Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Cheesehead first of all let me commend you for taking the pains of attending to posts rigorously and conscientiously unlike many others. (...) I have reason to believe that there are posters in this thread who are using their replies as an excercise in the English Language. There are some using their debating skills as an excercise in logical sophistry etc,etc.

Since I think Mally's vague accusations are as harmless as his religious beliefs are irrational and fundamentalist, I don't mind taking them as directed to myself. From his point of view, others' arguments (like mine) can seem as "exercises in logical sophistry"; I'd rather see them as better (like cheesehead's and others') or worse (my own) rational refutations of irrational, unproven-premise-based beliefs desperately trying to present themselves as credible to those who don't share the same premises. And, since I'm not a native English speaker, I think anything I read or write in this (beautiful!) language is an exercise, while at the same time being whatever else it is. So, here's a not-so-rigorous and not-so-conscientious reply...

Originally Posted by mfgoode

The naked ape never rose to a large brain. He always had one.

So, according to Mally's logic, what a species needs to be considered as having being created separately by God - like humans - would be having a large brain and being naked.

One may clearly see that not having hair all over the body isn't just a feature which distinguishes us from, say, chimps. It also separates us from gorillas. And from orang utans. And from New World monkeys. From all primates, in fact.

But it's not only that. Being naked sets us apart from, um, other mammal groups with eyes put close together and upper limbs structurally similar to ours - bats, perhaps, whose wings are more like our hands than a horse's leg.

But, in the end, (almost) all mammals have hair; thus, we're not "naked apes", we're "naked mammals". "Naked mammals with large brains", I think that's a good definition for the directly-God-created creatures.

This is good because it allows us to find other such creatures, if any. By having those features in mind, we end up finding dolphins. They're even more naked than us, are mammals and have brains larger than ours.

There's a question that might be raised - humans have the conscience of the good and the evil, right? But Mally shows us this wasn't so at the beginning:

Originally Posted by Mally

There was a time when Man (Adam) did not know good from evil (whatever you term 'Not good' ). He was a complete creation with body, mind and soul with no knowledge of the evil we know rampant today. He didnt need to be given the 10 commandments on stone or in letter. They were indelibly stamped on his mind and soul.(...)
Being innocent in every way like a child how come he suddenly puts on covering to cloak his uncomely parts when nudity was natural to him and his wife?
This is because he realises for the first time that he does wrong by initiating a forbidden act. What it is we can only speculate but it was an act of disobedience.

This is completely coherent with what we were talking. Humans are naked and have a large brain, therefore have been created separately by God; dolphins have both traits in a larger measure than us, so they're even more special to Him. We have Fallen, they haven't. They've never commited any act of disobedience against His commandments - that's why nudity is natural to all of them. One can argue the Bible doesn't mention dolphins; however, its story is about the ones who did fall, us. And the Bible was only revealed to man after the Fall. Thus, we could well reason that every dolphin has the 10 commandments "indelibly stamped on their mind and soul". If any of them had disobeyed the Lord, then they would have Fallen, would wear clothes, would need the Commandments reminded again to them and would have a Dolphinic Bible, but that hasn't happen and probably won't because, as we have seen, they're even perfecter than we are.

<pause>

Now, Mally; if humans were created separately, then we're special; if we're special, how come God has reused 98,7 % of the chimp blueprints on us? Why making all life forms so inherently similar and put just a few differences? If we're different, why aren't we completely, structurally different?

Unconscientiously yours,
Bruno

PS: moth antennas are fluffy, while butterfly antennas are naked. Are the latter specially-created?

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by Jacob Visser

I have known a few people who believe but also recognise the fact that it is a pure act of creed and that religious paradigms cannot be proven.

Trying to discuss rationally with somebody who believes in something because it was written in a book, and that it must be the truth because the book has been inspired by that something can be funny. It is indeed funny to see people confronted to the unknown, inventing a “meta” unknown. Let us suppose god exists, who created god ? Super god ? And who created him. The response “He has always been and will be forever” is not sufficient : who has created the realm where that god has always been ? I love discussing metaphysics. But don’t hope to be able to exchange arguments : reason is lost where creed enters.

