"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[Monk Of Reason]

I will say it again...if life can't come from non-life then there is no evolution. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-life, so if you don't have a viable theory on how life can come from non-life, then you can't even begin to get to evolution.

Actually it doesn't. So...wrong?

If the universe started off with a big bang (or otherwise) how do you get the precision of the cosmological constants from something as chaotic as the big bang event? So not only do you have to get the right conditions for life to be even permissible, you also have to assemble all the right parts together to make life exist. This can't be done if the entropy levels were high during the big bang event.

The 4 fundamental forces of the universe, Strong force, weak force, gravity and electromagnatism.

The problem of infinity involves the cosmos as a whole, which suggests that time had to have had a beginning based on the impossibility of eternal past. If time is infinite, then no kind of evolution would occur because for every moment prior, there is an infinite number of moments.

Its possible time doesn't exist. there are several models that support this. Not all mainstream scientists agree however.

Of course it is, the process is so long that it didn't happen at all. Besides that, you are telling me the theory, I already know the theory, what I want is observational evidence, which you cannot provide.

You stick butter in your eyes everytime we link you to evidence. Privide a single iota of evidence that god exists and I'll convert to christianity and shave my beard

That is not macroevolution buddy. They are still moths, aren't they. That is the micro stuff, not the macro stuff.

What is the difference between a dog and a wolf? Are they same kind? What of a wolf and a fox? A fox and a cat? A badger and groundhog? A goldfish and a shark? A hummingbird or a bluejay? To say moths are still moths is the same as saying oh humans and chimpanzees are the same "kind" because their primates.

 

[Skwim]

I will say it again...if life can't come from non-life then there is no evolution. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-life, so if you don't have a viable theory on how life can come from non-life, then you can't even begin to get to evolution. . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[secret2]

Am I in the twilight zone? I refuse to play these childish games and keep having my intelligence get insulted. If the animal that we know today as a "bird" had to evolve into a bird in order to become a bird, then this is an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal. There is no other way to look at it, and you people are questioning my knowledge on the issue when it is your bogus theory that you need to be questioning.

I mean, just look at what you typed. If the bird didn't become a "bird" from something else, then how do you explain the fact that we have birds? Either it came from something else that wasn't a bird, or it was always a bird from the very beginning. There are no other alternatives here. I am going to stop responding to foolishness.

It's better than twilight zone. It's called science.

Bird comes from not quite bird, which in turn came from not quite not quite bird and so on.

And, lest it has not been emphasized enough, bird-ness is not the ultimate state of things. Every single organism that has lived and will live is by definition a transitional form. The gene pool of what we refer to as 'bird' today will go on changing further.

Or course we all know that you won't listen. But that doesn't matter. Hopefully some other readers would be more prone to education and less entrenched in crazy prejudices.

 

[philbo]

I will say it again...if life can't come from non-life then there is no evolution. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-life, so if you don't have a viable theory on how life can come from non-life, then you can't even begin to get to evolution.

I wouldn't stick too tightly to that argument if I were you, because the clear proof of evolution that you are trying so hard to ignore will by your logic mean that "life can come from non-life".. maybe you'd like to read this post (I can understand you missing it in the plethora of posts that came after)

 

[johnhanks]

Ok, and one will only produce the same kind of mammal that it is, and the other will only produce the same kind of reptile that it is. Regardless of how you want to classify it, an animal is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. It will only produce what it is, not what it isn't.

I referred earlier to the creationist's penchant for muddled "essentialist" thinking - that there is some ideal template of "dogness" or "turtleness" to which animals so described are irrevocably tied. In the real world, what actually gives current dog populations their doggy character is the combination of DNA sequences that go into their fertilised eggs. We know (no speculation here - we know) that those sequences are liable to change over time. So yet again, please tell us: what mechanism prevents those DNA sequences, after enough generations, from changing into sequences that make the fertilised eggs develop into non-doggy bodies?

Wait a minute, you've just said it yourself, one is a reptile, and one is a mammal, yet the word "kind" is so hard to understand? Wow.

Now you're saying "kind" = class? Wow. So humans are the same kind as dogs. We'll make an evolutionist of you yet, Call.

