proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

The short answer: We needed to be able to gossip.

The long answer: Early hominids leaving the forest found themselves in a unique situation in which cooperation among themselves in novel ways gave them a special evolutionary advantage. To do this they needed to communicate, and so they evolved complex facial expressions and voice sounds. As time went on, and communications needed to be more complex, combinations of sounds were the most effective means of doing so.

Why don't all the other animals talk? Most animals do have some basic means of communicating by voice, but nothing nearly as complex as what humans do. Hominids did this at great price. Early on they gave up much of their sense of smell so they could concentrate more brainpower to the difficult task of understanding each other. That led to bigger and bigger brains, but hominids were limited by the size of the head that could pass through the birth canal. So they evolved the novel solution that the brain continued to grow after birth. That's cool, but as a result, babies are very helpless for several years after birth. That required a lot of resources to feed and care for helpless babies, and it required mothers to get commitment from others in the species. Hominids were able to do that. All that patience in caring for babies led to the smartest creatures on earth, creatures that were able to talk and understand each other, creatures that were able to work together to find new ways to get food and protect themselves, creatures that could develop deep relationships based on mutual trust.

Which brings me back to my original point. Hominids needed deep trusting relationships, and to do that they needed to know whom they could trust. There is no better method to find out who will stab you when your back is turned but to gossip. And so hominids spent long hours around the fire in the evenings, telling stories about who did what. And from that, they learned who they could trust, and developed deep relationships with those they selected, and that allowed them to build the communities necessary to grow helpless babies into adults with big brains.

So we learned to talk so we could gossip and commit to each other and grow babies into adults with big brains.

Need does not result in ability. Such a long post with absolutely no scientific evidence. The usual evo rhetoric. Thanks.

A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless. Simone Weil

 

[Kylie]

I don't waste time on ignorant concepts.

That's fine - Pitabread was asking xianghua, not you.

 

[Kylie]

Oh good more assumptions. Many of those so called humans can't be shown to really be humans. And certainly not one of them are of any evidence of all things coming from a common ancestor.

Citation required.

From a qualified scientist in a relevant field please!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

None have posted any verifiable, scientific evidence. If you think they have , then you don't understand what scientific evidence is.

That's a dishonest claim and you know it.

 

[pitabread]

Another excuse. It can b e done in a short paragraph of 50 words or less.

Perhaps if you were a small child of limited understanding I might endeavor to simplify things in such a manner.

But given that your profile says you are 85 years of age, I would think by now you have more than the intellectual capability needed to digest something longer than 50 words, and wouldn't want to insult you with the need to dumb down any material for your consumption.

What is really happening here is you would if you could but you can't.

Uh-huh. Like I said, you get to believe whatever you want. Good luck.

 

[pitabread]

A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless.

The funny thing about science is that creationists are happy to reject the sciences, just not the benefits it provides.

 

[pitabread]

That's a dishonest claim and you know it.

What I don't get is who they are trying to convince. I mean, we all know they are lying. But do they know they are lying?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's fine - Pitabread was asking xianghua, not you.

... and xianghua does waste time on ignorant concepts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It can b e done in a short paragraph of 50 words or less.



What is really happening here is you would if you could but you can't.

You may be confusing us with creationists. Creationists frequently argue with (out of context) quotes of 50 words or less. Scientists argue with lengthy journal articles when dealing with complex issues.

Sorry, we are not going to start quote mining.

 

[BradB]

So you can point to a physical vessel that we can examine?

Can you point to a specific physical vessel that created the pyramids? The pyramids are a big part of the evidence that those "vessels" the Egyptians existed. Not the other way around. You are asking me to present evidence for God. So I present to you with specificity observed in the make up of the laws of physics, the universe, and life, and you then ask for evidence of God. The specificity is the evidence.

Citation Please.

You want a citation that something has never been observed coming from nothing? How about a citation that invisible pink elephants have never been observed? We draw the logical conclusion that invisible pink elephants do not exist because no human (sober) has ever reported encountering one. Likewise we draw the conclusion that something infinite formed the universe because the universe is finite and we have never observed something come from nothing. Thus if ever nothing existed then nothing would still exist. Since something exists therefore something must have always existed. If it is not the universe (which we observe to be finite) then that means something else responsible for the formation of the universe must therefore have always existed.

Citation Please! This all sounds like unsubstantiated claims...