Welcome to the discussion Jacob. As my Master Jesus said 'Those who come to me, I will in no wise cast out'
'Inventing the 'meta' unknown as you call it is a simple argument to deal with.
Take the integers. Start with an integer 'n' ,any where on the number line.
If you reduce it continuously you end up with zero. Try reducing further you get the negative integers. Reduce that and what do you get? Something smaller and then smaller. So where is the end we call -& (infinity) can you reason that out? Can your logic explain this? Yet it is essential and we do use it in mathematics and get workable and concrete results. Do you ask 'What is before that -& ?
Now take the case of +&. It grows and grows but where is the end? Even if you place a restriction on it as an unending row of the real numbers without end it does not stop there. There is a cardinal number greater than your unending infinity believe it or not and this Infinity has been beautifully but simply proved by Cantor. And if you put a restriction on even that then there is another Cardinal greater than the last one.
Summing up mathematics admits of the infinite as reasonable. Yes Reason, not creed, which I would and others call Faith.
So whats so illogical and unreasonable in believing that God is OMNI-potent,
OMNI-present, OMNIscient?
Mally
For metaphysics you could do well to start with 'The Dialogue's of Plato'

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by 99.94

This is just not supportable. Mally, you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you argue that the process of adaptation proposed by Darwin applies to all other animals (in this case) but not to humans. You might say that as a religious dogma, but to pretend your position has a rational basis - such as by challenging Cheesehead to predict the next form of man - is a hoax.

Your choice of a quote from Macbeth is a very strange one.

For a start, it has been taken out of context. It has nothing to do with the sort of "logical sophistry" of which you complain. The full passage is:

"She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing"

Macbeth has been told that his wife is dead. His response (above) is to deny the very meaning or purpose of life itself, or the possibility of a hereafter. It is absolutely a denial of everything Mally has been saying both in this and in his Does God Exist? thread.

Thank you 99.94 for making me revisit the full quote which I can still rattle off by heart. I learnt those lines by rote 56 years ago and still retain it.
Well the lines I quoted does not have to refer to Macbeth's state of mind
It is merely a descriptive sentence which can be referred to any situation which suits it like 'Abba,dabba, dabba said the monkey to the Chimp'
Mally
P.S.
By the way if you want an interpretation of the monkey quote from monkey language 'To night I dont have a limp; How about it Chimp?'

[99.94]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Thank you 99.94 for making me revisit the full quote which I can still rattle off by heart. I learnt those lines by rote 56 years ago and still retain it.
Well the lines I quoted does not have to refer to Macbeth's state of mind
It is merely a descriptive sentence which can be referred to any situation which suits it like 'Abba,dabba, dabba said the monkey to the Chimp'
Mally
P.S.
By the way if you want an interpretation of the monkey quote from monkey language 'To night I dont have a limp; How about it Chimp?'

No Mally, that will never do. Not for the first time, you've tried to trivialise when you don't have an answer. You haven't even attempted to address the first point I made.

What has happened is that you have used Shakespeare to denigrate your opponents and you have been caught out. I think you knew exactly what you were saying but you assumed that because this is a maths forum, no-one would notice. It is up to you of course, but it does not do much for your credibility.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by 99.94

No Mally, that will never do. Not for the first time, you've tried to trivialise when you don't have an answer. You haven't even attempted to address the first point I made.

What has happened is that you have used Shakespeare to denigrate your opponents and you have been caught out. I think you knew exactly what you were saying but you assumed that because this is a maths forum, no-one would notice. It is up to you of course, but it does not do much for your credibility.

Originally Posted by 99.94

This is just not supportable. Mally, you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you argue that the process of adaptation proposed by Darwin applies to all other animals (in this case) but not to humans. You might say that as a religious dogma, but to pretend your position has a rational basis - such as by challenging Cheesehead to predict the next form of man - is a hoax.

I reiterate my position and elucidate my point so far.
Different species evolve no doubt but they stick to their respective families.
Say there are a million species of fish. They can evolve into a variety of fish but fish remain of the fish family all along From fish one cant breed a crab though they are creatures of the sea, a wolf cannot evolve into a cat and the cat cannot evolve into a porcupine. Dogs remain dogs whether they are bull terriers, Alsatians, mastiffs, etc.

If they do inter breed at maturity the mixed breed produced die out and are not fertile. I give as an example the donkey mating with a jackass. The product is a mule which is sexless. Evolution stops there. Take the ligers a cross beteeen a lion and a tiger, both are of the feline family but different strains. Eventually they stop breeding. This is in accordance with both Darwin and genesis evolution and there is perfect agreement.

