Evolution is a story

[Cimorene]

Ok, I googled Henry Morris. Sounds like he was the storyteller.

 

[juvenissun]

All I meant was, that the theory of evolution does not at present offer a coherent explanation of how we acquired the self-aware intelligence which marks us out from the other creatures. It may have been caused by some other event or process.

Sorry, I can't think of any other "scientific" possibility.

 

[juvenissun]

When I said the majority I was talking about living species.

Also your trend is perfectly valid, as long as you only think of our own species ancestry. Off course that's going to appear like a progression towards intelligence, we're the most intelligent species ever to walk the Earth.

But if you were to take all life into account, then you wouldn't be able to demonstrate anything like a general trend towards intelligence.

I could not make this statement very precise (so there there would be rooms for argument), but in general, I would say that one obvious trend of evolution is that the functions of life is becoming more complex through time. There is absolutely no reason for the evolution process to do that.

 

[Shemjaza]

I could not make this statement very precise (so there there would be rooms for argument), but in general, I would say that one obvious trend of evolution is that the functions of life is becoming more complex through time. There is absolutely no reason for the evolution process to do that.

Why not? Complexity can be incrementally achieved and allows for more traits and capabilities for surviving and thriving.

 

[juvenissun]

Why not? Complexity can be incrementally achieved and allows for more traits and capabilities for surviving and thriving.

Just for surviving, the life function does not have to become more complex.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I googled Henry Morris. Sounds like he was the storyteller.

Henry Morris wrote the footnotes to his Defender's Study Bible.

I like to use them to accuse scientists of ignoring their own findings in order to make the Bible look bad.

Such as when they ignore general relativity to accuse the Bible of being geocentric.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution doesn't have any particular trend in the sense that it has no preferred direction. If you look at the results of evolution, you can, with hindsight, see changes and pattern of change in organisms over time; you could call these changes trends. Fundamentally, there is a trend towards adaptation to environmental pressures - this is due to natural selection, and it results in a trend towards diversification - this is called speciation.

I don't buy that interpretation. The environmental pressure today is not any higher than those in the past time. The earth is a stable planet.

 

[juvenissun]

There are as many measures of quality as there are attributes and properties to judge.

For example, I'd consider myself qualitatively superior in most intellectual capabilities, but qualitatively inferior in most physical performance characteristics, except for dextrous manipulation and bipedal walking.

What's your point?

Life forms become higher in "level" through time.
"A higher level life form". What does that mean?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't buy that interpretation. The environmental pressure today is not any higher than those in the past time. The earth is a stable planet.

So let's see if I understand your point (correct me if I'm wrong.)

1. You don't think that evolution has long-term targets for things like greater complexity or higher intelligence.

2. You think evolutionists believe that it does and are lying when they deny it.

Is that right?

 

[Shemjaza]

Just for surviving, the life function does not have to become more complex.

Complexity can lead to advantages over other life forms, so will need more successfully.

I don't buy that interpretation. The environmental pressure today is not any higher than those in the past time. The earth is a stable planet.

But life changes every generation and the Earth's climate can vary greatly which creates constant pressure and constant change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't buy that interpretation. The environmental pressure today is not any higher than those in the past time. The earth is a stable planet.

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

 

[juvenissun]

So let's see if I understand your point (correct me if I'm wrong.)

1. You don't think that evolution has long-term targets for things like greater complexity or higher intelligence.

2. You think evolutionists believe that it does and are lying when they deny it.

Is that right?

1. Wrong.
2. Right.

 

[juvenissun]

Complexity can lead to advantages over other life forms, so will need more successfully.
But life changes every generation and the Earth's climate can vary greatly which creates constant pressure and constant change.

Are you a biologist? If not, I won't waste time on you.
If you are, then I will ask you a few questions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you a biologist? If not, I won't waste time on you.
If you are, then I will ask you a few questions.

This again? Really?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't buy that interpretation. The environmental pressure today is not any higher than those in the past time. The earth is a stable planet.

You don't have to buy it, it's just how evolution works, and Earth is only stable over relatively short geological periods - there have been many major climate change events, including at least five ice-ages.

Nobody said 'environmental pressure' today is higher than in the past - there have been some pretty devastating mass extinction events - there are many different kinds of selection pressure. A selection pressure is any external influence on the reproductive fitness of a population, and they vary in different locations and over time in different ways.

Having said that, given that human influence is such that we are causing the mass decline and extinction of significant numbers of species, I think it is fair to say that we are creating selection pressures of an intensity not seen since the last mass extinction 65 million years ago... The problem with sudden increases in selection pressure is that evolution in multi-cellular organisms is too slow to allow them to adapt in time, so they tend to go extinct.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Life forms become higher in "level" through time.
"A higher level life form". What does that mean?

You tell me, it's your claim.

If you're thinking of complexity, when there is only the simplest life, it can either stay simple or increase in complexity, so there will be a tendency for some species to become more complex, and increased complexity has a selective advantage (e.g. predation); but the rate of increase in complexity tends to decline over time as ecosystems form and equilibrate and further increases in complexity carry energy penalties that are increasingly difficult to support. The result tends to be the hierarchy of complexity we see today, with an overwhelming majority of relatively simple (single-celled) organisms and relatively few complex ones. This is generally reflected in the predator-prey hierarchy of food chains, with a large number of simpler prey species predated by fewer, more complex predators, with very few apex predator species at the top of the food chain.

It seems likely that the significant increase in early human brain size and complexity were only enabled by the advent of cooking, which released far more available calories from the diet, so there was literally energy 'head room' to support the additional energy requirements of a larger brain; this, in turn, would promote the development of more efficient hunting techniques and strategies, further boosting calorie supply.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just for surviving, the life function does not have to become more complex.

That's why most life on Earth is simple.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Henry Morris wrote the footnotes to his Defender's Study Bible.

I like to use them to accuse scientists of ignoring their own findings in order to make the Bible look bad.

Such as when they ignore general relativity to accuse the Bible of being geocentric.

I'd be interested to read any one of the Drs' footnotes, which relates directly to our discussion here --- good luck!

 

[Speedwell]

1. Wrong.
2. Right.

1. So you do think evolution has long-term targets for things like complexity and intelligence.
2. Therefore you disagree with evolutionary biologists who know that it doesn't.

Is that closer to the position you are taking?

 

[juvenissun]

1. So you do think evolution has long-term targets for things like complexity and intelligence.
2. Therefore you disagree with evolutionary biologists who know that it doesn't.

Is that closer to the position you are taking?

1. I do SEE the long term trend. I won't call it a target.
2. I am not sure biologists "know" that.