Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[ET_]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Um, you are implying that God HAD to create things He created. Where are you getting that God didn't do it simply because God wanted to do it?

Ok, let's assume He wanted to.

Can we assume the possibility that he wouldn't want?

If we can't, then there is a logical break in the concept of His being omnipotent.
If we can, then there is a possible universe with a useless God.

Now, follow me: If God HAD NOT to create us, but wanted to, then you put the will, a feeling, in a supernatural creature. But being that will a human feeling, it is an imperfect one. So, exercing that will, God had corrupt Himself with something that was not perfect.

If I logically follow your speech, I deduce that you consider God as an imperfect being.

Luigi

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by xilman

I claimed that I could postulate that the moon is made of green cheese, which elicited the response:


I don't think so. I believe you may have misunderstood my response. There are times when I hope that subtlety may be understood. In this case, it clearly was not.

To become blatant therefore: you can postulate anything and everything you want. Whether or not your postulates are worth anything to anyone else depends entirely on how well they match others' observations and/or how much they are useful to them for developing their own ideas. You may believe that your postulates are useful in that sense. Others, for reasons they think convincing, may not find them useful.

Very well, I postulate that the straight lines of Euclidean geometry make beautiful music.


Your turn.


Paul

Yes if you could possibly hear it!

I postulate that whatever one can conceive has the potential of existence otherwise it cannot be conceived if non existent!

We only have six senses yes 6 and we are pretty well limited even if we have instruments that are sensitive beyond our sensual powers!

There is a whole wide world out there and we are in the midst of it.

So think what you please and dream, there's nothing that can stop you. Provided one can visualize it !

My thoughts travel faster than light. Im on Alpha Centauri right now. Light would take 4 yrs to reach it. That's it-the speed of light is also infinite. It is the speed of interaction with matter that is 'c' and proportional to the distance from its source.

Mally

[mfgoode]

Your Kind attention Mike (XYYZY - I can never remember the combination)

I am not getting any alerts for Soap box and Science and Technology. This has resulted in me missing a lot of replies unless I visit the particular thread.

Kindly rectify this lacuna.

Thanks,

Mally

[cheesehead]

Folks,

Let us remember that the title topic of this thread is "Evolution: The Scientific Evidence".

Evolution is not theology. It is science.

The existence, nonexistence, or nature of God is irrelevant to whether evolution is a valid scientific theory. Scientific validity depends only on human endeavors. (And keep in mind that a scientific theory is not the same as a mathematical theorem.)

Now, we all may or may not draw some emotional or intellectual connection between God and evolution, but in order to be on-topic, one would have to refer to some scientific aspect of God ... and there are some, such as that God involves human thought, and there are scientific aspects to human thought. (Note that I'm not repeating here my assertion, posted elsewhere, that God doesn't exist outside human thought. But if someone claims existence of God outside human thought, I may ask for scientific evidence of that claim.)

Personally, I intend to confine my own remarks about God in this thread to the scientific (e.g., psychological) aspects of God and not necessarily complain that anyone else's remarks about God are off-topic.

Also note that I'm not asserting here that evolution is necessarily "outside God". But whether or not that is true means nothing about the scientific validity of evolution.

Also note that I'm not saying that no one can mention God in this thread (after all, all words posted here are the product of human thought, and God involves human thought); I'm just opining that all such mentions, in order to be on-topic, need to be somehow connected to the scientific evidence for evolution.

The reason for all these "not saying"/"not asserting" is to indicate where I'm not trying to pick a fight with God-believers.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Also note that I'm not saying that evolution is necessarily "outside God". But whether or not that is true means nothing about the scientific validity of evolution.

It is sufficiently "outside God"

Luigi

[ewmayer]

OK, now that the "why has evolution not eliminated homesexuality?" topic has been hashed over pretty thoroughly, time for another interesting evolutionary question especially pertinent to humans and related hominid species/societies:

Why do women undergo menopause, but not men?

The answer to the first part of the question appears fairly obvious - because the childbearing is exclusively the province of females and child-rearing (at least historically) has been a burden that has disproportionally been borne by them as well, and since both are physically extremely taxing, it makes perfect evolutionary sense that this burden should fall on young, physically vigorous females - at some point the risk of physical (and to some degree genetic) harm becomes too great, and menopause is evolution's way of reinforcing that point.