In man, he is completely evolved from the beginning. Due inbreeding we did get giants for awhile but they died out such, is the tempo of evolution and natural law. We also still have pygmies but this is natural selection due to the environment. Still the pygmy is homo sapiens not orangutans and even if he inbreeds you cant get a monkey out of him maybe HIV but not apes. Same with black and white skins. The different climes from heat and cold the vit. D, due lack of sunshine, is not converted enough to maintain the melanin hence the different colours but a negro is just the same as the N. European.; the difference is only skin deep.
I have predicted and not challenged anyone but asked a straight question which no one has answered.
I have given the answer in no uncertain terms. here it is with absolute confidence. "In the latter times man will be (look) like Gods" Man will be still man but more impressive in physique and mental abilities. There will be no regression in the species to an ape. Neither can the apes catch up to man at any stage because they are inferior to man in every way. Its the Zeno's paradox of evolution!

Your so called science of evolution cannot with certainty predict the future of man and so it is not the science I would respect in totality. Science if it is sound should be able to predict with certainty the out come of an experiment.

I was reading up an article by Freeman Dyson a renowned physicist at the turn of the 20th and he has been labelled as an animist. Thats how evolutionists label their opponents into compartments and call them names.
Roger Penrose believes in consciousness and mind different from animals. The act of observation is a crucial part of Quantum phenomena. With out a mind there is no basis to an experiment; rather observation by the mind is essential.
I will refer to these in my next post as Penrose refuses to believe that apes can observe phenomena the way man can do. The mind of man and his awareness is only owned by man.

As I have said a man has body, soul and spirit. In D/ evolution we go up to mind and body and there it ends. It is the dividing point between science and religion; it just forks out. The goal of every scientist is to amalgamate the two and achieve a balance to enable him to be a balanced human being

By the way 99.94 please put some more information in your posts instead of denigrating me and my methods which are backed with full authority.
I would advise you to start playing cricket and keeping a score on averages!
Mally

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Your so called science of evolution cannot with certainty predict the future of man and so it is not the science I would respect in totality. Science if it is sound should be able to predict with certainty the out come of an experiment.

I guess you've never heard of "chaos theory", then...

...or "quantum mechanics" (i.e. uncertainty)
...or "probabilistic outcomes"
...or "randomness"
...or "complex systems"
...or "scientific theories not reducible to a finite set of exact equations"
...or "fields of active inquiry"
...or "scientific research"

But if it's certainty you require, Mally, go back to your dusty holy books or your Erich von Däniken on Evolution and How Earth is Just a Giant Genetics Experiment by a Vastly Superior Race of Space Aliens Who Live Invisibly Among Us and Occasionally Steal Our Socks Out of the Dryer Just to Mess With Our Minds, Kinda Like the South Park Underpants Gnomes but Way Cooler - you've already made it quite clear that you're the kind of person to whom the illusion of simple truth is more important than any kind of self-searching or quest for deeper meaning. Your rampant and frequently-displayed ignorance of nonreligious topics is exceeded only by the arrogance of the dogma in which you are steeped. If it were just a few nutters with mental bumper stickers that read "Ignorant and Proud to Stay That Way" I wouldn't have a problem with it - but the sad fact is, these mass cults of militant collective delusion are trying to aggressively export their irrational (and generally quite intolerant, despite nice flowery words to the contrary, e.g. the ol' "love thy neighbor ... as long as he agrees to convert to The Faith" hypocrisy) to the rest of the world, if need be by way of the sword (Muhammad) or one local schoolboard at a time (Kansas, Dover DE, and coming soon to a state near you).

Anyway, in accordance with the title of this thread, I suggest future posters have the courtesy of at least making a modest effort to inform themselves about what modern evolutionary theory actually *says*, rather than simply parroting some ignorant ID/creationist propaganda and blathering about what the Bible says - posts that fit the latter category are going to risk getting moved to the "Does God Exist?" (or some similar) thread.

[brunoparga]

I'd ask Mally if he could please stop avoiding answering some posts. I don't think his reply to me could be any better than the one he gave to 99.94, which was, as usual, below criticism.

Bruno

PS: Mally, you're the only one here to whom your posts make a credible sense. This doesn't happen with the above post by Ernst, for example.

