Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you get to embrace science or deny it, and I fully respect your right to make that choice. I do not, however, respect it, if only because willful ignorance inevitably proves malignant.

Yeah, I agree. But that is as far as I can tell not particular to standard religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

G'nite.

That, and the overwhelming and insurmountable mountain of evidence.


In other words "I don't get it, nor do I want to (it threatens my religious beliefs), therefore I reject it." That's a dishonest approach.

Not at all, you have that wrong. Try again. It doesn't threaten my religious beliefs at all. I'm going by the lack of true evidence in the theory of evolution. There is no real evidence beyond timing maybe. If there is, you might want to explain. Keep going because I KNOW there is no real substance beyond supposition and skeletons, etc. (bones & stuff). The fact that DNA can be transferred from one organism to another does not evidence evolution as the theory goes at all, in my opinion as it stands now. Have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Furthermore, @Father Heathen , what hope do you have for yourself personally as a human? Do you perceive anything but death, the considered norm, in this world for all living matter, including yourself, as the end all of your time?

 

[Father Heathen]

G'nite.

Not at all, you have that wrong. Try again. It doesn't threaten my religious beliefs at all. I'm going by the lack of true evidence in the theory of evolution. There is no real evidence beyond timing maybe. If there is, you might want to explain. Keep going because I KNOW there is no real substance beyond supposition and skeletons, etc. (bones & stuff). The fact that DNA can be transferred from one organism to another does not evidence evolution as the theory goes at all, in my opinion as it stands now. Have a good day.

If you don't consider science trustworthy, then perhaps you should consider tossing all of your technology and medication into the trash.

 

[Father Heathen]

Furthermore, @Father Heathen , what hope do you have for yourself personally as a human? Do you perceive anything but death, the considered norm, in this world for all living matter, including yourself, as the end all of your time?

I my hope is for long, joyous, and fulfilling lives for me and my loved ones, but what does that have to do with the topic? What an odd question.

 

[YoursTrue]

I my hope is for long, joyous, and fulfilling lives for me and my loved ones, but what does that have to do with the topic? What an odd question.

it's the natural law that everything dies. So that is part of the physical concept of evolution. Your hope -- well, there's always war, crime, suicide, that's part of evolution, too, isn't it? Death by natural causes, early deaths, infanticide, pollution, death by disease. Dont forget accidents and war -- that which nations are engaging in now and recently. Natural law takes over.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you don't consider science trustworthy, then perhaps you should consider tossing all of your technology and medication into the trash.

Not necessarily. But some of it is trash. For instance, some medications easily prescribed in the U.S. by doctors are banned in Europe.

 

[Father Heathen]

it's the natural law that everything dies. So that is part of the physical concept of evolution. Your hope -- well, there's always war, crime, suicide, that's part of evolution, too, isn't it? Death by natural causes, early deaths, infanticide, pollution, death by disease. Dont forget accidents and war -- that which nations are engaging in now and recently. Natural law takes over.

What a bizarre non sequitur.

 

[exchemist]

It was a mystery to me.

Just smoke, or to confuse the discussion with red herrings, I expect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A real world example of Cope's law is the last known mammoths at the time of their extinct lived on an isolated island in the Artic Ocean Just North of Asian Russia. The mammoths were small pigmy mammoths a forth of the size of other mammoths.

Oh sure, their morphology and underlying population genotype changed over time from the ancestral forms that have been dated as existing prior to this population. And this evidence, as part of that pattern of change, demonstrates evolution. And there is no evidence that extending this, coupled with further observed change and evidence from numerous other sources, is not a step along a path to further evolution and wider phylogenesis. But they are still mammoths.

It is no more proof of evolution than a claim that the Bible is dictated has proof.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh sure, their morphology and underlying population genotype changed over time from the ancestral forms that have been dated as existing prior to this population. And this evidence, as part of that pattern of change, demonstrates evolution. And there is no evidence that extending this, coupled with further observed change and evidence from numerous other sources, is not a step along a path to further evolution and wider phylogenesis. But they are still mammoths.

It is no more proof of evolution than a claim that the Bible is dictated has proof.

Not to forget that the theory of evolution doesn't support that living things will magically change into other forms and that the original forms are required to disappear without reason or evidence.

