"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[LuisDantas]

Cmon now Luis that is a cop out.

It would be a cop out if I had to give you an answer in the parameters that you desire, I suppose.

But you know what, it doesn't matter. Pick any given point, and the same thing will apply. If a house has an infinite amount of steps to undergo before it will be completed, will it ever be completed? Yes or no?

You know, that is exactly the kind of question that Differential Calculus answers.

In other words: yes, depending on how literally one takes his or her models.

Well, not outside of time after time began to exist, but outside of time in the sense that before creation, God existed, and time didn't. Time was a creation of God, which makes perfect sense considering the problems with infinity.

If you say so. It is not a matter that I find important enough to speculate about.

 

[philbo]

I said what I want is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION. Unless you can provide me with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION, you are the one that is lying. All you and others have done is tell me what you "think" has occurred. You are basically telling me what the theory is, when I am asking for observational evidence of it.

He's not lying, it's that when an unprejudiced person looks at (or "OBSERVES", if you prefer) the changes in physiology seen through the fossil record, the logical deduction is that these changes represent changing organisms through the aeons. Note that when we analyse (or "OBSERVE", if you prefer) the underlying DNA, the same patterns emerge. Both very different techniques match the underlying theory.

You have asserted that you think that each of these different stages of fossils are their own independent "kinds", implying that god created uncountable millions of different "kinds", 90% of which have died out over the years.

I've said that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Any disagreements on this? No. I've said that dogs have never been observed to produce non-dogs, and all animals have only been observed to produce is what they are, and not what they are not. Any disagreements here? No.

If you'd gone back and looked at the post I directed you to, you'd have seen:

A Russian scientist, Belyaev, selectively bred foxes, using selection for friendliness to humans, which has also resulted in physiological changes.

These foxes are still foxes, but they are significantly morphologically different to the rest of the fox population. This has not become what you would define as macro-evolution (yet - the Russians are continuing the experiment, even though Belyaev died 30 years ago), over half a century of selection for specific traits. So this is the sort of timescale you need to be thinking about: it's not about a fox giving birth to a non-fox, it's about allowing changes to accumulate over the generations.

To answer your question "why can't we simulate the right circumstances at which we can observe these macro changes occur?", we can: we just need a bit more patience.

So therefore, since this is all we've ever seen, then there is no reason for ME to go beyond what humans have always observed since the history of mankind. Notice I said there is no reason for "me". If YOU choose to believe that millions of years ago, these transformations were taking place, fine. Believe whatever you want. But to call it science is disingenuous, and if you disagree with that, then I guess we will just have to disagree.

To call it science is not disingenuous: it is the best explanation we have for the observations we make. That is all that science gives you, the best explanation available. If you think that's lying, the problem is with what you think science is.

Evolution throughout its history has been full of hoaxes and down right deception, yet you are asking me is lying apart of my religion. Is it apart of yours?

Evolution has never been based on hoaxes or deceptions - at least be honest enough to admit that the small number of hoaxes had no impact on the theory underlying evolution whatsoever. To assert otherwise gives you no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No it's not.

Science means knowledge. THat is what science seeks. Observation is only one way to gain knowledge but it certainly isn'ttge only way, at least in the way you're trying to define it. By saying that you don't believe evolution exist is pretty much saying you dont' believe that traits can be inherited.

You can't draw factual conclusions without factual observations. When I say "science", I mean the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which INCLUDES observation.

The irony is that you have never observed God, yet you believe in God.

My belief in God is not a scientific hypothesis, so no observation is necessary. Evolution IS a scientific hypothesis, and based on the scientific method, observation IS necessary. Christian Apologists have been arguing the existence of God well over a millenia without science, and as long as the arguments are sound, then that is all that is required. So no, I've never observed God, but I am not basing my belief in God from scientific inquiry.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You can't draw factual conclusions without factual observations. When I say "science", I mean the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which INCLUDES observation.



My belief in God is not a scientific hypothesis, so no observation is necessary. Evolution IS a scientific hypothesis, and based on the scientific method, observation IS necessary. Christian Apologists have been arguing the existence of God well over a millenia without science, and as long as the arguments are sound, then that is all that is required. So no, I've never observed God, but I am not basing my belief in God from scientific inquiry.

I'm actually certain
That you have never even partook in the scientific process. Which again given your denial of evolution you deny that traits are inherited.

Your belief is based on what then? How is the argument for evolution not sound?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Evolution IS a scientific hypothesis, and based on the scientific method, observation IS necessary.

No, as you can probably understand from the name, the scientific THEORY of evolution is not a hypothesis.

Not that you have any clue what observation, evolution, hypothesis or theory even means which you have demonstrated a multitude of times now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The bible says that only a fool would say in his heart that God doesn't exist, so based on that, your assumption that God is "allowing" atheism to exist is clearly a bad one.