[cheesehead]

Folks,

Let's go a little easier on Mally and all others disbelieving/doubting/dismissing evolution. Instead of dismissing their rationales, try to study and analyze them in as non-hostile a manner as you can muster.

During a certain part of my teen-age musings about religion, I, too, noticed that the logical arguments against the literal truth of certain supernatural parts of religion seemed insurmountable. But I also noted that religions were generally doing just fine and billions of people accepted them. It seemed to me that enough time had passed since the logical challenges to religion became widely available so that if they were the only considerations, surely by now religion would have withered more than it had.

So I concluded that there were more considerations than only the straightforward logical arguments. That is, religion must have enough other value to many people to enable its survival. Then the question becomes: what are the other-than-strictly-&quot;rational&quot; (in a narrow sense) benefits of religion, and why do they apparently affect some people more than others?

I had already noticed social benefits. People grouped with others of compatible belief not only for religious worship but also for activities and purposes not directly related to religion. The same was true of many secular groups, but these social benefits obviously helped keep religious congregations together.

If the logical arguments were making a significant dent in religious belief, then one might expect a weakening of the bonds among a congregation because of a weakening in their shared belief. But this wasn't happening on any noticeable scale. So, what else?

As I've noted elsewhere, I began studying psychology because of wanting to find solutions to my own emotional problems. After a while I realized that psychology's explanations of human motivations also helped explain why people believed in the supernatural aspects of religion. Also, I learned about ways of satisfying emotional needs that also applied to religious belief and practice.

Religion can satisfy a variety of emotional needs. Some people will be more influenced by, or dependent on, this than others, according to their differing personalities and needs. Religious belief will not wither past a certain point unless alternative ways of satisfying psychological needs are available and deemed superior. This is not a simple matter.

Perhaps, so far, this seems more suitable to the Does God Exist? thread than to this one, but I'm going to tie this into consideration of why some folks are more resistant to believing that evolution applies to humans.

However, I must break for now, and continue later.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I guess you've never heard of "chaos theory", then...

...or "quantum mechanics" (i.e. uncertainty)
...or "probabilistic outcomes"
...or "randomness"
...or "complex systems"
...or "scientific theories not reducible to a finite set of exact equations"
...or "fields of active inquiry"
...or "scientific research"
~ ~ ~
Anyway, in accordance with the title of this thread, I suggest future posters have the courtesy of at least making a modest effort to inform themselves about what modern evolutionary theory actually *says*, rather than simply parroting some ignorant ID/creationist propaganda and blathering about what the Bible says - posts that fit the latter category are going to risk getting moved to the "Does God Exist?" (or some similar) thread.

:surprised
Well Ernst I'll take your tip and make myself more informed on modern evolutionary theory as you call it.

At the same time I would expect those 'for it' to take the trouble to at least be familiar with what is stated in Genesis, which is the crux of the problem and approach it with an open mind.

Apart from the creation of man theory in Genesis, and how he evolved, I would at least expect some knowledgeable posts from those against the 'rest of' Genesis, to present scientific arguments why the rest of it is not agreeable.

In my mind I dont find the 'rest of' modern evolution of flora and fauna to be anything different than Genesis. And if there is, we can by informative discussions, on either side reconcile the two. I dont see any problem in this

In this regard I commend Paul Xilmans post on bamboo's where he has not made 'rabbit bones in the poops' about what he is engaged in doing and I really learnt from his post more than any of the other posts. I expected to measure the other posters by this yard stick and I am terribly disappointed.

Here I am jumping the gun but the last post today by Cheesehead is very encouraging and I will definitely attend to it soon. This is the type of retort I would expect others to give even if they are convinced I am wrong. I only ask to approach whatever the problem with an open and honest mind. Reflect on your own circumstances and what have you got against an all powerful Being? What type of experiences you have been put to, to reject such a logical existence ?

The others who have replied to me I find dogmatic and in my diary I will note it as the 'Mersenneforum Inquisition with Mally the culprit taking center stage'

I would ask the opponents what have they have learnt exactly from the opposite view I have presented? Is it a propagation by the sword and name calling that they are satisfied with ? If I have recommended in my posts, other occupations for posters, it is that they have not taught me anything AT ALL. Some, it is true I have not replied to, and I regret that I cannot devote more of my time to face an army of non informative posts. I can only hope that they will benefit by it sooner or later. I have sown the seed, and by the certainty of your theory itself, I am sure they will germinate. if not by me then there is always another to water and add manure to it.