So for men, the fact that they contribute (in a direct sense) only their genetic material to their children makes for one obvious reason why they continue to produce sperm (usually in sufficient amounts to father a child naturally) throughout their lifetimes. But that seems to me a little too facile a conclusion. Here are some reasons why it would be harmful for older men to regularly father children:

1) Accumulated germline damage and mutations increase the risk of genetic defects getting passed on to their children;

2) Older men less physically able to provide food and protection (i.e. indirect parental benefits) to their offspring.

In many other mammals which live in social groups (e.g. lions, wolves) this issue is largely moot, because only a dominant male is allowed to father children, and as soon as his physical powers decline to the point that he is no longer able to defeat a younger/stronger rival male in the inevitable physical struggle for male dominance, he is killed or driven from the pride/pack and no longer has access to females. In many of those cases evolution has gone even further and programmed males to kill all the young offspring of the rival male they just defeated, and the females to immediately come into estrus as a direct result of such an event. That indicates extremely strong selection pressure against older males fathering children. So what makes humans different in this respect?

The only plausible reason I've been able to think of to date is some effect due to the uniquely complex and mixed-sex nature of human and (to a lesser extent primate) social groups. In human societies (focusing on "throughout human history" here, not necessarily modern urban living), it is less frequently the case that a single dominant male fathers all the children (although kudos to Genghis Khan for making a valiant effort in this regard.) Also, attaining leadership in human societies generally requires far more than mere physical prowess: it requires cunning in forming alliances, wisdom and experience in leading the group, and such. Could the fact that human men can and frequently do father children when they are near the end of life be a reflection that there are profound survival and reproduction benefits for children of a dominant male in human societies, which outweigh the adverse biological effects related to the generally long time it takes many men to achieve the requisite high-social-status positions?

It's said one needs to be careful in throwing stereotypes around, but that of the "May/December romance" (which occurs almost exclusively between an older male and a younger woman, and is an indulgence reserved almost entirely for men of above-average wealth and status) is so common that there simply has to be something deeper to it than the "old lecher" aspect, in the biological/evolutionary sense.

Disclaimer: I hereby aver that I am neither dating a younger woman, nor do I have a financial interest in one -- though that may change quickly if a skirt-swishing cutie comes sashaying saucily by and smiles at me sweetly in future. ;)

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I don't understand how "potentially godless" translates to "pointless," nor why anyone would see the universe as any less of an amazing place without an imaginary white-bearded dude "up there" somewhere, allegedly running the show.

Novelist Joseph Conrad put this (and his overall perspective on religion-as-self-delusion) far better than I ever could:

"The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is - marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intelligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state. No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvellous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural, which (take it any way you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity.

'Whatever my native modesty may be it will never condescend to seek help for my imagination within those vain imaginings common to all ages and that in themselves are enough to fill all lovers of mankind with unutterable sadness."

(Joseph Conrad, 'Author's Note' to The Shadow-Line, 1920.)

[jinydu]

I'm not so sure about ewmayer's claims in his post on menopause. From the point of view of evolution, shouldn't bad children still be better than no children? A hypothesis I read was that reproductive aging occurs because sacrificing reproductive vitality later in life enables an increase earlier in life which is adaptive because of the ever present risk of sudden death.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ET_

Not at all!

His proof is still believed as a most logically correct one.
The only way to defy it is applying it to a metaphisical reasoning system.

Luigi

Thank you. Over the years I have to force myself to remember that people are not always insulting me when I am involved in topics like this one, but even I can't help it at times.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ET_

Ok, let's assume He wanted to.

Can we assume the possibility that he wouldn't want?

If we can't, then there is a logical break in the concept of His being omnipotent.
If we can, then there is a possible universe with a useless God.

Now, follow me: If God HAD NOT to create us, but wanted to, then you put the will, a feeling, in a supernatural creature. But being that will a human feeling, it is an imperfect one. So, exercing that will, God had corrupt Himself with something that was not perfect.

If I logically follow your speech, I deduce that you consider God as an imperfect being.

Luigi

Um, why is there a "break" just because God doesn't want to do something? I mean, "omnipotent" does not mean "compelled to do something", unless you're using a different definition than I know. Being all powerful doesn't mean God has to do anything. God, by definition, can't be imperfect. Having feelings doesn't make God imperfect, otherwise God couldn't love humanity. Are you saying some emotions are perfect and others are not?

[Jwb52z]

ewmayer, I was under the assumption that science has confirmed a type of male menopause, just not resulting in the complete inability of a man to father children.