First off, I don't believe in a fossil record, at least in the way you do.

Call, the fossil record isn't Tinkerbell. It won't go away if you don't believe in it. And in the fossil record we have an exquisite series of fossils from reptiles with feathers to the earliest birds, with no clear cut-off from one to the other. Unless you (or any other creationist) can show us clearly where one "kind" ends and the other begins, the whole notion of separately created "kinds" is blown out of the water.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

If you wouldn't accept the turtle after you asked for a dog, then you know what constitutes kind. As I said in another post, no more foolishness. You act as if the term "kind" is a concept so difficult to grasp, yet you have no problem grasping the difference if you go to a dang pet store and you were given something that you didn't ask for. If "kind" made no difference, or is not easily defined, then why not just take the turtle? Huh? My point exactly.

It is difficult to grasp provided you have a clue about biology; if you dont have a clue then it is easy to accept.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears. I don't care what biology books says what, if it goes against every day observation, then it is full of unwarranted speculation. And I will also say that the ones that believe in the theories are the ones that are writing the text books in the first place.

If they didnt believe in the theory of evolution they would have to have a scientifically valid way to accountfor the diversity of life. There is currently no other known way to account for the diversity of life that has such significant predictive power and utility in explaining the diversity of life, nor any that is so strongly backed by the evidence.


I honestly wonder, does your rejection of science extend to other sciences or is it limited to evolution? Do you accept physics such as the four forces: electromagnetism, gravity and the strong/weak nuclear forces? Do you accept chemistry such as the concept of atoms and molecules? Exactly at what point do you struggle with accepting science? Is it at the point where it delivers results (such as giving you modern medicine like vaccines against polio), or is it when it explains how those things it gives you actually work (such as vaccines which are enabled through immunological studies into viruses and their evolution) or is it when the implications of the theory are comprehended by you and found to conflict with your own beliefs.

I am sorry if you find it disagreeable, but the simple truth is that Evolution is (in common use terms) a Fact; it has overwhelming evidence and just as importantly consistently produces results - the fact that the underlying theory is incompatible with your current world view is immaterial and merely suggests that your current beliefs which inform that world view are inconsistent with reality. That does not mean the underlying theological claims (because ONLY theology has reservations about evolution) that you adhere to are incorrect, it simply means that an interpretation which clashes with what is known of the universe is incorrect (not that ANY interpretation is incorrect) I would suggest that perhaps you ought to consider familiarizing yourself with reality as another source of revelation in addition to the text or source of religious revelation(s) you adhere to.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

is a corgi the same kind of dog as a pug?
Kind is one of those words that can be used for anything and because of that it has no actual value in distinguishing.

Like I've asked before what kind is a fungus?

 

[secret2]

is a corgi the same kind of dog as a pug?
Kind is one of those words that can be used for anything and because of that it has no actual value in distinguishing.

Like I've asked before what kind is a fungus?

Hey, don't you see there is a line. I've been waiting for my question to be answered for a few pages already:
What kind is the E. coli? Is it of the same kind as C. japonicus or what?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I will say it again...if life can't come from non-life then there is no evolution. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-life, so if you don't have a viable theory on how life can come from non-life, then you can't even begin to get to evolution.



If the universe started off with a big bang (or otherwise) how do you get the precision of the cosmological constants from something as chaotic as the big bang event? So not only do you have to get the right conditions for life to be even permissible, you also have to assemble all the right parts together to make life exist. This can't be done if the entropy levels were high during the big bang event.



The problem of infinity involves the cosmos as a whole, which suggests that time had to have had a beginning based on the impossibility of eternal past. If time is infinite, then no kind of evolution would occur because for every moment prior, there is an infinite number of moments.



Of course it is, the process is so long that it didn't happen at all. Besides that, you are telling me the theory, I already know the theory, what I want is observational evidence, which you cannot provide.



That is not macroevolution buddy. They are still moths, aren't they. That is the micro stuff, not the macro stuff.

You have been corrected on all this a number of times now by a number of people, you are either incapable of understanding written language or you have the capacity for learning of a jellyfish.

Either way i don't see a point in repeating it over and over again, for every new post you make just go back and reread a few pages, every one of your "arguments" have been answered.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

'Sir David Attenborough has said that he is not optimistic about the future and that people should be persuaded against having large families.

