Why are there still Monkeys?

[ruffen]

Having a higher-level debate about evolution will be quite difficult when the simple basics are not established for some of those debating it.

 

[FearGod]

It seems so, as you seem to think that if something is a theory, it cannot be claimed to be a fact. And as you seem to think that the cause or "driving force" or mechanics behind evolution is not a well understood fact.

So how exactly human evolved from Ape like creature to modern human.
Explain it to me in scientific way.
What happened exactly and how that affected the DNA and the evidence that your story was true and not just expectations or a theory.

 

[FearGod]

Having a higher-level debate about evolution will be quite difficult when the simple basics are not established for some of those debating it.

dodging.

 

[ruffen]

So how exactly human evolved from Ape like creature to modern human.
Explain it to me in scientific way.
What happened exactly and how that affected the DNA and the evidence that your story was true and not just expectations or a theory.

Once there was a species. Let's call this species X. For each baby born, there is a small element of randomness in its DNA. This causes variations between individuals (that's why not every child with common parents are identical). Then, those individuals that have a higher chance of surviving to adult age and creating new offspring, have a higher chance of spreading their genes to later generations. It's not an off-on switch, it's not that 0% of those with a bit shorther ears survive and 100% with longer ears survive, but slight differences that over generations will cause the species to move in a certain direction, DNA-wise.

Maybe it's even so that those with large ears have a better chance of surviving in one location, but those with short ears have a better chance in another location.


Let this process go on for, say, a hundred thousand generations. Each generation ever so slightly different from the previous one. And those living in the place where large ears is an advantage, diverge more and more from those living where short ears is best. After a hundred thousand generations, the species has changed enough so that they are no longer the same species. The short-eared individuals are no longer able to create offspring with individuals from the long-eared population. Both these are now separate species, none of them are the same species as what they were a hundred thousand generations earlier. Yet every single child is the same species as its parents.

It's like language. You cannot point at exactly the point in space and time when one language becomes another language, because it happens gradually. Every child speaks the same language as its parents, but with slight variations. At some point they don't say "swell" and "groovy" anymore, but it's still the same language. Give it a thousand years or ten thousand years, and you'll observe Latin turning into French and Italian, and slang words evolving into dialects, evolving into languages.

It's really that simple. Google it, I'm sure you'll find more info. There are 3 requirements for biological evolution to happen:
1. there must be random variations between individuals within a population
2. there must be differentiation between the probability of procreation depending on these variations (ie. some have higher chance of producing offspring, some have lower chance)
3. these variations must be inherited to the next generation, so they must be genetically encoded in the DNA, so that the next generation can take advantage of these changes and introduce their own changes by the same mechanism

If you have these 3 requirements in place (which we do) then there is no room in the theory for any guidance from elsewhere. The random mutations are necessary to have diversity, and natural selection is necessary to select the "best" out from that diversity.

Are people really still doubting this?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes it is. If we are talking about the scientific theory about evolution of life on Earth, the point is that it is not guided.

Actually, no, it is not. Evolution is guided by the environment (ecological and social). And for all anyone can truly know, the environment is guided by God's Will.

Twisting that theory into accepting guidance from some intelligent being is to twist it away from the scientific theory of evolution.

I fear that I just can not agree with that. The ToE does not deny God at all.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Actually, no, it is not. Evolution is guided by the environment (ecological and social). And for all anyone can truly know, the environment is guided by God's Will.




I fear that I just can not agree with that. The ToE does not deny God at all.

I'd like to hear your justification for thus more, please .

True, the ToE does not deny god, nor does it mention god.

Therefore, to add unjustified claims to a theory that it doesn't have, is "moving away from" the theory just as much add ignoring parts it does have.

God is not a part of the ToE, to add him into it is changing it.
It nether denies not acknowledges god, as it directlystand, so how is his statement wrong, please?

 

[LuisDantas]

What harm there is in assuming God to be behind Evolution, as long as the facts are not denied?

 

[FearGod]

Once there was a species. Let's call this species X. For each baby born, there is a small element of randomness in its DNA. This causes variations between individuals (that's why not every child with common parents are identical). Then, those individuals that have a higher chance of surviving to adult age and creating new offspring, have a higher chance of spreading their genes to later generations. It's not an off-on switch, it's not that 0% of those with a bit shorther ears survive and 100% with longer ears survive, but slight differences that over generations will cause the species to move in a certain direction, DNA-wise.