Still, it is not proof. And there has not been a claim of proof. Certainly, claims based on belief have no proof either, but some consider that is what is required to accept things. I'm unaware of how this double standard works.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh? That's news -- proven, you say, that they don't stay finches? Now let's see -- what was supposed to have evolved into birds? Was it dinosaurs? And that you say is proven. Really?
And let's see -- what were birds to evolve into? Oh, sorry, they're still birds yet to evolve.

Actually, you are just entirely wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry but you regularly deny science. Evidence puts the burden of proof upon those opposing it and all that you have is denial. If you deny the evidence without showing that it is wrong then by definition you are a science denier.

I'm curious about the question: does accepting and using technology equate to acceptance of the science behind that technology?

I can use a hammer and that doesn't require or demonstrate that I know the metallurgy or physics involved in its development, manufacture or the use of one.

I contend that the claim to accept some technology is evidence of understanding and acceptance of the science underlying that technology is not supported. The claim to understand that underlying science to the point of being able to accept it is not demonstrated merely by the use of some applications of the science in the form of specific technologies. And by extension, does not support the claim that one is not a science denier while denying specific areas of science. Further, that denial doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the science being denied.

Cherry picking technology is not evidence that the conclusions and explanations for one discipline of science are not arrived at by the same sort of logic, reason and evidence-based methods as that of other disciplines. That the means to acquire the evidence may differ from scientific discipline to scientific discipline is recognized and understood, that fact does not form a sound and reasonable basis to deny some science and accept others.

That some science provides answers and explanations that interfere with personal ideology based on belief and creates emotional discomfort for some is not evidence that those answers are wrong and denial of them is supported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm curious about the question: does accepting and using technology equate to acceptance of the science behind that technology?

I can use a hammer and that doesn't require or demonstrate that I know the metallurgy or physics involved in its development, manufacture or the use of one.

I contend that the claim to accept some technology is evidence of understanding and acceptance of the science underlying that technology is not supported. The claim to understand that underlying science to the point of being able to accept it is not demonstrated merely by the use of some applications of the science in the form of specific technologies. And by extension, does not support the claim that one is not a science denier while denying specific areas of science. Further, that denial doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the science being denied.

Cherry picking technology is not evidence that the conclusions and explanations for one discipline of science are not arrived at by the same sort of logic, reason and evidence-based methods as that of other disciplines. That the means to acquire the evidence may differ from scientific discipline to scientific discipline is recognized and understood, that fact does not form a sound and reasonable basis to deny some science and accept others.

That some science provides answers and explanations that interfere with personal ideology based on belief and creates emotional discomfort for some is not evidence that those answers are wrong and denial of them is supported.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of using such tools and yet denying them at the same time. When one has been shown a blacksmith making a hammer. And that hammer is given to that person it is incredibly hypocritical to deny that the blacksmith made it and that unevidenced pixies made all hammers.

Can one use a tool and be a complete hypocrite? Of course. We see that in almost all areas. Sometimes I do feel the need to point it out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of using such tools and yet denying them at the same time. When one has been shown a blacksmith making a hammer. And that hammer is given to that person it is incredibly hypocritical to deny that the blacksmith made it and that unevidenced pixies made all hammers.

Can one use a tool and be a complete hypocrite? Of course. We see that in almost all areas. Sometimes I do feel the need to point it out.

I agree. One can deny even the evidence of one's own experience.

That such a claim, denying science denial, has been made frequently with reasonable rebuttal to that claim offered, I wanted to explore it further.

Even the applications of science are tested using the scientific method. Drug companies spend over 600 million dollars to take a treatment from discovery to market. Ag companies spend over 100 million to do the same with some chemical, drug or genetically engineered trait. I doubt that even that science is recognized, reviewed and evaluated in the choice to use it or reject it by many. Using an analgesic for a headache is not evidence of understanding and acceptance of the related science by itself.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes evolution involves outcomes of change and effect events that occur within a limited range determined by Natural Laws. In 19th century Cope's rules were proposed for evolution within how evolution takes place in the changes in the environment driving force of evolution. In summary cope's rule is the size of animals increase over time in response to positive changes in the environment that are more favorable. It has been also found that chnages that limit the environment can also decrease the size of animals.