​

The broadcaster and naturalist, who earlier this year described humans as “a plague on Earth”, also said he believed humans have stopped evolving physically and genetically because of birth control and abortion, but that cultural evolution is proceeding “with extraordinary swiftness.”

“We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 90-95% of our babies that are born. We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection, of its own free will, as it were,” he tells this week’s Radio Times.'
source

​

While I agree that "people should be persuaded against having large families," it would be interesting to hear why he believes birth control and abortions stifle human evolution.

Anyone here want to give it a shot?

We haven't actually stopped evolving. Evolution is simply on hold, because of the US Federal Government shutdown. Once the professors get their back pay, evolution will proceed double-time, to make up for lost ground.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have been corrected on all this a number of times now by a number of people, you are either incapable of understanding written language or you have the capacity for learning of a jellyfish.

First off, I haven't been corrected on anything, and instead of tailgating what everyone else is doing how about offering a response to what I said yourself.

Either way i don't see a point in repeating it over and over again, for every new post you make just go back and reread a few pages, every one of your "arguments" have been answered.

No one has refuted anything that I've said, am I am really sorry that you feel that the responses that come my way have been answered.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's better than twilight zone. It's called science.

I am not even so sure that that is what it is called. Science without observation is not science.

Bird comes from not quite bird, which in turn came from not quite not quite bird and so on.

Well if it is not quite a bird, then it isn't a bird, and if you go back even further than that it would be even less than a bird than that. I understand that you people have to live and die by this bogus theory so you must offer hold tight to it no matter how bogus it may be.

 

[LuisDantas]

First off, I haven't been corrected on anything,

No point in continuing after such a statement.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is difficult to grasp provided you have a clue about biology; if you dont have a clue then it is easy to accept.

I am asking you a direct question, why wouldn't you accept the turtle? Tell me why wouldn't you accept the turtle after you asked for a dog? If "kind" has no significance, then why wouldn't you accept the turtle? Please answer this.

If they didnt believe in the theory of evolution they would have to have a scientifically valid way to accountfor the diversity of life.

See, and that is the problem right there. Creationism isn't even an option for you, but that is just fine, because whatever scientific explanation that you may have us theists will continue to poke holes in it. You set'em up, and we will knock'em down.

There is currently no other known way to account for the diversity of life that has such significant predictive power and utility in explaining the diversity of life, nor any that is so strongly backed by the evidence.

Oh there is a way, it just isn't scientific and since you've already made it clear that Creationism isn't even an option, then you are stuck in the realm of naturalism just hoping that there will be a break through in science to answer all of these tough questions. Keep waiting.

I honestly wonder, does your rejection of science extend to other sciences or is it limited to evolution?

I don't think science can explain specified complexity, nor do I think science can explain absolute origins of anything.

Do you accept physics such as the four forces: electromagnetism, gravity and the strong/weak nuclear forces? Do you accept chemistry such as the concept of atoms and molecules?

I accept anything that can be observed and experimented on. And those things that you've mentioned, each of those four things has to be fine tuned in order for life to be permitted so once again, Intelligent Design.

Exactly at what point do you struggle with accepting science? Is it at the point where it delivers results (such as giving you modern medicine like vaccines against polio), or is it when it explains how those things it gives you actually work (such as vaccines which are enabled through immunological studies into viruses and their evolution) or is it when the implications of the theory are comprehended by you and found to conflict with your own beliefs.

All I am asking for is observational evidence of these large scale changes that are said to occur within the theory. Is that asking for to much? If we know how everything happened, why it happend, when it happened...we should be able to simulate the right circumstances at which we can see it happen. When you take away Intelligent Design, you are stuck with the idea that brains, eyes, and ears comes from a process that doesn't have a mind, eyes, or ears, and to me that is just irrational so if that is the theory, I would like to see evidence. Unbelievers are famous for saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well, I think that a mindless and blind process being said to produce brains and eyes is an extraordinary claim, which I would like extraordinary evidence.