Maybe it's even so that those with large ears have a better chance of surviving in one location, but those with short ears have a better chance in another location.


Let this process go on for, say, a hundred thousand generations. Each generation ever so slightly different from the previous one. And those living in the place where large ears is an advantage, diverge more and more from those living where short ears is best. After a hundred thousand generations, the species has changed enough so that they are no longer the same species. The short-eared individuals are no longer able to create offspring with individuals from the long-eared population. Both these are now separate species, none of them are the same species as what they were a hundred thousand generations earlier. Yet every single child is the same species as its parents.

It's like language. You cannot point at exactly the point in space and time when one language becomes another language, because it happens gradually. Every child speaks the same language as its parents, but with slight variations. At some point they don't say "swell" and "groovy" anymore, but it's still the same language. Give it a thousand years or ten thousand years, and you'll observe Latin turning into French and Italian, and slang words evolving into dialects, evolving into languages.

It's really that simple. Google it, I'm sure you'll find more info. There are 3 requirements for biological evolution to happen:
1. there must be random variations between individuals within a population
2. there must be differentiation between the probability of procreation depending on these variations (ie. some have higher chance of producing offspring, some have lower chance)
3. these variations must be inherited to the next generation, so they must be genetically encoded in the DNA, so that the next generation can take advantage of these changes and introduce their own changes by the same mechanism

If you have these 3 requirements in place (which we do) then there is no room in the theory for any guidance from elsewhere. The random mutations are necessary to have diversity, and natural selection is necessary to select the "best" out from that diversity.

Are people really still doubting this?

And do you think the DNA complexity was arranged by random and chance.

[youtube]Kuc6t-Jvxs4[/youtube]
‫

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What harm there is in assuming God to be behind Evolution, as long as the facts are not denied?

I have no problem with theistic evolution, but it's not the theory of evolution.
And I'm not even thinking harm or good here, merely the fact that ruffen is correct in saying adding unjustified things to a theory move you away from that theory.

Theistic evolution is separate from the ToE, and should be noted that it is.
There's nothing wrong with believing it, but the ToE does not recognize god positively or negatively, so any addition of god is moving from the ToE, to something else, and

Should be noted as such.

ToE =/= theistic evolution.

 

[FearGod]

What harm there is in assuming God to be behind Evolution, as long as the facts are not denied?

Exactly that is the point, it can be XYZ or anything else but that doesn't mean to exclude God as an option.

 

[FearGod]

I have no problem with theistic evolution, but it's not the theory of evolution.
And I'm not even thinking harm or good here, merely the fact that ruffen is correct in saying adding unjustified things to a theory move you away from that theory.

Theistic evolution is separate from the ToE, and should be noted that it is.
There's nothing wrong with believing it, but the ToE does not recognize god positively or negatively, so any addition of god is moving from the ToE, to something else, and

Should be noted as such.

ToE =/= theistic evolution.

Mutations and natural selection doesn't mean to exclude God but to explain how it works, such as saying Day and night is caused due to earth rotating around its axis,then that doesn't mean God is excluded just because we know how it works.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no problem with theistic evolution, but it's not the theory of evolution.
And I'm not even thinking harm or good here, merely the fact that ruffen is correct in saying adding unjustified things to a theory move you away from that theory.

Is that even the issue? I trust theists believe gravity to have been meant to be by God as well. It makes no difference then, and it makes no difference now.

Theistic evolution is separate from the ToE, and should be noted that it is.

What would the difference be? I'm aware of none, unless you are talking about Intelligent Design or some other weirdness.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Is that even the issue? I trust theists believe gravity to have been meant to be by God as well. It makes no difference then, and it makes no difference now.



What would the difference be? I'm aware of none, unless you are talking about Intelligent Design or some other weirdness.

ToE, does not prove or provide evidence for god, also does not disprove or deny god.
God had absolutely no bearing in the theory at all.

Theistic evolution, ToE + and god helps.

They are demonstrably different things, the name theistic evolution alone shows the difference.
I feel they should be noted as different, because I don't really want "and god helps " in a science class.

At home? Sure. In church? Sure. In any theists mind as to how evolution works? Sure. But to say there is no difference between the two is incorrect.

