The Demise of Evolution

[Kylie]

Bower birds certainly appear to use art in their displays, many song birds could be said to use music...

Not to mention the many animals that use dance to attract mates

 

[Hans Blaster]

Second, how did we become eusocial, that is a huge one because without it we wouldn't be able to live in communities greater than 100 (all of our primate cousins are not eusocial), and it is the fact that we live in large communities of millions, have specialized jobs, allow other to take care of our kids, etc that allows us to really impact the earth in a way that no other species does. Dr. Wilson points out (without any dispute I might add) that the 18 eusocial species have by far the biggest impact on the planet, far more than millions of other species.

I can't say I was aware of the term "eusocial" before this discussion, but after reading this thread and external sources, I don't think the term really applies to humans. One characteristic is apparently "division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups". No such thing exists in humans, now or in the past. We have plenty of division of labor in human societies including by sex and life stage, but not by reproducing and non-reproducing groups.

There are lots of animals that live in large groups (flock of birds including nesting colonies, schools of fish), but I don't see any evidence that anyone considers those eusocial.

Our species is social. We work together to accomplish things that we couldn't otherwise, to obtain food, to protect our communities, to provide shelter, and even to raise children, but these do not mean that we fit the definition of "eusocial". Nor frankly is the self-reinforcing development of social cooperation in our ancestors some sort of "problem" for which evolutionary development is a problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

and third, how did we evolve to have a living soul?

Firstly, I see no evidence that we have souls, living or otherwise.

Secondly, even when I thought there were such things I never considered how they "evolved". Though I never took Genesis as a literal description of the origin of lifeforms (including humans) there were a few places where divine intervention had occurred, the granting of "souls" to a particular group of primates was something the I suspected had been done by Yahweh. It certainly wasn't anything any thing described in any science book I read, so since "souls" were something connected with the religion there was no reason to think that they "evolved" but rather were a give from god. (At least when I still accepted the concept of god, though the specifics of what I believed and when are messy since my disconnection from religious belief was fairly long and religion was never a central interest in my life.)

In summary, science (that is the application of the scientific methods to study nature) has no evidence of souls (eternal or otherwise) it has no reason to explain their "origin".

 

[roman2819]

Science neither confirm nor deny God, ie science is neutral, we know that. Science evaluate stuff based on data, knowledge and evidence, we know that too. And science does not investigate everything ie it is not all encompassing - we know that but many people like to think that it is as good as everything. In fact, there are MANY aspects of our life where we do not use science to confirm – instead we use our senses, intuition, power of observation, faith and probability, which works too.


For instance: Do you always use science to prove human feelings (love, anger, greed, hatred etc). Does someone who is dating another person use science?

Secondly, science does not and cannot explain things in the spiritual realm --but spirits do exist on earth. In your part of the world, America and Europe, you may not see this more than people in Asia (even though some Hollywood movies about true stories of haunting in USA and Europe – but science won't confirm the haunting, ghosts or spirits) .

I will try to keep this true incident brief (and it is only ONE of the many such spiritual things that happen). Many years ago, a close friend at same church was on the verge of death, from a lightning strike. He was the only Christian among his many siblings, and as he laid comatose for a few days in hospital, his family decided to consult the temple medium (a pagan priest) who communicated with spirits. Although our church was not agreeable, however, we cannot stop the family. As the medium called upon ithe spirit, he did something to an ordinary porcelain bowl -- he cast a spell, so to speak. He then threw the bowl on the floor and if it broke, my friend would die, and if the bowl didn’t break, my friend would live -- the medium said. At first throw, the porcelain bowl didn’t break. My friend’s family asked him to throw it up in the air so it would fall from a great height. The medium did, the bowl didn’t break. They requested the medium to throw even high, as much as 15 feet – my friend 's brother told me later-- the bowl dropped to ground and didn’t break. He was asked to repeat the highest throw, but the result was same. After the ceremony ended and the spirit’s presence left, the priest, to show that he did not use a fake porcelain bowl, dropped it to the ground, and it broke into pieces. The family told the church members about what they saw. Although I did not witness the process, however, I am sure they would not lie. They even believed that their brother would live. A few days later, however, he died. The siblings, in a state of deep grief, related the same temple process to people who came for the funeral ie they could not be lying.

Can science explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown a few times from high during the spiritual process, and after the spirit left, it broke when thrown from a few feet above ground?

Now, this is not the only unexplained spiritual phenomena. There are many in this part of the world. In about 2010, in Singapore, one incident even went to court as the woman, who used to have a snake spirit, sued the Catholic church, blaming them for mental and physical pain she felt after she was exorcised. During the hearing, the priests and church members narrated that the woman could move like a snake on the floor during the exorcism. Can science explain such spiritual phenomena? And there are MANY more such cases in Asia.

