Direction of Evolution

[Speedwell]

Huh, I have never heard this understanding of evolution, though it's interesting that both you and USi seem to have the same perspective, and, as you suggested earlier, the two of you are eerily similar...

That's because they are the only two responding to you just now. The rest of us are just watching Bugeyed and USI do an outstanding and accurate job of explaining the theory of evolution to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

hummm, no, we learn evolution the same way here in Australia... from what I hear, it's a contentious issue in America, so many educators don't even touch on the subject where they don't have to.

For the record, Ken Ham is an Ozzie.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

For the record, Ken Ham is an Ozzie.

Shush You! Go back to being a fountain of knowledge, smartypants...

 

[Endtime Survivors]

And there's the issue. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows the first line as "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Surely it's important to understand the basics of the Theory before dismissing it?

Actually, I'm being more basic than that definition. I'm talking about the most fundamental aspect of evolution; its lack of meaning, purpose, or intent. Of course the text books and websites won't put it that way because it sounds so horribly bleak, and yet that is precisely what evolution teaches; there was no designer. There was no intelligence. There was no plan or purpose behind any of it.

There was a random explosion shooting particles randomly in every direction. These particles randomly bumped into one another by random forces which developed into the planet we live on where more random particles randomly bumped into one another cause life, which then randomly mutated into what we have today.

If you want to say these things are not random, then there must be something which causes them to not be random. What is that something? The laws of the universe? But laws imply purpose and intent.

This is why it's important to be brutally honest about the theory you're supporting. It's interesting, in that sense, just how similar evolutionary support is to the idea of Christians falling away from what they believe, too.

It wasn't long after Jesus died that people starting saying, "Hey, you wanna start a group where we build huge buildings, wear fancy robes, lord our authority over others, fight wars over land (or support those who do), and become filthy stinking rich"? That's basically what Christianity is today, very, very far from what it was intended to be.

Evolution has become like that. It's a cold, sterile theory with no meaning or purpose behind it. It didn't take long for creatures who crave meaning to start using words like, "Select", law", "control", "process", "defined" etc... (all words which describe aspects of meaning, purpose, and intent) to dress-up their meaningless theory.

If you claim to be an evolutionist, then be true to your conviction. Stop using language which implies more to the theory than what the theory actually professes.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Why would sexual species have to reinvent sexual organs when they have just inherited those very things from their ancestors?

No, the point was, how did their ancestors get it in the first place? There had to be some mutation from asexual to sexual. I've never heard any evolutionist suggest some kind of "in between" phase let alone any evidence for such a thing. Maybe it exists, but I've not heard of it.

But, if there was no in-between phase between asexual and sexual, then that means at some point two of the same species had to get the same kind of mutation allowing for reproductive organs, which usually involves a series of organs and processes along the way.

Not only the same kind of mutation (i.e. reproductive) but one had to be for male and the other had to be female. Not only the same kind, but at the same time (within a few years of one another at least). Not only at the same time, but in the same geographical location.

Aside from just mutating the physical organs, both animals would also have needed to mutate the instincts to know what to do with their new sexuality and the instincts to care for the baby.

At some point, over the billions of years, all this had to happen in order for sexual reproduction to catch on and these very specific criteria had to be met through complete random chance.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

We already have the record of those changes. That record is the genomes of living species.

No, you have a record of different genomes existing. You do not have a record of one species mutating into a different species. Unless, you want to show me one of those silhouette collages where you have a scale of animals from small to big? That's pretty solid evidence.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Random mutations and natural selection, in the absence of horizontal genetic transfer, can not make the genome of one species more like the genome of another species. This is why evolution produces a nested hierarchy where different mutations occur in different lineages while descendants inherit the mutations that occurred in their ancestors.

Sounds like a lot of organization and purpose behind the way these genomes behave...

 

[Endtime Survivors]

hummm, no, we learn evolution the same way here in Australia... from what I hear, it's a contentious issue in America, so many educators don't even touch on the subject where they don't have to.

