More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[Windwalker]

And despite all the creation scientists doing their amazing research, and all those biblical archaeologists doing all their digs, they still have not found the bones of Noah and the people on the Ark - the ancestors of ALL humanity, from just a few thousand years ago.

Must be because the creation story is made up.

Finding the transitional fossils and "being there" are only necessary when doing science. When doing Bible, all you need is your reading of an ancient text, from a language and ancient culture you know very little about, in order to establish the facts. Science could learning something from religion, if they hope to be taken seriously in the modern age.

 

[Valjean]

Scientific theories evolve. They change. Thats how it is.

They are modified and fine-tuned as more knowledge is gained. The underlying concepts are durable.
Religious doctrine, on the other hand, is notoriously durable and resistant to new discoveries and facts.

 

[firedragon]

They are modified and fine-tuned as more knowledge is gained. The underlying concepts are durable.
Religious doctrine, on the other hand, is notoriously durable and resistant to new discoveries and facts.

Yes about science.

And in trying to bring your religious need to diss religion you have no clue about religion whatsoever. Why not start a new thread on religion and this topic you are trying to bring in?

 

[Valjean]

Yes about science.

And in trying to bring your religious need to diss religion you have no clue about religion whatsoever. Why not start a new thread on religion and this topic you are trying to bring in?

Sir! You cut me to the quick!

Seriously, I apologize if I've offended you. I don't feel I have any religious need to 'diss' religion, and I do think I have a better-than-average acquaintance with most major faiths.

Challenging facts, reasoning and logic is proper methodology. Not to do so, when something's asserted, would be to diss one's interlocutor.

I know I do get didactic.This is a debate thread, though, in a forum that deals with religious, philosophical and scientific questions. These necessarily involve epistemic and ontological debate. If posters are seriously interested in truth, they should expect criticism, and welcome correction of incorrect facts, faulty reasoning and logical errors.
Why else post here?

 

[firedragon]

Seriously, I apologize if I've offended you. I don't feel I have any religious need to 'diss' religion,

Then brother, please dont take every single opportunity to make insults at religion and people who call themselves theists. You are person who thinks that by default all theists are intellectually handicapped, mentally incapable, and delusional by default. You have way too many baggages in your mind about other people which you generalise actively. This is called bigotry.

I made a comment about science. You have immediately responded with the usual, tribalistic, dismissive statement which alludes to science is better than religion which is absolutely irrelevant to the comment I made.

This is a religious need you have. A dire need.

Cheers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To have similar DNA is not a proof of evolution

Yet "similar" DNA is exactly what determines if you are the biological sibling of your sister, or the actual biological cousin of your cousin.

It's off course intellectually dishonest to pretend as if mere "similarity" is what this is based on.
It off course is not. It is based on specific patterns in DNA matches. Not mere "similarities".

But to understand this, you are off course required to learn a thing or two about DNA and how reproduction works. Which is something you seem to be avoiding like the plague.

As far as being "above" animals, the Bible says that God gave the mandate to Adam to take care of the earth.

Why should anyone care what the bible says?

That includes, obviously, animals. And in many, many cases, man is not really doing that, such as waters being polluted from nuclear runoff or chemical runoff, killing animals, vegetation, and in the next long run, humans. However, the Bible also says, interestingly enough, that God will put an end to the ruination of the earth.

Which ironically is exactly the reason why it tends to be the religious who block the world from taking appropriate measures to stop pollution and by extension climate change. Because why bother? "god will step in anyway".


In reality off course, 2 hands working will accomplish infinitely more then 1000s of hands clasped in prayer. Because that accomplishes exactly zero.

 

[Astrophile]

To have similar DNA is not a proof of evolution,

So how do you explain the observed similarities of DNA in different species and genera?

 

[YoursTrue]

So how do you explain the observed similarities of DNA in different species and genera?

I don't explain them as a reason for life coming about by and because of evolution. In fact, there is really no need to explain the similarities of DNA in that sense. There are anyway, profound differences in the capacities of living organisms based on differences in the DNA makeup. I will say, however, that reading about microbes recently, it is said that a huge amount of microbes exist in the air as well as soil. Therefore, for Moses to write that God made Adam from the soil and Eve from Adam's rib is in line with what's in the soil and air. But they didn't come about the way our eyes see it now, as if explained simply by genetic transformation of the happenstance kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are modified and fine-tuned as more knowledge is gained. The underlying concepts are durable.
Religious doctrine, on the other hand, is notoriously durable and resistant to new discoveries and facts.

