Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Knowledge and education can, when combined with the human tendency toward self-importance and arrogance, be the very thing that leads a person down the wrong path

So can Ignorance (or false knowledge) and lack of education - look at the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, or the horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia - both of those were very anti-knowledge, or at least, against any kind of knowledge or learning they had not decreed as "right."

science has led to some great advances, but also, because science has no moral compass or limits of its own, it has led to some very agregious things, even if sometimes they turned out to have a beneficial effect in the future in some way by using the same knowledge.

Organized religion has, despite its supposed built-in "moral compass," similarly led to many egregious acts, and I would argue, with very little on the "great advances" side of the ledger to show for it. (At least in the sense of advances that can be objectively demonstrated and are of benefit to humanity as a whole, not just the self-appointed "chosen" of that particular faith.) Really the only objective good I can really see that has come from the major religions is some great religiously-inspired art and music - but I also can't help but think that e.g. a genius like Mozart would have probably done great things irrespective of the particular religious upbringing he might have had, i.e. that genius requires no nurturing in a particular religious creed. And on the downside of the ledger, I see a genius like Thomas Aquinas spending his life trying to lend a "rigorous" foundation to a completely invented belief system (cf. my "angels dancing on the head of a pin" reference - that was a direct reference to Aquinas) as, quite simply, a waste of a great mind. I realize that probably sounds like a harsh appraisal, but think how much someone of that caliber could have benefited humanity as a whole if he had instead done science, or written literature or music rather than dense, circularly-reasoned religious tracts.

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

No, I can't with those conditions or guidelines and your opinion as you have said it here.

At least, do you agree with the validity of such guidelines? Do you agree that it doesn't make much sense to say "I believe it because it's true and it's true because I believe it"?

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I've always looked at it as "If we're not supposed to know it, we never will, or there's no way to know it, unless it is a matter of free will and temptation to doing wrong

This is something I really have never understood in religious discourse. You were going well; your reasoning if we are or not supposed to know some things seems to me as a valid epistemological questioning - it's always important to ask ourselves how, and why, do we know the things we know. But then you've picked up from nowhere something completely different, ethics. If I understand your post correctly, then you derive your sense of morality and ethics from your religious beliefs; and, since you do that, you suppose everybody should do the same.

Now, it'd be a perfectly valid objection if you didn't want to take my word just by and for itself, but there are a lot of people here in this forum and elsewhere who don't agree with your thought. They believe that ethics do exist, but they need not come from a supernatural (=God) origin, instead, they can be perfectly explained in only natural terms. I'd refer you to the Brights' homepage.

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

Neither of us is gaining anything.

I'm in college right now and I'll comment further on this post when I'm home. The two quick things I'd say about it are:

(a) Not only has it done nothing to refute my post which it was answering, but it gave it further basis, since you kept not-answering even longer.

(b) I'd apply Ernst's "speak for yourself" to the phrase I quoted. I've gained a lot here, in terms of testing some skills (e.g. my English) and reaching a less shallow understanding on how a religious believer's mind works.

As for the scientific evidence you expected for the next 5 years, you should wait no longer (I quote Ewmayer's selection of that Nature paper):

"[G]ene expression changes in the brain have been more dramatic in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage."

See? Although gene changes themselves didn't happen at a larger than expected rate (which was your one and lonely argument), their expression was indeed "more dramatic". You may read my "doesn't hold water" argument and see I'd said changes in humans weren't larger, only had larger effects - it's a bit like taking 2^32582657 - 2: it's definitely not a prime number, but add only 1 and presto! you have the biggest known prime number. Small things making large differences.

Bruno

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

there are a lot of people here in this forum and elsewhere who don't agree with your thought. They believe that ethics do exist, but they need not come from a supernatural (=God) origin, instead, they can be perfectly explained in only natural terms. I'd refer you to the Brights' homepage.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the Brights' aims and most of their stated philosophy, I must confess that I never like the name much - bit too artsy-fartsy for my taste. I prefer the older-fashioned, simple, "freethinker."

I do especially like this comment by Daniel Dennett, though:

We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

Moderatorial note: I think at some point in the near future most of posts here consisting predominantly of religious discourse and contributing little or nothing to the stated topic of the thread (including several of mine) will need to be moved into one of the nearby religion threads, but I'll make a post listing the specific ones I have in mind for any such move, for commentary, before doing the move. In the meantime feel free to keep the discussion flowing.