I am sorry if you find it disagreeable, but the simple truth is that Evolution is (in common use terms) a Fact; it has overwhelming evidence and just as importantly consistently produces results

I want observational evidence. You people act like I am wrong for wanting observational evidence for something that is supposed to be observant.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I wouldn't stick too tightly to that argument if I were you, because the clear proof of evolution that you are trying so hard to ignore will by your logic mean that "life can come from non-life".. maybe you'd like to read this post (I can understand you missing it in the plethora of posts that came after)

Is that post going to explain how life came from non-life?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually it doesn't. So...wrong?

Yes it does. If it is impossible for life to come from non-life, how the heck does evolution begin?

The 4 fundamental forces of the universe, Strong force, weak force, gravity and electromagnatism.

Each of which has to be fine tuned for life to be permissible.

Its possible time doesn't exist. there are several models that support this. Not all mainstream scientists agree however.

You are right, and if someone wants to get technical with me about theories of time, I have a counter-punch. Instead of using time, I will just use "events". It is impossible for an infinite number of events to occur prior to any given event. See how that works? Same thing.

You stick butter in your eyes everytime we link you to evidence. Privide a single iota of evidence that god exists and I'll convert to christianity and shave my beard

I believe that God exists based on the soundness of..

1. The kalam argument
2. The modal ontological argument
3. The argument from consciousness
4. The argument from design
5. The argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

What is the difference between a dog and a wolf? Are they same kind?

I believe a dog and a wolf IS the same kind. I believe that a wolf is a kind of dog. Absolutely.

What of a wolf and a fox?

Both of the "dog" kind.

A fox and a cat?

One is a dog, and the other is a different kind of animal we identify as "cat".

A badger and groundhog? A goldfish and a shark? A hummingbird or a bluejay? To say moths are still moths is the same as saying oh humans and chimpanzees are the same "kind" because their primates.

I don't know about badgers and groundhogs, or goldfish and sharks. But what I do know is all of those animals will never produce a different kind of animal. I do know that much. And humans and chimpanzees are primates only if you assume that they share a common ancestor, which I don't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

RNA->DNA->RDNA->CDNA->CENA-CENL-CELL-CELLS-CCELLS-COCELLS-COMCELLS-COMPCELLS-COMPLCELLS-COMPLECELLS-COMPLEXCELLS-COMPLEX CELLS-MCOMPLEX CELLS-MOCOMPLEX CELLS-MORCOMPLEX CELLS-MORECOMPLEX CELLS-MORE COMPLEX CELLS-MORE COMPLEX CELLSW-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWO-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWOR-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORK-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORKI-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORKIN-MORE COMPLEX CELLSWORKING-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKING-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGT-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTO-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOG-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOG-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOGET-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKINGTOETEHER-MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKING TOGETHER.

Change one letter and I can make as long and complicated a sentence as I want. Given enough time if I can change one letter or add one letter or both each time I make a change I can start from "A" and end with the full and complete works of Shakespear.

And if the process is completely random there is no way you would form anything close to a sentence that contains information.

Essentially that is how evolution works.

That is how evolution is said to work. What I want is observational evidence of macroevolution, and telling me that it takes so long to occur wont work if we know how it works and can simulate the right circumstances to make it work.


It changes one single letter at a time on the DNA level. Then the process of natural selection picks off which "changes" are detrimental and likewise changes that are benficial often are multiplied within a population.

So you tell me at what point in time did RNA simply spit out MORE COMPLEX CELLS WORKING TOGETHER in my example?

You don't get specified information from something that cannot think, Monk. DNA is specified information. How do you get specified information, from a process that is mindless?

We understand gravity and can't simply will it into being. So whats your piont?

At least we can see it, we can observe its effects.

 

[LuisDantas]

And if the process is completely random there is no way you would form anything close to a sentence that contains information.

Ah, but there is the catch. Biological Evolution isn't completely random, not by a long shot.

The mutations are random, but their results are in fact directed, sometimes quite decisively, by their vialibility and competitiveness. That is often called "Selective Pressure".

 

[philbo]

Is that post going to explain how life came from non-life?

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Go and read it.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Both of the "dog" kind.



One is a dog, and the other is a different kind of animal we identify as "cat".

This should be fun...

What kind is a dolphin of?

What kind is a bat of?