So, by your own statement, god does not "allow" atheist to exist, but yet they do exist. Or maybe god doesn't believe they exist, as some claim? Either way, it either shows god ultimately is not omnipotent if something exists that he does not allow, or he has a serious superiority complexion when he chooses to not believe in the existence of those who deny his existence.

I said what I want is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION. Unless you can provide me with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION, you are the one that is lying. All you and others have done is tell me what you "think" has occurred. You are basically telling me what the theory is, when I am asking for observational evidence of it.

I've said that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Any disagreements on this? No. I've said that dogs have never been observed to produce non-dogs, and all animals have only been observed to produce is what they are, and not what they are not. Any disagreements here? No.

It's called the fossil record. Humans are not there on day six. We aren't even around in year six, year six hundred, six thousand, or even six million or billion. Relatively speaking, you will only find human fossils at the top portion of the fossil record. Many many many layers down you will find the dinosaurs, who only appear within a limited range. And then after there are no more dinosaurs as you go further down you will find all sorts of other fossilized life forms that are found no where else.
A dog will always produce a dog. But what will that dogs descendants look like ten generations later? 100 generations later? Will they even look anything like our dog 1000 generations later? Evolution is one change at a time that no one really sees. The offspring of generation B look like the parents of generation A, but there are some very slight differences. C will still look alike, but the differences add up every so slightly more. D may still have some resemblance, and the differences add up more. Add over a billion years worth of changes, and eventually the differences of the current generation from generation A, having faced thousands of years of different environments, different gene pools, and different circumstances, the differences of the current generation have added up so much that they are now genetically dissimilar to generation A that they can no longer reproduce with generation A.

 

[secret2]

I said what I want is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION. Unless you can provide me with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION, you are the one that is lying. All you and others have done is tell me what you "think" has occurred. You are basically telling me what the theory is, when I am asking for observational evidence of it.

I've said that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Any disagreements on this? No. I've said that dogs have never been observed to produce non-dogs, and all animals have only been observed to produce is what they are, and not what they are not. Any disagreements here? No.

So therefore, since this is all we've ever seen, then there is no reason for ME to go beyond what humans have always observed since the history of mankind. Notice I said there is no reason for "me". If YOU choose to believe that millions of years ago, these transformations were taking place, fine. Believe whatever you want. But to call it science is disingenuous, and if you disagree with that, then I guess we will just have to disagree.

You are really good at ignoring others' replies and repeatedly return to your own irrelevant nonsense. But everyone has different levels of intellectual capacity, so let's try it one more time.

You want OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. First of all, OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE on what? I, together with many others, have already pointed out that evolution is not Pokemon, it is not bird hatching from non-bird egg over one generation, it is not human popping out of ape vagina over one generation. It is accumulated gradual change over many generations. Please show some integrity by at least acknowledging this point, even if you may not understand this yet.

Second, OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is not limited to whatever we can see with our bare eyes within our lifetime. Nobody can observe molecules, gravity and electromagnetic waves and those theories would also be unfounded using your ridiculous standard.

Once you see what evolution is and is not hypothesizing, and accept that OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE might be beyond what we can see with our bare eyes within our lifetime, perhaps you will, I don't know, learn a few things about modern science.

 

[johnhanks]

Engaging with the opposition is my calling.

But you have declined to engage with this:

Since we're not going beyond necessity, and given that foxes are chromosomally far more different from dogs than humans are from chimps, your statement above can be confidently extended: A human is a kind of ape. No reason for further inquiry.

On the principle that silence implies consent, we are left to assume that you agree with the conclusion.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Ignore posts? That is bogus. How am I ignoring posts when I quote from people DIRECTLY and respond to their posts DIRECTLY?

You have ignored three of my posts in this thread (though two of those were directly after eachother, so I suppose you could count it as two rather than three). #108 #237 #238

I honestly think that you are an atheist trying to give theists a bad name.

You know something, that makes me feel a lot better.

I was sad there for a while, but when you think of it that way, it turns despondency at ignorance into wry amusement touched with a little exasperation at how an atheist could act in such a way.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, as you can probably understand from the name, the scientific THEORY of evolution is not a hypothesis.

Ok, it is a fact for those that believe it. I don't. I see no reason too.

Not that you have any clue what observation, evolution, hypothesis or theory even means which you have demonstrated a multitude of times now.

I observe animal producing their own kind. Call it what you want to call it. An animal will produce what it is, and will not produce what it isn't. So call it what you want to call it, but that is all we've seen.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, by your own statement, god does not "allow" atheist to exist, but yet they do exist.

People believe what they want to believe, for whatever reasons they want to believe it.

Or maybe god doesn't believe they exist, as some claim? Either way, it either shows god ultimately is not omnipotent if something exists that he does not allow, or he has a serious superiority complexion when he chooses to not believe in the existence of those who deny his existence.