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Maybe I just thought I already answered this. There's no test that I know of that can be done to do that. That's the short version of what I thought I said already.

Well, do you see then why the lack of "purpose" is a flawed objection to scientific accounts of the Universe? "Intention" and "purpose" are attributes that can only be assigned to the actions of organisms with complex brains. Outside of that, assertions about purpose are merely anthropomorphizations (assignment of human attributes to inhuman things), as groundless as claims that the Moon is female (or male).

To quote Judge Jones' ruling on a recent Intelligent Design case:

Originally Posted by Jones

This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf

[mfgoode]

Though at this late stage of the thread I Never the less
herein enter the fray, and borrow extracts from M. R. DeHaan M.D. founder of Radio Bible Class and will be doing so right thru this thread.

Atheistic evolution substitutes the image of a monkey for the ‘image of God’.
Then too, there is no room for a ‘fall’ which Genesis records of the first man, Adam. Evolution teaches a development upward, and not a fall downward to total depravity. To the problem of ‘sin’ and where it comes from, evolution says “All the evil and bad tendencies in man are the remnants and carry over, or survival of his ancestral traits. Cruelty, lust and deceitfulness are but the residue of the tiger and the ape in man, and as he evolves still more, he will finally also get rid of these, just as we have lost our tails in the process of evolving upward’!
But if this be true, that we are evolving upward, how do you account for the fact that man at the top of the evolutionary ladder is guilty of crimes and cruelties no respectable animal would stoop to do or consider?

Well lets change the venue and hear what the monkeys have to say about us.

‘Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
Looking down on people like you and me.
Said one to another, Now listen you,
There’s a certain rumour that can’t be true,
That man descended from our noble race;
The very idea is a rank disgrace.

No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruled her life,
And you’ve never seen a mother monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk;
With babysitters of one sort or another;
Till they scarcely know who is their mother;

And another thing you’ll never see,
A monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the other coconuts go to waste,
Rather t hen let someone else have a taste;
Why, If I put a fence around my tree;
I’d only invite you to steal from me.

Here’s another thing a monk won’t do,
Go out at night; and come home in a stew;
Or use a gun, a club or a knife;
To take some other monkeys life;
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss;
But he surely never descended from us!

I’d rather believe the monkeys, than those who disgrace the monkeys by trying to horn in on their family tree !

Mally..

[garo]

given the poem you quote, Mally I hink you will agree that evolution formonkey to man was in fact a fall.

[jinydu]

First of all, I think it is important to point out that evolutionary theory does not claim that humans evolved from (modern day) monkeys. Instead, humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor several million years ago that is different from both humans and monkeys.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Cruelty, lust and deceitfulness are but the residue of the tiger and the ape in man,

That's sort of right; but cruelty, for instance, is quite different in other species that lack the ability to carry out complex thoughts. The tiger would probably call it survival, not cruelty.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

and as he evolves still more, he will finally also get rid of these, just as we have lost our tails in the process of evolving upward’!

Definitely not. Remember, evolution is not "upward" (in the sense of increasingly moral) process. Evolution says that inheritable traits that increase the probability of survival and reproduction will tend to become more common over time. Do cruelty, lust and deceitfulness decrease the chances of survival and reproduction? Evidently not; in some cases, they (especially lust) may even increase said chances. So no, evolutionary theory does not predict that they will die out.

Also remember that traits that are beneficial to survival and reproduction in one environment may be harmful in other environments. So there isn't really one universal standard for "good" traits (by which I mean traits that increase reproductive fitness); it depends on the environment.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

At least, do you agree with the validity of such guidelines? Do you agree that it doesn't make much sense to say "I believe it because it's true and it's true because I believe it"?

If I could believe that was not valid at all, I would be closer to being an atheist.

Originally Posted by brunoparga

This is something I really have never understood in religious discourse. You were going well; your reasoning if we are or not supposed to know some things seems to me as a valid epistemological questioning - it's always important to ask ourselves how, and why, do we know the things we know. But then you've picked up from nowhere something completely different, ethics. If I understand your post correctly, then you derive your sense of morality and ethics from your religious beliefs; and, since you do that, you suppose everybody should do the same.