And this goes back to Ruffens statement about how adding something to a theory moves you away from that theory. Even if it's not god, adding anything to a theory, if you are qualified to actually change that theory, is moving you from that theory.

If I say internal combustion works, because on the upthrust of the piston, pressure rises and a small amount of fuel becomes Awkward Fingers Chocolate Covered Caramel, but only for a completely undetectable amount of time, then turns back, and once pushed into the electrical spark, rapidly combusts and releases energy, well, that's great if that's how I choose to remember it, but it is no longer internal combustion, it's now Awkward Chocolates internal combustion , and should be noted as such...

It is absolutely different. And if it helps someone understand evolution, our accept it, that's fine. But it is not evolution, it is theistic evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Mutations and natural selection doesn't mean to exclude God but to explain how it works, such as saying Day and night is caused due to earth rotating around its axis,then that doesn't mean God is excluded just because we know how it works.

As long as it is understood that belief in God is not necessary, I must agree with this.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Mutations and natural selection doesn't mean to exclude God but to explain how it works, such as saying Day and night is caused due to earth rotating around its axis,then that doesn't mean God is excluded just because we know how it works.

Nether mean to exclude god because he does or doesn't exist, they exclude god because they are fact based and evidence based, and none of the evidence INCLUDES god.

They do not prove or disprove god, they explain change over generations, or planetary orbit.
God is simply not involved in them (the
explanations) in any way.
If you want to include god, so they align with your belief, that's fine. But you can't take evolution, turn it into theistic evolution, and then use THAT as proof of god, or teach it as evolution.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Is that even the issue? I trust theists believe gravity to have been meant to be by God as well. It makes no difference then, and it makes no difference now.



What would the difference be? I'm aware of none, unless you are talking about Intelligent Design or some other weirdness.

Ok, one more question on this then, you say you don't see a difference, so, and please realize, much of my bridling here come from that I am a very literal person.

Is the theory of evolution a scientific theory?

Is theistic evolution a scientific theory?

 

[LuisDantas]

ToE, does not prove or provide evidence for god, also does not disprove or deny god.
God had absolutely no bearing in the theory at all.

Theistic evolution, ToE + and god helps.

They are demonstrably different things, the name theistic evolution alone shows the difference.
I feel they should be noted as different, because I don't really want "and god helps " in a science class.

At home? Sure. In church? Sure. In any theists mind as to how evolution works? Sure. But to say there is no difference between the two is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm still not seeing it.

And this goes back to Ruffens statement about how adding something to a theory moves you away from that theory. Even if it's not god, adding anything to a theory, if you are qualified to actually change that theory, is moving you from that theory.

Even if it is a basically indetectable God? If you say so. Not sure why that would even matter, though.

If I say internal combustion works, because on the upthrust of the piston, pressure rises and a small amount of fuel becomes Awkward Fingers Chocolate Covered Caramel, but only for a completely undetectable amount of time, then turns back, and once pushed into the electrical spark, rapidly combusts and releases energy, well, that's great if that's how I choose to remember it, but it is no longer internal combustion, it's now Awkward Chocolates internal combustion , and should be noted as such...

It is absolutely different. And if it helps someone understand evolution, our accept it, that's fine. But it is not evolution, it is theistic evolution.

What is theistic evolution, anyway? I don't think I ever heard of it in the sense you are proposing it to exist - as in, detectably different from plain vanilla evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, one more question on this then, you say you don't see a difference, so, and please realize, much of my bridling here come from that I am a very literal person.

Of course I don't see a difference. I would have to be a theist to see any.

Is the theory of evolution a scientific theory?

Sure.

Is theistic evolution a scientific theory?

Define it. If it is just the ToE with the belief that God made it so, I must acknowledge that is is the ToE proper, at least until someone claims that the Will of God is a necessary or established part of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you want to include god, so they align with your belief, that's fine.

Indeed.

But you can't take evolution, turn it into theistic evolution, and then use THAT as proof of god,

Indeed again. Although I suppose as proofs of god go, it is as convincing as any other. A proof of god has to be as good as whoever accepts it demands it to be.

or teach it as evolution.

Actually you can, unless there is an actual difference from evolution.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

This would be the retribution I find which most fits with what I'm thinking of when I at theistic evolution

" Abstract: Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis."

If this definition roughly what you think of as theistic evolution?