It's too bad Americans can't be as civil and reasonable about their disagreements as we are here in this forum. XD

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Dinosaurs with feathers is vertical inheritance while a crustacean with fur is horizontal inheritance.

Riiiight. Crustaceans won't mutate a patch of fur because it's horizontal inheritance, but lizards can have feathers because it's vertical inheritance? Barnum wasn't wrong...

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I bet they also have the same perspective on germs and atoms. Following the evidence has this strange ability to cause people to arrive at the same conclusions.

That will be true in some cases, but it's hard to believe you could spend so much time on these forums and still think that evidence is all one needs to arrive at the same conclusion. XD

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The same way a single stride is still walking.

Or a step, depending on how you choose to see it.

There's a working geneticist who posts to this subforum. He's quite patient is one is willing to read what he actually writes. Just ask your questions and I'm sure you'll get an answer.

I get where you're coming from, but if people have to go talk to this geneticist guy just to understand your point, then you probably won't get very far with anyone outside of your specialized field. That's why I suggested earlier that we try to stick to general principles rather than technical examples.

I realize this may not come across as particularly fair to you since it is in those technical details that you think you have proof (I guess) but it is not the technical details which I dispute. You probably are right in some of your conclusions and observations. But being right about a detail doesn't mean we've got the bigger picture.

No need for the scare quotes, nested hierarchies are real things.

Heh, yeah sometimes I go a bit nuts with my quotes. As for fixed guidelines to how genomes work in relation to one another, I don't doubt there is observable order and purpose behind it. That has never been my contention.

But it does go back to this idea of you guys wanting the best of both worlds; control and purpose with no control or purpose behind it. Or, maybe it's a pride thing. Because you're an intellectual person, you crave to study and recognize the order in biology and it's more satisfying to believe there is no creator behind it who gave you your intelligence or something on which to use it. It's all you figuring it out for yourself (not really you personally but rather atheistic academia in general).

Actually, I was thinking about this the other day in relation to some other atheists I was chatting with. I don't think it is coincidental that most atheists tend to be pretty intelligent and good critical thinkers.

Having strong intelligence can be a pretty good feeling. You can understand and comprehend better than others. Respect, admiration, and recognition of brilliance are pretty common desires for all humans but I'd wager especially so for those who have more intellectualism than others. Somewhere along the way, that intelligence realizes it doesn't want to be ruled by anything else; it enjoys being it's own boss. In other words, your intelligence becomes your own worst enemy.

But, that's where I see a difference between concepts like intelligence and wisdom. People can be incredibly brilliant in some areas like the various sciences but completely moronic when it comes to morality, ethics, or meaning in life which goes beyond intelligence of the material world.

1. I believe I have asked you to provide a hypothetical example of what you mean one species changing into another, different, distinct species. If I have not, I'm asking now.

Good question. But I am the novice here. Perhaps you could help me by giving an example of what you understand to be a species changing from one to another and I can say whether that is consistent, or not, with my understanding. Thanks.

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually, I'm being more basic than that definition. I'm talking about the most fundamental aspect of evolution; its lack of meaning, purpose, or intent. Of course the text books and websites won't put it that way because it sounds so horribly bleak, and yet that is precisely what evolution teaches; there was no designer. There was no intelligence. There was no plan or purpose behind any of it.

There was a random explosion shooting particles randomly in every direction. These particles randomly bumped into one another by random forces which developed into the planet we live on where more random particles randomly bumped into one another cause life, which then randomly mutated into what we have today.

If you want to say these things are not random, then there must be something which causes them to not be random. What is that something? The laws of the universe? But laws imply purpose and intent.

This is why it's important to be brutally honest about the theory you're supporting. It's interesting, in that sense, just how similar evolutionary support is to the idea of Christians falling away from what they believe, too.

It wasn't long after Jesus died that people starting saying, "Hey, you wanna start a group where we build huge buildings, wear fancy robes, lord our authority over others, fight wars over land (or support those who do), and become filthy stinking rich"? That's basically what Christianity is today, very, very far from what it was intended to be.