Yeah, when in doubt, blame God.

It's called the fossil record. Humans are not there on day six. We aren't even around in year six, year six hundred, six thousand, or even six million or billion. Relatively speaking, you will only find human fossils at the top portion of the fossil record. Many many many layers down you will find the dinosaurs, who only appear within a limited range. And then after there are no more dinosaurs as you go further down you will find all sorts of other fossilized life forms that are found no where else.
A dog will always produce a dog. But what will that dogs descendants look like ten generations later? 100 generations later? Will they even look anything like our dog 1000 generations later? Evolution is one change at a time that no one really sees. The offspring of generation B look like the parents of generation A, but there are some very slight differences. C will still look alike, but the differences add up every so slightly more. D may still have some resemblance, and the differences add up more. Add over a billion years worth of changes, and eventually the differences of the current generation from generation A, having faced thousands of years of different environments, different gene pools, and different circumstances, the differences of the current generation have added up so much that they are now genetically dissimilar to generation A that they can no longer reproduce with generation A.

Telling me the theory is one thing, showing me evidence for it is another thing. I want to see it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Ok, it is a fact for those that believe it. I don't. I see no reason too.



I observe animal producing their own kind. Call it what you want to call it. An animal will produce what it is, and will not produce what it isn't. So call it what you want to call it, but that is all we've seen.

Lol.

You've observed animals giving birth?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Ok, it is a fact for those that believe it. I don't. I see no reason too.

No, it's a THEORY but as i said, you don't know what that means so you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. That it's also an observable fact is another matter.

I observe animal producing their own kind. Call it what you want to call it. An animal will produce what it is, and will not produce what it isn't. So call it what you want to call it, but that is all we've seen.

And we're back to "no crockoduck means evolution is false".

I have explained this to you three times, others have explained it to you several times but you don't read, don't want to understand the simple concept that if what you propose would be evidence for evolution actually occured it would disprove evolution in its entirety since it's a direct contradiction to what the ToE proposes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it's a THEORY but as i said, you don't know what that means so you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. That it's also an observable fact is another matter.



And we're back to "no crockoduck means evolution is false".

I have explained this to you three times, others have explained it to you several times but you don't read, don't want to understand the simple concept that if what you propose would be evidence for evolution actually occured it would disprove evolution in its entirety since it's a direct contradiction to what the ToE proposes.

You can have the last word. I am finished. I've spoken my piece on the subject, and there is nothing else for me to say. Unless this subject comes up again on another thread, I am through with it.

 

[secret2]

You can have the last word. I am finished. I've spoken my piece on the subject, and there is nothing else for me to say. Unless this subject comes up again on another thread, I am through with it.

Yep, we get it. You've had enough fun covering your ears saying "lalalalala I can't hear you."

 

[johnhanks]

On the principle that silence implies consent, we are left to assume that you agree with the conclusion [that a human is a kind of ape].

You can have the last word. I am finished. I've spoken my piece on the subject, and there is nothing else for me to say.

There you have it, folks; faced with the proposition that humans are "ape-kind", Call_of_the_Wild's final word on the subject does not demur. Nice to have you on board, Call.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that if you believe in a deistic kind of god, then I guess evolution could in fact occur. But even if this is the case, there is still an intelligent mind behind the whole process, which would still make naturalism not true. So even if god did orchestrate the process, that would be a defeater of atheism.

No in the sense that I believe that based on the historicity of Jesus Christ, and if Jesus Christ rose from the dead as I believe, then there is no point in believing that such a perfect being would use a trial and error process to carry out his will.

then just admit your trying to set limitations on your god.

I would ask what reasons do we have to think that they are real?

Because of the evidence we have. The x-ray and gamma readings. The theory of relativity predicted them and we have spotted the refracting light that is bent by them. Ect ect ect. All indirect observations that accumulate into evidence of something we quite litterally cannot see. Much in the same way as evolution. However you don't have a problem with most of the other sciences as it doesn't challenge your dogmatic view of the universe.

Had evolution not challenged what your religion had stated to be true then you would have no issues accepting it.

:beach:

Refutation over rhetoric.

So your just gonna dodge? No refutation? No response? Just meaningless dribble in an attempt to scamper away from admiting your wrong?

I am making arguments based on the BEST EXPLANATION. Besides that, the arguments are laid out and they are sound. If the premises are true then the conclusion is true regardless of whether we like the implications or not.

Bold is a bold faced lie. The best explination continues to be evolution. There is no scientific argument against it. There is no uproar or even conflict in the scientific community. The only people against it are religious fundamentalists who aren't even qualified to have a scientific opinion who base all of their arguments on fake science or lies.

Point in case....you. Or more specifically the people you listen too.