Today, we travelled in aeroplanes, sent text messages to people far far away in the blink of an eye, and do gene therapy.... but these do not mean that science and technology have found everything, far far from it. But some people seem to think it has discovered most things, as good as all things or almost everything. When science hasn't discovered God, some people claim that creator doesn't exist because science hasn't confirmed it -- ie going against how science reasons, and making a false claim.

Science does not say non-scientific explanations are unreliable or wrong. But some people say that millions of lifeforms does not mean God created them -- just because science didn't prove it. They claim that life started on its own and evolved beautifully into millions of life : and even though they have no proof, they like to imagine that their hypothesis hold water, which is contradictory to their claim to believe in scientific proofs only.

Some people deny the power of observations, common sense, intuition, probability, process of elimination etc. Does science tell you to do so? Or are you denying your basic intelligence in order to make it more complicated and intellectual? Or you deny the Creator's existence and creation because of personal ANTI-GOD feeling --- that's the truth isn't?

 

[roman2819]

Of course not. Speedwell has already dealt with this. Science doesn't deal in proofs. It builds explanations based upon observation and testing.

I don't believe anything. Belief is a grossly over-rated irrelevance and a lazy indulgence for those uncomfortable with uncertainty.

Science must demonstrate a well constructed theory based upon detailed observation, extensive analysis, critical examination, ongoing peer review and oft-replicated testing. Then I shall incline to accept that as the most practical current explanation for whatever phenomenon is being addressed. (Obviously for such minor matters as to what causes the noises in my attic I do not call in a University science department, but I do employ scientific principles to distinguish between rodents, birds, bats, loose slates, wind, unsecured plumbing, squatters and Aunt Matilda.)

I think you have already been told this, but you haven't taken it on board yet. Theories are as good as it gets in science - and that is very good indeed. A scientific theory is not remotely like the "theory" raised in casual conversation. A theory is based on the work of hundreds and thousands of scientists. (Newton famously remarked "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.) And the theory, once proposed (after extensive critiquing by its author) is then scrutinised by many hundreds more. In some cases, thousands and tens of thousands. If you cannot accept fact I sincerely recommend you simply avoid anything to do with science.

You are also saying that Science does not try to explain everything, which is true. So not everything need to be explained by science, such as how life began or whether there is God. Then why do some people insist that science has to prove God or how life began before they would believe it? And there is still a big area that science cannot prove, but which definitely exists - for that, see post #684 (earlier post)

 

[roman2819]

Firstly, I see no evidence that we have souls, living or otherwise.

Secondly, even when I thought there were such things I never considered how they "evolved". Though I never took Genesis as a literal description of the origin of lifeforms (including humans) there were a few places where divine intervention had occurred, the granting of "souls" to a particular group of primates was something the I suspected had been done by Yahweh. It certainly wasn't anything any thing described in any science book I read, so since "souls" were something connected with the religion there was no reason to think that they "evolved" but rather were a give from god. (At least when I still accepted the concept of god, though the specifics of what I believed and when are messy since my disconnection from religious belief was fairly long and religion was never a central interest in my life.)

In summary, science (that is the application of the scientific methods to study nature) has no evidence of souls (eternal or otherwise) it has no reason to explain their "origin".

You claim that you don't believe in souls , which means you don't believe in spiritual side of people, and you don't believe in existence of spirits. For that see post #684 (earlier post)

 

[roman2819]

I have tried. Creationists simply cannot be honest.

Tell me, how does one get creationists to even try to learn what evidence is in the first place?

There are plenty of evidence in creation, even if you claim to follow science. Does Science says you cannot use other means to show that there is creation and God? No, Science doesn't say that. But you are saying or acting as if proofs must come from science -- even science does not claim to prove everything. For more see post #684 (earlier post)

 

[VirOptimus]

Science neither confirm nor deny God, ie science is neutral, we know that. Science evaluate stuff based on data, knowledge and evidence, we know that too. And science does not investigate everything ie it is not all encompassing - we know that but many people like to think that it is as good as everything; in fact, there are MANY aspects of our life where we do not use science to confirm – instead we use our senses, intuition, power of observation, faith and probability, which works too.


For instance: Do you always use science to prove human feelings (love, anger, greed, hatred etc). Does someone who is dating another person use science?

Secondly, science does not and cannot explain things in the spiritual realm but spirits do exist on earth. In your part of the world, America and Europe, you may not see this more than people in Asia (even though some Hollywood movies about true stories of haunting – but science won't confirm the haunting, ghosts or spirits.