Evolution has become like that. It's a cold, sterile theory with no meaning or purpose behind it. It didn't take long for creatures who crave meaning to start using words like, "Select", law", "control", "process", "defined" etc... (all words which describe aspects of meaning, purpose, and intent) to dress-up their meaningless theory.

If you claim to be an evolutionist, then be true to your conviction. Stop using language which implies more to the theory than what the theory actually professes.

I don't really understand this point of view. Who's to say that God didn't create the universe with it's laws in place, why couldn't it have arrived at it's goal of creating humanity through the process of evolution?

Obviously I don't believe these things, I'm happy with the naturalistic approach, but I believe many christians do. It seems like a more sensible approach than having to deny the reality of what we can see and measure in the world about us.

 

[sfs]

Actually, I'm being more basic than that definition. I'm talking about the most fundamental aspect of evolution; its lack of meaning, purpose, or intent. Of course the text books and websites won't put it that way because it sounds so horribly bleak, and yet that is precisely what evolution teaches; there was no designer. There was no intelligence. There was no plan or purpose behind any of it.

Or else the websites and textbooks don't put it that way because it isn't true. What you're describing isn't the scientific theory of evolution and isn't any part of evolutionary biology. It's a philosophical worldview -- scientific materialism -- that is consistent with the truth of evolution but not implied by it. Common descent does not imply purposelessness. That mutations occur by natural processes does not imply purposelessness. That some mutations are harmful and some are beneficial does not imply purposelessness.

The idea that Christianity is incompatible with the science of evolution is put forward by a small number of atheists who want others to reject Christianity, and by a large number of creationists who want others to reject evolution. It's not an idea that I've ever personally encountered in an evolutionary biologist.

Evolution has become like that. It's a cold, sterile theory with no meaning or purpose behind it.

Scientific theories are all cold, sterile theories with no meaning or purpose behind them. That's because they're just physical explanations for physical phenomena. They are compatible with the existence of meaning and purpose, but those things aren't part of the theories because that's not what science does. Meaning and purpose have to come from elsewhere, from religious or philosophical views.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I don't really understand this point of view. Who's to say that God didn't create the universe with it's laws in place, why couldn't it have arrived at it's goal of creating humanity through the process of evolution?

Well, I don't know that I do support that view, though I think it's possible. The point is, if God were behind it, then there is intelligence behind it. We could no longer call it evolution if that were the case. We'd need a different name for it to avoid confusion.

It seems like a more sensible approach than having to deny the reality of what we can see and measure in the world about us.

I'm certainly not suggesting we deny reality. Quite the opposite is true. If you want to support evolution, then support it realistically according to the reality of what the theory actually teaches; no purpose, meaning, or intent. Only randomness. Which means, if you try to use language which implies or suggests meaning behind anything regarding evolution, then you have strayed away from what evolution teaches.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Or else the websites and textbooks don't put it that way because it isn't true. What you're describing isn't the scientific theory of evolution and isn't any part of evolutionary biology.

So, you're saying there was/is intent, purpose, and meaning behind evolution?

That some mutations are harmful and some are beneficial does not imply purposelessness.

Ok, if it's not purposelessness, then that means there is a purpose. What is it and where did it come from?

who want others to reject Christianity, and by a large number of creationists who want others to reject evolution.

I don't want you to reject evolution. I want you to be consistent. If you support a theory which says there was no intelligence behind why we are here, then stop using language which suggests there was intelligence for why we're here. I think that's a pretty reasonable request.

Scientific theories are all cold, sterile theories with no meaning or purpose behind them.

I dunno, sfs. I kinda feel like we're not really getting anywhere, you and me. When did I ever say that scientific theories are cold and sterile, or meaningless? I never said that.

I said that what the theory of evolution teaches is cold, meaningless, and sterile. It would be absurd to say the theories have no meaning or purpose behind them.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, I don't know that I do support that view, though I think it's possible. The point is, if God were behind it, then there is intelligence behind it. We could no longer call it evolution if that were the case. We'd need a different name for it to avoid confusion.