Life’s hidden laws: The arcane rules of evolution and how they work

A handful of “rules” govern how evolution shapes life on Earth, from island gigantism to colours shifting with latitude – and offer clues about how animals and plants might adapt to a warming world

www.newscientist.com

A RAFT full of elephants and rats gets stranded on a remote island. The animals survive and reproduce. But as the generations pass, something odd happens: the elephants shrink to the size of Shetland ponies and the rats grow to the size of cats. They have found themselves at the mercy of one of evolution’s weird rules.

Most of us are familiar with evolution by natural selection, in which species change and diverge over time as those that successfully adapt to their environment pass on the genes that helped them flourish. What you might not be aware of, however, is that evolution’s work is in some places governed by a handful of rules that can have some pretty surprising results.

Near the poles, for instance, animals tend to grow larger than you might expect. In the tropics, meanwhile, birds often have strikingly big beaks, while their feathers may be unusually dark. And on islands, evolution gets very peculiar indeed – which explains why Sicily in Italy was once home to dwarf elephants just a metre tall and why rats in New Zealand are about twice the size of their mainland counterparts.

Many of the biological “rules” behind these patterns were proposed in the 19th century and it hasn’t been entirely clear whether they stand up to modern scrutiny. In the past decade, however, biologists have not only confirmed that many of these rules hold true, but also revealed the intriguing details of how and why they work. In some cases, researchers have even begun to use the rules to predict how species will evolve as the world warms.

One thing to add to these rules is connected to the role of the brain and nervous system. Dinosaurs had plenty of muscle mass, but very small brains for their size. Muscle has memory and nerves, and is therefore not too far from a rudimentary form of brain matter. The large dinosaur could depend on the computer power of their muscles and brain stem, to do most of his simple needs; routine walking or chewing, with this constant activity adding a potential to amplify their small brain, through feedback loops, pushing the brain forward.

As the brain evolved, massive muscle mass was not as critical, as the diversity of muscle groups for movement; agility. The muscle mass; size, can get smaller and still the animal can evolve; improve, if the brain grows and adds more positive feedback. Sharks never sleep, so its muscle mass is constantly supplying potential to their brains. It is possible some ancient dinosaur types also never slept, but their muscle memory was always active to grow the brain so the brain can improve its feed back to the muscles; conscious control.

An interesting example of this affect, in light of the idea of speciation, is the humming bird. Are you aware hummingbirds can change colors? This color change is not biochemical, but is done with muscle memory. Their feathers are hollow, and they can change the diameter and angles of their feathers, and thereby alter how light refracts, through the feathers, to get other colors. This muscle movement, to the feathers, is wired to their brains for the needs mating or camouflage. If their brain decided to stop making the feather tubes vary, but instead stalled and ended in a series of permanent colors, this neural downgrade, would look like speciation.

Speciation can miss the boat at times if we forget to use the basic features of the brain and nervous system which control many things. The brain, for example, controls the pituitary gland which regulates growth; smaller elephant. If biology knew more about water hierarchy this would be easier to explain with the simple concept of brain potential. We grow from a baby, along with our brains, which stop dividing adding new connections. This suggest as the brain and synaptic numbers increase, feedback increases, so the pituitary gland can shut to slow growth. Simple growth feedback for change.

Water and Cellular Differentiation Control.

The main water based gradient in the human body is between the blood supply and the nervous system. The blood is slightly negative and the brain and nervous system is positive; Na+.These two tissues are everywhere in the body, near all other cell types, except blood cells. All other cells are in the middle in terms of water potential.

The blood and nerve tissue, which touch all the other cells are part of the cellular differentiation control system; at the level of water. As the brain evolved, this neural end of the gradient increased and allowed new tissues to appear. Our DNA has the genes for all these cellular differentiations to appear. The DNA is not the brain, but is more like the hard drive used by the growing brain; water potential. Cells types sequentially appear as the neural gradient increase with a more of less stable blood potential; embryo and mother's blood potential.

Neuron do not divide after about two years old. Dividing cells need to stockpile food to have the resources needed to make two daughter cells. The neurons works very hard, so they cannot stockpile and stop reproducing. This allows the brain to stay at the top of the gradient, never on down time. This assures a constant gradient maximum. This peak is also connected to gamete cell formation and the future DNA.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@shunyadragon : good post. Informative link (bookmarked). I don't have much to say about the science.

the fact of evolution does not refute the Christian God

Would you agree that the theory of evolution and Christian theology are incompatible? How do we reconcile undirected genetic variation subject to natural selection with man being made in God's image? I consider those ideas, one being teleological and the other requiring no intent or intelligence incompatible.