I will try to keep this true incident brief (and it is only ONE of the many such spiritual things that happened). Many years ago, a close friend at same church was on the verge of death, from a lightning strike. He was the only Christian among his many siblings, and as he laid comatose in hospital, his family decided to consult the temple medium (a pagan priest) who communicated with spirits. Although our church was not agreeable, however, we cannot stop the family. As the medium called upon ithe spirit, he did something to an ordinary porcelain bowl -- he cast a spell, so to speak. He then threw the bowl on the floor and if it broke, my friend would die, and if the bowl didn’t break, my friend would live -- the medium said. At first throw, the porcelain bowl didn’t break. My friend’s family asked him to throw it up in the air so it would fall from a great height. The medium did, the bowl didn’t break. They requested the medium to throw even high, as much as 15 feet – my friend 's brother told me later-- the bowl dropped to ground and didn’t break. He was asked to repeat the highest throw, but the result was same. After the ceremony ended and the spirit’s presence left, the priest, to show that he did not use a fake porcelain bowl, dropped it to the ground, and it broke into pieces. The family told the church members about what they saw because we were a concerned party. And later, the eldest brother related the event to me. Although I did not witness the process, however, I am sure they would not lie. They even believed that their brother would live. A few days later, however, he died. The siblings, in a state of deep grief, would relate the same temple process to people who came for the funeral ie they could not be lying.

Can science explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown from 15 feet or so during the spiritual process, and after the process was over, the bowl broke when thrown from a mere few feet?

Now, this is not the only unexplained spiritual phenomena. There are many in this part of the world. One incident even went to court as the woman, who had a snake spirit, sued the Catholic Church for causing her pain after she was exorcised. During the hearing, the priests n Church members narrated that the woman could move like a snake on the floor during the exorcism.

Today, we travelled in aeroplanes, sent text messages to people far far away in the blink of an eye, and do gene therapy.... but these do not mean that science and technology have found everything, far from it. But some people seem to think it has discover most things. When science hasn't discover God, some people claim that creator doesn't exist because science hasn't confirmed it ie making false claim.

Science does not say non-scienfiic explanations are unreliable or wrong. But some people say that millions of lifeforms does not mean God created them. They claim that life started on its own and evolved beautifully into millions of life -- and even though they have no proof, they like to imagine that this hypothesis hold water, which is very surprising for people who claim to believe in scientific proofs only.

Some people deny the power of observations, common sense, intuition, probability, process of elimination etc. Does science tell you to do so? Or are you denying your basic intelligence in order to make it more complicated and intellectual?


Science does not try to explain everything, that you saying , which is true. So not everything need to be explained by science, such as how life began or whether there is God. Then why do some people insist that science has to prove God or how life begin before they would believe it. And there is still a big area that science cannot prove, but which definitely exists - for that, see post #

Cool story bro.

 

[VirOptimus]

There are plenty of evidence in creation, even if you claim to follow science. Does Science says you cannot use other means to show that there is creation and God? No Science doesn't say that. But you are saying or acting like proofs must come from science -- even science does not claim to prove everything. For more see post #

There are no data or evidence supporting ”creation” or other magic events.

 

[roman2819]

No. But unless there ius some evidence of a creator, there is no reason to posit one.



The Bible is the claim, not evidence.



What you describe does not resemble evolution in the slightest.

If Science is neutral and silent on God, then why do people who claim to believe so much in science, say that God does not exist?

Does Science say you cannot use other evidence to prove other things or truths? For more see post #684 (earlier post)

 

[ZNP]

When you do figure out how to make a thread, just be prepared to be criticised on each detail. If you're in an atheist section, expect them to ask about the evolution of metaphysical things, and expect them to point out how mankind is surprisingly similar to other animals. And if you go to the Christian section, expect literalists to call you a heathen for defiling scripture.

I am glad I signed off. It allows me to read all the various responses. It is enjoyable to see. However, it does not appear that these threads help us to investigate the truth. Like you said asking the question is apparently a violation of the atheists dogma every bit as much as it is of the creationists dogma.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are plenty of evidence in creation, even if you claim to follow science. Does Science says you cannot use other means to show that there is creation and God? No Science doesn't say that. But you are saying or acting like proofs must come from science -- even science does not claim to prove everything. For more see post #684 (earlier post)

No creationist appears to be able to come up with any reliable evidence for creationism. In fact most do not understand the concept of evidence.