Theistic evolution

I'm certainly not suggesting we deny reality. Quite the opposite is true. If you want to support evolution, then support it realistically according to the reality of what the theory actually teaches; no purpose, meaning, or intent. Only randomness. Which means, if you try to use language which implies or suggests meaning behind anything regarding evolution, then you have strayed away from what evolution teaches.

I wasn't accusing you personally of denying reality, I've come across plenty of YECs who do though.

The TOE explains the mechanisms that bought about of the development and diversity of life on Earth, there's no need to bring meaning or purpose into it, that's what religion is for.

 

[sfs]

So, you're saying there was/is intent, purpose, and meaning behind evolution?

Yes, I'm saying that's my personal belief.

Ok, if it's not purposelessness, then that means there is a purpose. What is it and where did it come from?

From God, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen.

I don't want you to reject evolution. I want you to be consistent. If you support a theory which says there was no intelligence behind why we are here, then stop using language which suggests there was intelligence for why we're here. I think that's a pretty reasonable request.

I'm aware of no scientific theory that says anything like that, so I have no idea what exactly it is you're complaining about. (As I've noted before, I also think your understanding of linguistics is badly askew, but that's not really an important issue.)

I dunno, sfs. I kinda feel like we're not really getting anywhere, you and me. When did I ever say that scientific theories are cold and sterile, or meaningless? I never said that.

Who said you did? I'm the one who said that about scientific theories, in the words you quoted.

I said that what the theory of evolution teaches is cold, meaningless, and sterile.

And my point was that there is nothing at all special about evolution in this respect. All scientific theories are the same in this regard. If you want to find purpose in the universe, scientific theories are the wrong place to look.

 

[sfs]

The point is, if God were behind it, then there is intelligence behind it. We could no longer call it evolution if that were the case. We'd need a different name for it to avoid confusion.

So because some people don't understand what the word "evolution" means we should stop using it? Evolution as a scientific theory has always allowed for the possibility of purpose, and there have been theistic scientists who accepted evolution as long as the theory has been around. Just because you somehow got hold of the notion that evolution implies lack of meaning or atheism doesn't mean scientists should change their terminology.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Yes, I'm saying that's my personal belief.

Okay then obviously my comments about how there was no purpose, intent, or meaning behind evolution don't apply to you. Thanks for clarifying for me.

I'm aware of no scientific theory that says anything like that, so I have no idea what exactly it is you're complaining about.

Atheistic evolution says so (as opposed to Christian evolution, which to me seems a pretty stupid name. Why are we copying the atheists?). This is why I suggested you get a different name for whatever theory you're suggesting. Evolution means there was no intelligence, purpose, intent, or meaning behind anything. It was all random.

Who said you did? I'm the one who said that about scientific theories...

Good. Thanks for clearing that up.

So because some people don't understand what the word "evolution" means we should stop using it?

No. That would be a stupid conclusion to reach.

Evolution as a scientific theory has always allowed for the possibility of purpose,

Nope.

Just because you somehow got hold of the notion that evolution implies lack of meaning or atheism doesn't mean scientists should change their terminology.

Ask the professionals; no atheist will tell you there is any meaning or purpose, intelligence or intent behind evolution. This is why they say the mutations are random, instead of with purpose. If you're suggesting there was meaning and purpose, then you're talking about creation, not evolution.

Get your priorities sorted.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I wasn't accusing you personally of denying reality, I've come across plenty of YECs who do though.

Well I dunno, we all deny reality in some ways. I'm not saying I'm immune to that, but regarding what evolution is meant to represent, I'm crystal on that one, bro. ^.^

The TOE explains the mechanisms that bought about of the development and diversity of life on Earth, there's no need to imply to bring meaning or purpose into it,

Exactly, which is why, when evolutionists use words like "control" or "process" to describe their theory, they're cheating on the theory. There is no control in evolution; it's all random.