Basically, that's correct, yes.

Originally Posted by brunoparga

Now, it'd be a perfectly valid objection if you didn't want to take my word just by and for itself, but there are a lot of people here in this forum and elsewhere who don't agree with your thought. They believe that ethics do exist, but they need not come from a supernatural (=God) origin, instead, they can be perfectly explained in only natural terms. I'd refer you to the Brights' homepage.

I understand. You really believe that ethical and moral ideas can exist in and of themselves without an origin and just "occur to people" who then decide that they are a good idea and use them. At least, that's what it sounds like you are saying.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by jinydu

Well, do you see then why the lack of "purpose" is a flawed objection to scientific accounts of the Universe? "Intention" and "purpose" are attributes that can only be assigned to the actions of organisms with complex brains. Outside of that, assertions about purpose are merely anthropomorphizations (assignment of human attributes to inhuman things), as groundless as claims that the Moon is female (or male).

To quote Judge Jones' ruling on a recent Intelligent Design case:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf

I understand why you think such a thing, but it doesn't cause me to agree.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by jinydu

First of all, I think it is important to point out that evolutionary theory does not claim that humans evolved from (modern day) monkeys. Instead, humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor several million years ago that is different from both humans and monkeys.

Can you back up your statement? I certainly want to know which brute do I originate from and where exactly do I meet a monkey in the past and shake hands with him as a spiritual off shoot from a half developed man.
The Golden rule is "each after its own kind" (species).
If you say that the theory of adaptation to environment and circumstances and natural selection is true it certainly suggests some gruesome possibilities for our race.
I can imagine by your theory to see some humpbacked farmers, with enormous muscular bodies, large headed students with short sighted eyes, office workers with useless shrunken legs, many fingered piano players, mail carriers with legs way out of proportion to their bodies and night watchman with bulging eyes as big as saucers .
Hey, jinydu please read and study Genesis first. You must look at both sides of the coin to evaluate it.

Man is made up of at least two parts- one), physical and two), spiritual. He is a finished being from the start. God does not leave an unfinished creation in man. No amount of evolution can make a man better than what he was 6000 ears ago when he was created.
I have had the good fortune, nay Blessing, to have set my eyes on Egyptian mummies 4000 years old and older. Believe me they'd look the same as you and me if you put on some colour and flesh on them. No they dont not look like Pro Mag-non man. The golden covering on Tutankhamen will give you an idea what the man looked like. He would put Brad Pitt in the shade I tell you. Could your ancestor build a structure like the Great Pyramid of Cheops?

That's sort of right; but cruelty, for instance, is quite different in other species that lack the ability to carry out complex thoughts. The tiger would probably call it survival, not cruelty.

The law is that the more highly developed the brain is, there is the possibility of greater crime its capable off
BTW the tiger is not preyed upon. He is the hunter and a gentleman at that.
He does not kill for fun but for his food which is a necessity.

Definitely not. Remember, evolution is not "upward" (in the sense of increasingly moral) process. Evolution says that inheritable traits that increase the probability of survival and reproduction will tend to become more common over time. Do cruelty, lust and deceitfulness decrease the chances of survival and reproduction? Evidently not; in some cases, they (especially lust) may even increase said chances. So no, evolutionary theory does not predict that they will die out.

Man was perfect when created but he 'FELL' physically. He has a whole spiritual evolution ahead of him. This is an aspect you have not taken into consideration.

Also remember that traits that are beneficial to survival and reproduction in one environment may be harmful in other environments. So there isn't really one universal standard for "good" traits (by which I mean traits that increase reproductive fitness); it depends on the environment.

The Rule is each after its kind.
To sum up the findings of Science in four words- mutations but no transmutations.
The facts of nature disprove the theory of natural selection, or survival of the fittest, as applied to the transmutation of species.
It is a fact that improvements in a species result from careful 'cultivation' and not natural selection. The various superior varieties if left alone will not improve but instead will revert to the original strain- they all revert to the wild.
The bamboo strains Paul is dealing with remain bamboo not tall grass.
I would like to see an ungrafted rose come out of a bamboo shoot!
Please read Genesis and study it. It is worth the time you take on studying atheistic evoution.
Mally