I cite the whole of human knowledge. The laws of physics are specifically fine tuned at exact parameters needed for life. The arrangement of the universe, solar system, and our planet is specifically set at exact parameters needed for life to exist. And the code found in the DNA of all life is so specific that it warps our most sophisticated software programs. Specificity has only been observed coming from intelligence. Thus the infinite something that is responsible for the universe must also be highly intelligent in nature.

 

[Astrophile]

What caused us to lose our prehensile tails? That seems like a very useful characteristic.

First, no Old World primate has a prehensile tail; that 'very useful characteristic' is restricted to New World Primates and some animals that are not primates - Prehensile tail - Wikipedia .

Second, you are citing in support of your beliefs a fact that is strong evidence for our common ancestry with the apes. Most primates have tails (although not necessarily prehensile ones), but the apes, like ourselves, are tail-less. How did this shared tail-less state arise except as a result of the common ancestry of humans and the other apes?

If you think about it, God could have created humans with tails and apes without tails, or vice versa, and either arrangement would have been strong evidence against our having common ancestors with the apes. This would have been very convenient for the evolution-deniers, so why didn't God do it?

 

[Astrophile]

The short answer: We needed to be able to gossip.

The long answer: Early hominids leaving the forest found themselves in a unique situation in which cooperation among themselves in novel ways gave them a special evolutionary advantage. To do this they needed to communicate, and so they evolved complex facial expressions and voice sounds. As time went on, and communications needed to be more complex, combinations of sounds were the most effective means of doing so.

Why don't all the other animals talk? Most animals do have some basic means of communicating by voice, but nothing nearly as complex as what humans do. Hominids did this at great price. Early on they gave up much of their sense of smell so they could concentrate more brainpower to the difficult task of understanding each other. That led to bigger and bigger brains, but hominids were limited by the size of the head that could pass through the birth canal. So they evolved the novel solution that the brain continued to grow after birth. That's cool, but as a result, babies are very helpless for several years after birth. That required a lot of resources to feed and care for helpless babies, and it required mothers to get commitment from others in the species. Hominids were able to do that. All that patience in caring for babies led to the smartest creatures on earth, creatures that were able to talk and understand each other, creatures that were able to work together to find new ways to get food and protect themselves, creatures that could develop deep relationships based on mutual trust.

Which brings me back to my original point. Hominids needed deep trusting relationships, and to do that they needed to know whom they could trust. There is no better method to find out who will stab you when your back is turned but to gossip. And so hominids spent long hours around the fire in the evenings, telling stories about who did what. And from that, they learned who they could trust, and developed deep relationships with those they selected, and that allowed them to build the communities necessary to grow helpless babies into adults with big brains.

Thank-you for this excellent post. If I may add a minor, speculative point, the fact that babies are very helpless for several years after birth meant that human settlements had to be near to a source of fresh water, such as a river or a lake, and that, in turn, means that humans are particularly vulnerable to floods. See Genesis 7:10-24 for details.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Can you point to a specific physical vessel that created the pyramids? The pyramids are a big part of the evidence that those "vessels" the Egyptians existed. Not the other way around. You are asking me to present evidence for God. So I present to you with specificity observed in the make up of the laws of physics, the universe, and life, and you then ask for evidence of God. The specificity is the evidence.

We know the Egyptian Civilisation built the Pyramids because of the Evidence! Their writing are on the walls talking about their Gods and their Leaders and their Civilisations.... We can examine The Pyramids 'til the cows come home and then some.

So, I'll take it you don't have evidence of this 'Intelligence' or anything that embodies it then...?

You want a citation that something has never been observed coming from nothing? How about a citation that invisible pink elephants have never been observed? We draw the logical conclusion that invisible pink elephants do not exist because no human (sober) has ever reported encountering one.

Well, the thing is I know it doesn't exist without even a wink of looking because it's either invisible or pink. Just like a Married Bachelor doesn't exist, an invisible pink elephant doesn't exist because of the mutually exclusive descriptors that you use to describe it.

Perhaps though, you can tell me how there's not a teapot orbiting Jupiter? This is something you can't actually rule out with 100% certainty if you're talking science. Now, on the Universe, we can't see the beginning of the universe, let alone outside and/or before it (if as discussed, such a thing can actually happen), and knowing that time is an intrinsic part of the fabric of this universes 3 dimensions along with gravity, you can't just assert that this universe didn't come from nothing. Or perhaps it was always here, and this is just the current representation of the most recent 13.8 billion years or so (and yes, there is a plausible explanation that describes an eternal universe which appears finite to 13.8 billion years).