Not necessarily. It depends. On the other hand, let's look for a moment at the Israelites in the wilderness. God, through Moses, gave that nation particular commands. He did NOT give those commands to the Amorites, Moabites, Amalakites and so forth. Yet as the nation of Israel grew, He worked with them, explaining Himself through the prophets, giving new direction when apporopriate.

 

[sayak83]

More news to ponder over -- scientists pondering once again -- "“Maybe brain size isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” said Hawks. “It opens the door for us to say that maybe they were more capable than we might assume; maybe it isn’t just (brain) size.”
Uh huh -- maybe it's not just brain size. Maybe.
Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy

I continue to be uncertain about what the point is.
The title of the news article is nonsense. Apart from that, it's interesting, but nothing unexpected.
For clarity:
Naledi is a hominin species that survived at least upto 300,000 years ago while retaining the partial arboreal adaptations found in gracile Australopithecines found 2 million years ago. I do not think it belongs to the genus Homo precisely because it was not an obligatory biped (like habilis, ergaster or erectus). We will probably soon classify it as an Australipithecine or into a new sister genus of the Homo lineage as further work goes on.
Its unclear whether Naledi used tools, and if so, to what extent. No tools have been found in the cave. So we do not actually have any idea about it's extent of intelligence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't explain them as a reason for life coming about by and because of evolution. In fact, there is really no need to explain the similarities of DNA in that sense

How many times must it be pointed out to you that it's not about mere similarities, but rather about the pattern of genetic matches?

Why do all great apes have the exact same broken GULO gene?
Why do chimps share the most ERV's with humans?
Why do gorilla's share a little less ERV's with humans?
Why do oerang oetangs share a little less still ERV's with humans?

In short: why is the pattern of matches in genetics mapped out in nested hierachies? Nested hierachies are what we expect in a family tree.

THAT is in fact how we can determine the blood-relationship between individuals.
It's how we can tell your sibling from your cousin from your distant cousin.


WHY does ALL life fall into a nested hierachy?

Yes, that requires an explanation. Evolution provides that explanation.
Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact. That fact is found in the nested hierarchy of DNA. It's a family tree.

That's why it looks like this when you map out the matches and plot them out on a graph:

There are anyway, profound differences in the capacities of living organisms based on differences in the DNA makeup.

Yes. And this is no different in humans. Nevertheless, DNA falls into a nested hierarchy. A family tree.
This pattern is, btw, also perfectly matched in comparative anatomy. It exhibits the exact same tree.
It also matches geographic distribution of species (both extant as well as extinct). ie: we don't find kangaroo's (or fossils thereof) in the america's or in europe.

I will say, however, that reading about microbes recently, it is said that a huge amount of microbes exist in the air as well as soil. Therefore, for Moses to write that God made Adam from the soil and Eve from Adam's rib is in line with what's in the soil and air.

That makes zero sense. Doesn't follow at all.
And it is a genetic fact that the very concept of an adam and eve is pure BS and mythical storytelling. Nothing else.

But they didn't come about the way our eyes see it now, as if explained simply by genetic transformation of the happenstance kind.

"they" (=adam and eve) didn't come about in any way, because they never existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

I continue to be uncertain about what the point is.
The title of the news article is nonsense. Apart from that, it's interesting, but nothing unexpected.
For clarity:
Naledi is a hominin species that survived at least upto 300,000 years ago while retaining the partial arboreal adaptations found in gracile Australopithecines found 2 million years ago. I do not think it belongs to the genus Homo precisely because it was not an obligatory biped (like habilis, ergaster or erectus). We will probably soon classify it as an Australipithecine or into a new sister genus of the Homo lineage as further work goes on.
Its unclear whether Naledi used tools, and if so, to what extent. No tools have been found in the cave. So we do not actually have any idea about it's extent of intelligence.

The point is that many believe humans in the form of what is considered as homo sapiens developed by means of evolution. Yet the experts are constantly changing their theoretical formations of opinion about the situation of sizing them up and categorizing these fossils.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that many believe humans in the form of what is considered as homo sapiens developed by means of evolution. Yet the experts are constantly changing their theoretical formations of opinion about the situation of sizing them up and categorizing these fossils.

Yes, there are changes. You do not appear to appreciate the nature of the changes. They keep getting smaller and smaller.. We are just filling in the details at this time.

Why do you think that is a problem?