They still stay finches though. Don't they? Similar things happen amongst humans, yet they are still humans.

Nothing born a finch didn't die a finch. And nothing born to a finch wasn't another finch. Nevertheless, given enough time and environmental pressure, a finch will one day have a descendant that you would not recognize as a finch. The same is true for humanity.

So to believe that dinosaurs evolved to birds is not far fetched, right? Some had big wings...some had small wings...their DNA changed ever so slightly as time wore on, right? Kind of like man's unknown common ancestor with gorillas and chimpanzees, etc. Who needs proof when you have skeletons around?

Nobody needs or gets proof. The fossils combined with the other types of evidence for evolution is robust and not only rules out the god of Abraham as presented in Genesis - one needs to start using words like metaphor and redefining words like 'day' and 'original sin' - it also confirms the accuracy of the theory beyond reasonable doubt. How, you might ask? Hint: Suppose that the theory of evolution were overturned tomorrow by some incontrovertible falsifying find. What would the new paradigm to account for all of that evidence be?

Spoiler: answer

Only one possibility would remain - life on earth was created or modified by a deceptive intelligent designer powerful enough to plant false leads in the earth and all living things that fooled us for decades or centuries into believing that blind forces were responsible for the tree of life, but were later found out. How likely do we think that is? What are the chances that happened? The mere logical possibility that that might have happened is beyond reasonable doubt does not constitute reasonable doubt. The only alternative to the theory is something very unlikely by my estimation.

I understand that many creationists consider it fact that the theory is wrong. If so, this creator isn't the god described in Genesis. Nor is it necessarily a supernatural entity. Extraterrestrials that themselves were the product of naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution jump to the top of the list for the new paradigm, which is essentially a variation on naturalistic panspermia.

I'd like you to point to the part of that argument that you think is incorrect if you disagree with its conclusions, and explain how and why it's incorrect.

I have found that there is no viable explanation of life burgeoning from a few cells and creating by cellular movement called survival of the fittest to form plants and animals. I noticed none of you can explain it in your own words.

Suggestion - don't offer yourself as a qualified judge of the quality and quantity of the evidence and its implications. Keep that to yourself. "I'm not convinced" is enough, and accurate. Comments like, "I'm not convinced because I haven't seen the evidence" and "You can't explain things to me" aren't understood as you might like. Remember, you're writing to people who HAVE seen the evidence and who explain things well enough that the other critical thinkers understand them.

Believers don't need to pretend to be empiricists or critical thinkers, and imitating them by implying that you need evidence and sound argument but doing so poorly is counterproductive. It is safe for you to say, "I believe by faith." My answer to that? "OK. I don't"

One poster wrote about you, "There is no interest at all in understanding the answers." I agree. The mistake is asking the questions, getting good answers, and allowing people to think that about you based on your responses. That all goes away when you stop trying to defend your beliefs by claiming that there is no evidence for evolution. Your choice. Maybe you like being treated like this. If so, carry on. If not, adapt.

what hope do you have for yourself personally as a human?

I'm hoping that life remains fairly comfortable until the end, and that if there is an afterlife, that it will be a good one. Those are my personal hopes. I also hope for the same for as many people and other animals as possible for centuries to come. That's enough. I don't want or need false hope.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, you are just entirely wrong.

Really? Oh well. Bye for now.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh? That's news -- proven, you say, that they don't stay finches? Now let's see -- what was supposed to have evolved into birds? Was it dinosaurs? And that you say is proven. Really?
And let's see -- what were birds to evolve into? Oh, sorry, they're still birds yet to evolve.

"I refuse to try to learn anything, because then I might be proven incorrect, and how can that be, since I'm always right? More than all them gullible scienterists put together! And anyway, education is hard work AND expensive, so who needs it? Eh?"

 

[YoursTrue]

Not to forget that the theory of evolution doesn't support that living things will magically change into other forms and that the original forms are required to disappear without reason or evidence.

Still, it is not proof. And there has not been a claim of proof. Certainly, claims based on belief have no proof either, but some consider that is what is required to accept things. I'm unaware of how this double standard works.

One thing stands out to me...the theory of evolution entails the fact/idea that all living matter dies. And now it does.