand to strike. Also, a mimic who looks and acts like a harmless vegetarian, until turning on a passerby. A night assassin lives here, eating its victims in their sleep. Also, a scale eater that picks its victim apart, leaving it alive…for a meal for another day. But amid the chaos and killing are also heroes. The desire to pass on their genes has led to the most amazing parenting strategies on the planet. Female cichlids have evolved a unique form of [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]child[/COLOR][/COLOR] care. In the Rift Valley Lakes, every evolutionary strategy is met with a counter strategy. It’s an evolutionary arms race, where each species tries to stay one step ahead of the competition. In this pressure cooker, cichlids are forced to evolve and adapt faster than any other vertebrate on the planet. But how did this situation come to be? How did these bizarre behaviours arise? And where will the arms race end?"


Mutant Planet: African Rift Valley Lakes : Videos : Science Channel