 

[YoursTrue]

I continue to be uncertain about what the point is.
The title of the news article is nonsense. Apart from that, it's interesting, but nothing unexpected.
For clarity:
Naledi is a hominin species that survived at least upto 300,000 years ago while retaining the partial arboreal adaptations found in gracile Australopithecines found 2 million years ago. I do not think it belongs to the genus Homo precisely because it was not an obligatory biped (like habilis, ergaster or erectus). We will probably soon classify it as an Australipithecine or into a new sister genus of the Homo lineage as further work goes on.
Its unclear whether Naledi used tools, and if so, to what extent. No tools have been found in the cave. So we do not actually have any idea about it's extent of intelligence.

OK, let me ask you a question or two about your beliefs. You classify yourself as a Pluralist Hindu. What does this mean, because I have a feeling many Hindus are taught that the soul migrates to other organisms. So do you believe that about the soul migrating?

 

[YoursTrue]

So how do you explain the observed similarities of DNA in different species and genera?

It's just there. Because the interim emergence of a new, different species has no concrete explanation in terms of changing of genomes. At least my friend Leeuwunhoek was able to see microbes fabulously under a microscope. But no one can see one distinct form changing to another.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is that many believe humans in the form of what is considered as homo sapiens developed by means of evolution. Yet the experts are constantly changing their theoretical formations of opinion about the situation of sizing them up and categorizing these fossils.

Nothing changes more radically than reilgion.
A few (difficult to interpret) things I found on line....
- God made man from dust.
- God made women from a rib.
- Ancestors from the Dreamtime made man.
- Brahma divides into man & woman.
- A god pressed a fish against a newly created
woman, who then gave birth, starting the cycle.

There are more creation myths to be found.
But these few give you the idea that religion offers
some pretty loopy beliefs, none of which are verifiable.
Science seems rather staid in comparison. And change
is driven by discovery in the material world....not mere
flights of fancy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's just there. Because the interim emergence of a new, different species has no concrete explanation in terms of changing of genomes. At least my friend Leeuwunhoek was able to see microbes fabulously under a microscope. But no one can see one distinct form changing to another.

You are arguing against a strawman version of evolution. The changes that we directly observe are small. We have directly observed speciation, but just like you are still an ape, the new species still belong the group that they always belonged to.

Just keep repeating "A change of kind is a creationist strawman. A change of kind is a creationist strawman. A change of kind . .. "

 

[sayak83]

OK, let me ask you a question or two about your beliefs. You classify yourself as a Pluralist Hindu. What does this mean, because I have a feeling many Hindus are taught that the soul migrates to other organisms. So do you believe that about the soul migrating?

I believe that there is a strong causal connection between certain consciousnesses that arise in certain living things at different times so that they appear to be one connected entity that have moved from one body to another. I don't believe that anything actually "moves" through time. Consciousness is not a thing, but a pattern that dissipates temporarily at death, but causes the emergence of a new pattern that is causally correlated to the ancestor pattern. Here my beliefs are more Buddhist than Hindu.
There is no scientific evidence for this. I have had experiences that point to this being the case.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing changes more radically than reilgion.
A few (difficult to interpret) things I found on line....
- God made man from dust.
- God made women from a rib.
- Ancestors from the Dreamtime made man.
- Brahma divides into man & woman.
- A god pressed a fish against a newly created
woman, who then gave birth, starting the cycle.

There are more creation myths to be found.
But these few give you the idea that religion offers
some pretty loopy beliefs, none of which are verifiable.
Science seems rather staid in comparison. And change
is driven by discovery in the material world....not mere
flights of fancy.

Many things were doubted both in and outside of the Bible. There are records of doubt within the pages of the Bible. This enhances the record of truthfulness because it shows that even while the prophets were warning the people, the people did not always believe them or listen to them.
And there are some places, such as the pool of Siloam, whose existence was doubted until it was uncovered in 2004 when repairing the water system near Jerusalem.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe that there is a strong causal connection between certain consciousnesses that arise in certain living things at different times so that they appear to be one connected entity that have moved from one body to another. I don't believe that anything actually "moves" through time. Consciousness is not a thing, but a pattern that dissipates temporarily at death, but causes the emergence of a new pattern that is causally correlated to the ancestor pattern. Here my beliefs are more Buddhist than Hindu.
There is no scientific evidence for this. I have had experiences that point to this being the case.

That is one reason why there is so much confusion in religion. But the Bible explains that each human being is a soul, and when we die, the soul also dies. But it offers hope for a future life. OK, thanks for explaining your viewpoint.