I did not make any claims of proving ideas correct. If anything science only shows how properly defined ideas are wrong. Creationists as a whole are too afraid to properly define their claims. That is the main reason there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am glad I signed off. It allows me to read all the various responses. It is enjoyable to see. However, it does not appear that these threads help us to investigate the truth. Like you said asking the question is apparently a violation of the atheists dogma every bit as much as it is of the creationists dogma.

What is this "atheists dogma"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Science is neutral on God, then why do people who claim to believe so much in science, say that God does not exist even though science is silent? Does Science say you cannot use other evidence to prove other things or truths? For more see post #684 (earlier post)

Very few atheists claim there is no God. Most tend to point out that a belief in God tends to be irrational.

 

[ZNP]

Can you show me one? The soul as an evolutionary process, this should be good.

All of the wonderful examples listed by other posters here on how animals have dance, and song (wolves, etc) are examples of soul. Termites have tremendous architecture, really a brilliant design. But it isn't a "living" soul. We have found fossilized termite mounds 100 million years old that are identical to the ones we see today. By contrast humans soul is living, evolving, changing. Yes, we look at a Bower bird as being "artistic" but not in the way humans are. John Lennon was an artist, but we don't consider someone who sings a John Lennon song to be an artist simply because they sing the same song. All of these creatures and examples given of "art" and "design" and "beauty", is it living? Look at how our music is living -- consider country, jazz, R&B, rock and roll, classical. By contrast these creatures are singing classical for 10,000 years, no evolution. Is there any scientific evidence that the song of the wolves has changed since Columbus discovered America?

 

[ZNP]

What is this "atheists dogma"?

See post #674 for a succinct exposition.

 

[ZNP]

I can't say I was aware of the term "eusocial" before this discussion, but after reading this thread and external sources, I don't think the term really applies to humans. One characteristic is apparently "division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups". No such thing exists in humans, now or in the past. We have plenty of division of labor in human societies including by sex and life stage, but not by reproducing and non-reproducing groups.

There are lots of animals that live in large groups (flock of birds including nesting colonies, schools of fish), but I don't see any evidence that anyone considers those eusocial.

Our species is social. We work together to accomplish things that we couldn't otherwise, to obtain food, to protect our communities, to provide shelter, and even to raise children, but these do not mean that we fit the definition of "eusocial". Nor frankly is the self-reinforcing development of social cooperation in our ancestors some sort of "problem" for which evolutionary development is a problem.

There are only 18 creatures that live in societal structure with more than 100 individuals. We could never have had a Moon landing if our society was limited to 100 members or less.

It is only these 18 species that have specialized jobs -- where different members perform different jobs. For example, wolves will have one wolf watching the pups, but that same wolf will go hunting if necessary, will fight with other packs if attacked, and will do every job that every other wolf does. This is not true of humans with lawyers, doctors, engineers, blue collar workers, white collar workers, etc.

It is only these 18 species that allow members of the society not directly related to them to watch their young. Without schools our civilization would be greatly hampered in its development.

How is it that we can do this? We have to teach people how to behave in society. We have laws, schools and religion. No other creatures have this. The other "eusocial" creatures do not need to be taught, they don't need police, they don't need laws, lawyers, judges, courts, etc.

 

[Lazarus Long]

See post #674 for a succinct exposition.

This:
"It doesn't and you can't wedge the bible where it doesn't belong."
WOW.
Your aim isn't good.

 

[Speedwell]

If Science is neutral on God, then why do people who claim to believe so much in science, say that God does not exist even though science is silent? Does Science say you cannot use other evidence to prove other things or truths? For more see post #684 (earlier post)

Science is silent on the question so they make their decision about the existence of God for other reasons.

 

[Yttrium]

Can science explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown a few times, even from 15 feet or so couple of times, during the spiritual process, and after the process was over, the bowl broke when thrown from a mere few feet?

Sure, there's a simple explanation.

Take a piece of paper, hold opposite sides, and try to pull the paper apart. There will be quite a bit of resistance. But if you apply less force on a single spot on the edge, it will easily tear. A paper bag can hold quite a lot of groceries if you carry it properly, but holding a full bag at one spot can cause it rip apart.

A diamond is very hard, and can resist a lot of force. But it has weak points. Tap a weak point with enough force (but still not nearly enough to affect the rest of the diamond), and the diamond can break or even shatter.

A bowl has weak points. If it hits the ground the right way, the force on the bowl can be distributed over the entire bowl, and it won't break. If it falls the wrong way, on one of its weak points, the force will be concentrated on a spot, and the bowl can break or shatter. And in this case, the person dropping the bowl probably knows exactly where the weak points are. I'm not saying that this is what happened in your case. Perhaps the spiritual ritual had some effect on the bowl. I tend to doubt that, considering the easy explanation.