Likewise we draw the conclusion that something infinite formed the universe because the universe is finite

Could a Multiverse be infinite? Could (as mentioned) this universe be infinite

and we have never observed something come from nothing.

Have you observed the beginning of something that contains time, like a Universe?

Thus if ever nothing existed then nothing would still exist. Since something exists therefore something must have always existed. If it is not the universe (which we observe to be finite) then that means something else responsible for the formation of the universe must therefore have always existed.

Do you not understand how the universe contains the time we experience and not time containing the universe we experience? I know this must be hard to get, but Time and the 3 dimensions of space are all WITHIN This Universe! Not outside of it. If you were outside of this universe, there's a chance that there's no time and no space for you to exist in. We've already been able to demonstrate that even in space void of all matter, the universe still has intrinsic properties and fields we know as the very fabric of time & space, it still contains quantum fluctuations, etc. this very fabric of the universe is how particles like the Higgs-Boson interact to give mass and weight, etc. Without it, we simply wouldn't exist.

I cite the whole of human knowledge. The laws of physics are specifically fine tuned at exact parameters needed for life.

Are you sure it isn't Life that's fine tuned to the exact parameters needed to live in this universe according to the laws of physics that exist here? After all, the universe and laws of physics came first...

The arrangement of the universe, solar system, and our planet is specifically set at exact parameters needed for life to exist.

Or maybe life is specifically evolved to maximise our advantage in the arrangement of the universe, solar system, and our planet?

And the code found in the DNA of all life is so specific that it warps our most sophisticated software programs.

lol! no it doesn't - or Citation for that claim too please...

Specificity has only been observed coming from intelligence.

Snowflakes aren't observed coming from any intelligence, chemical reactions aren't observed coming from intelligence, Crystals aren't observed coming from any Intelligence, radioactive decay and nuclear reactions aren't observed coming from an intelligence, DNA isn't observed coming from intelligence, RNA isn't observed coming from Intelligence, etc.

Thus the infinite something that is responsible for the universe must also be highly intelligent in nature.

Except nobody has observed one even exists let alone is responsible for everything, including many things that can be explained naturally. Sorry to break it to you...

 

[Astrophile]

Not sure how any of this changes what I said?

(added)
According to the Base Units of the International System, the second is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." The thing to keep in mind here is this is what we as a people have agreed internationally to call a basic unit of time measurement. Even though such a basic unit might be the same for us anywhere in the universe it does not logically mean that if anyone else exists they would have decided to use this same standard of measure. Thus my "base line" comment still stands.

Of course, this is true; if extra-terrestrials exist it is almost certain that they do not use the same system of units that we do. However, that does not mean that the physical nature of time depends on human ideas about it.

I don't see what point it is that you are trying to make. As you say yourself,

such a basic unit might be the same for us anywhere in the universe

With the SI definition of the second a scientist could construct a clock anywhere in the universe that would keep seconds, minutes, hours, etc., just as well as a terrestrial clock, and he or she could use the clock to make measurements of physical phenomena just as well as another scientist in a terrestrial laboratory. So what is the point of your argument?

 

[xianghua]

Prove that a system in life was so irreducibly complex that natural processes of evolution could not have evolved it.

on the same principle that such a system cant evolve in a man-made objects.

And if you tell me animals are limited by the same limits as mechanical devices, I will disagree.

if you cant prove that there is indeed such a different, why should we believe that such a different exist?

 

[xianghua]

Quit trying to change the subject. I asked you to prove that self-replicating cars exist, since you keep mentioning them all the time.

Now, can you prove that self replicating cars are real or can't you?

no they arent real. its just an analogy. and a good one.

 

[xianghua]

The simplest eyes in multicellular organisms consist of just 2 cells, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell. So, the minimum is 2 parts, and the formation of darker pigmented cells happens a lot via random mutation. Plus, the photoreceptor would react to light even without that pigmented cell, because the organisms that have these are semi-transparent; it just wouldn't react as strongly.


Two steps really aren't that hard to take.

ok. but since a tipical protein has about 2-3 domains its actually more like 4-5 different parts. agree?

 

[Speedwell]

ok. but since a tipical protein has about 2-3 domains its actually more like 4-5 different parts. agree?

So what? The parallel evolution of related biological strutures is well understood.

 

[pitabread]

no they arent real. its just an analogy. and a good one.

Why do you think it's a good analogy?

Nobody else seems to think so. So what do you know that we don't?

 

[xianghua]

Why do you think it's a good analogy?

because they are both complex and they are both able to reproduce in this case. so why not?