I, unlike you and others, don't need to go beyond necessity. A fox is a kind of dog. No reason for further inquiry.

Then thats not science. If you want your opinion (that is wrong) then keep it. But dont' under any circumstances sit there with your thumb in your *** and tell scientists and scientifically litterate individuals that evolution isn't science.

I guess it doesn't prove anything more than if I were to point out a german shepard and ask you "what is that", and you say "it looks like a dog to me".

Excpet a German shepard is a dog and a fox is not. You haven't looked at the DNA evidence, the species information and I doubt you even have enough knowledge of foxes in general to make that call. I actaully grew up as a child with a pet fox for a short period of time. It was no dog. It didn't act like dogs, it didn't even look like a dog. Its snout, behavior, paws, coloring, tails, bark, eyes and sleeping patterns didn't fiollow that of any other dog I had.

Oh yeah....saying that we got our eyes, brains, ears, etc from a mindless and blind process makes all the sense in the world.

Actually it makes perfect sense if you would actually read information on it and not just take it for the wraped incorrect version they threw at you in church.

Do you realize that the sun is positioned just close enough to keep our planet warm, but far enough not to burn this place up...yet not to far so that we are not freezing our behinds off?

Do you realize how vast the universe is? That even by our meager calculations we have deduced that it is highly probable that there is not only the right conditions for life such as Earth in the universe but probably several in our own galaxy? The earth isn't perfect for life. Life developed here to fit earth. Not vice versa.

There is no purpose or agenda to the sun existing, on naturalism. I don't think it is a coincidence that the sun is here, and all of these complex forms of life are dependent upon it staying here. On my view, the sun was "placed" there for obvious reasons by the Creator of the universe and everything within it.

Just as you said earlier that you don't go "beyond the necessary" we naturallists don't either. There is nothing to make us think there needs to be a purpose or agenda. What reason do we have other than our own arrogance to assume that something had to create us with a divine purpose?

Bravo, you've just succesfully refuted theism :clap

Thank you. Glad to convert another Atheists. You can get your satan horns next to the baby sandwitch cart. I'll expect to see you in your full Satanic black cloak and meet up for the midnight ravaging of young Christian virgins

 

[LuisDantas]

Going back to the OP.

I have been burning this though the back of my brain for a while.

Well, there is no reason to warn anyone that humans have stopped evolving (in the biological sense), no more than one warns others that he has not moved from his house to somewhere else.

So while Sir Attenborough is quite correct to be pessimistic about large families, his description of the danger as being that of "stopping evolution (...) of (our) own free will" is deeply ironic and shows a complete failure at understanding what biological evolution is. Stopping evolution is not a failure for much the same reasons that not being fired from one's job is also not a failure. Evolution is indeed survival of the fittest. It is heartless, and that is one of the few things correct about the origin of the unfortunate expression "Social Darwinism".

To the extent that humans may have managed to "stop evolution" (about themselves, apparently; he does not seem to be worried about the far more sustainable charge that humans may have stopped the evolution of other species such as domestic pets or agricultural breeds) that is in fact an admission of success. A species may only participate of its own evolution by becoming extinct and therefore freeing space for another species (which he seems to understandably want humanity to avoid) or by going through a lot of survival hardships so severe that its random variants turn out to survive better than it does itself. The only reason why it is not feared and seem as cruel is because it needs many, many generations to even begin to take form noticeably (in humans and similar species, at least).

If I had to guess, I would guess that he is simply failing to understand the meaning and mechanisms of biological evolution (a necessary yet slow and heartless and mindless phenomenom), as well as the (very good and real) reasons why humans will of course resist to encourage their own (biological) evolution. Being "more evolved" humans is not something to actively pursue. It may mean something along the lines of having different hearing parameters, less hair, digestive proccesses that deal better with certain kinds of food at the expense of gaining other kinds of deficiencies. It is "experimental", risky, often boring or unexciting, and it can only happen at the cost of a lot of people failing utterly to have a reasonable number of descendents. And for all that, it is not even something willing to "keep" its own work. Or for that matter, willing to do anything at all.

I will even go a step further and guess that he is in fact confusing biological evolution with some sort of conception of social or cultural evolution. It may be no coincidence that he has been knighted by the British Crown, nor that he is a naturalist. He is well-adjusted to being listened to, to receiving attention, to being influential. He may even have listened to the justifications of the idea of "White Man's Burden" and wondered how much merit they could have.

And hey, he is 87. It is understandable that he may be willing to believe or hope that his lineage will last for a while and not face too much adversity or competition. Even if that is in fact hoping for evolution to stop despite his own wording.

 

[metis]

It's important for us to realize that there are various aspects to "survival of the fittest", and for many organisms, and we are one of them, cooperation, compassion, and justice very much helped us survive. Therefore, it is not always heartless.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If anything it's neutral.