Honestly, Ernst, I dont think your arrogant questions are courteous which you so often speak off and advise others about. Still I will turn a disadvantage into an advantage.

Truly, its not in keeping with your position, in which you can lambaste others, at your whim and fancy. I will
respect your position and PM you some of the e-mails sent to me by former members and what they think of you when you eliminated them in 'The great purge' of '05. Still I abide by your decision and am not questioning it.

Now I have requested my maid to fish out my books on Chaos in my vast library. So far she has got me three, which you may do well to read or browse thru. Two decades ago I personally picked these books and read and studied them. I am sure I was directed to bring them out now. From a cursory look thru ,I find these authors believe in more than, and beyond what the modern theory of evolution takes care off, and I hope it will benefit this discussion.
1) 'Chaos' by James Gleick of NYT science reporter.
2) 'From Creation to Chaos' by Bernard Dixon European editor of 'New scientist'
3)'Order out of Chaos' by Ilya Prigogine ( Nobel Prize winner 1977- thermodynamics which you should be familiar with considering you have done similar work) and Isabelle Stengers ( holds degrees in Chemistry and philosophy
There is one more I remember by Jeremy Rifkin 'Entropy' which she is on the look out for.

With these I hope to take on the mighty Goliath! Mind you history repeats itself!

Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

I'd ask Mally if he could please stop avoiding answering some posts. I don't think his reply to me could be any better than the one he gave to 99.94, which was, as usual, below criticism.

Bruno

PS: Mally, you're the only one here to whom your posts make a credible sense. This doesn't happen with the above post by Ernst, for example.

Im sorry Bruno that I have not been on a one to one response with you.
Before David, (of the Bible) went to battle Goliath he had to wrestle with a wild bear, and fracture its neck, and so I have had my diversions in this thread.

I dont wish to slay anyone- far from it. You know that I live in the land of NON VIOLENCE, the most powerful and potent force, superior to anything else, as the British realised, and had to quit India. The mighty bull dog, was humbled by the man in a loin cloth, the Mahatma, Gandhi, and had to make a hasty exit, with its tail between its legs. I do not wish to be political or a racist. I'm just recalling history, as it was, and I was a part of it as I grew up, before someone jumps me.
I confess that I have greatly benefited by this thread in spite of the opposition I have met with, as I have learnt to sharpen my claws( natural selection for you), for self defence, not offence. The sad part is that I have, besides one or two posts, not learnt anything original or new on Modern evolution.

I thank Ernst ( perhaps my greatest critic) for suggesting to refer to my 'dusty' books which BTW are far from dusty. They are in glass lined cabinets and plastic covered each one of them. I get them regularly vacuum cleaned. I put in feed backs to Amazon. com and they have offered a sizable price for each and every one of them.
Anyway thats besides the point.

However my reply to you, is that I have failed to understand your post, to tell you the honest truth. Kindly explain it to me, as it could be a criticism, a left handed comment, or a compliment. I'm too modest to consider the last so thats why I am asking. Language wise it is correct, as probably yours is French. If so, then you are doing admirably well in this thread.
Thank you,
Mally

[xilman]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

One may clearly see that not having hair all over the body isn't just a feature which distinguishes us from, say, chimps. It also separates us from gorillas. And from orang utans. And from New World monkeys. From all primates, in fact.

Hang on a minute, I'm missing something here.

As far as I can tell, I have hair all over my body apart from very few and small exceptional areas --- those areas that are not skin (my eyes, for instance) and such as the soles of my feet and palms of my hands.

What's this "naked" business about?

As far as I can tell, I seem to have hair everywhere a chimp has hair. Some of my hair is much longer than the hair on the corresponding parts of a chimp's anatomy (anyone who has met me or seen a photo of my head will vouch for that claim). Some of my bodily hair is shorter and/or sparser than that on a chimp in corresponding regions. So what? Adding another great ape, the gorilla say, to the collection will introduce more discrepancies in the length and density of hair in particular regions, but all three great ape species are almost completely covered in hair. (One such discrepancy is that the gorilla has rather more hair on the cheeks than does a chimp.)

Of course, everything I say about chimps, gorrillas and humans applies with equal force to the vast majority of mammals. My cats have hair in exactly the same parts of their anatomy as I do mine. They don't have hair on the soles of their feet either.


Paul