Human Evolution

[eleos1954]

No it doesn't. Please find a text book are research paper that says so. Betcha can't.

The two main prevailing ideas are either evolution (through random occurrences over long periods of time) or creation (intelligent design) .... there are some that mingle the two.

We don't need a research paper ..... we know what the two main world views are as they are debated unceasingly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The two main prevailing ideas are either evolution (through random occurrences over long periods of time) or creation (intelligent design) .... there are some that mingle the two.

We don't need a research paper ..... we know what the two main world views are as they are debated unceasingly.

But the theory of evolution isn't about how life started. It's about how live evolved. Life needed to have already started for evolution to begin as a process.

 

[driewerf]

In the beginning GOD made..............................

himself a cup of coffee and let the world evolve on its own.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the theory of evolution isn't about how life started. It's about how live evolved.

Then what's chemical evolution?

(They'll put that word in our mind somehow.)

 

[AV1611VET]

himself a cup of coffee and let the world evolve on its own.

And how's that working out?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where did nature come from?

Follow the link in the OP. I address that question in the bottom of that linked post.

 

[SelfSim]

Then what's chemical evolution?

(They'll put that word in our mind somehow.)

Look it up and choose from the sub-topics!
Eg: Abiogenesis:

In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.

or, Eg: Molecular evolution:

Molecular evolution is the process of change in the sequence composition of cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins across generations. The field of molecular evolution uses principles of evolutionary biology and population genetics to explain patterns in these changes. Major topics in molecular evolution concern the rates and impacts of single nucleotide changes, neutral evolution vs. natural selection, origins of new genes, the genetic nature of complex traits, the genetic basis of speciation, evolution of development, and ways that evolutionary forces influence genomic and phenotypic changes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Anthropomorphic language in explanations of evolution have always been a problem and should be avoided for this very reason. Science deniers pounce on the language as some kind of "gotcha" and ignore the actual evidence. Semantics is the only argument that can be mustered because "god" can't be found in the actual evidence.

I see that sentence turned out to be controversial.

I too have a problem with using anthropomorphic language to describe evolution, but in this case, what I said was literally true: "evolution found a solution". That's what evolution did. It might be more exact to say "the process of evolution found a solution", but that is a quibble. Evolution found a solution.

It is no different from saying the computer algorithm found a solution, or natural forces eroded the mountain.

Interestingly, in the post linked to in the OP, I say that "as the universe expanded and cooled, there would have been numerous atomic 'marriages', as particles settled down to form atoms." That's metaphor. Sometimes it is fine to use metaphor.

Do you have any suggestion on how I should have better phrased, "evolution found a solution"?

 

[SelfSim]

I see that sentence turned out to be controversial.

I too have a problem with using anthropomorphic language to describe evolution, but in this case, what I said was literally true: "evolution found a solution". That's what evolution did. It might be more exact to say "the process of evolution found a solution", but that is a quibble. Evolution found a solution.
...
Do you have any suggestion on how I should have better phrased, "evolution found a solution"?

Perhaps an added footnote which distinguishes that its only 'a solution' as far as the observer (or speaker) is concerned(?) Evolution doesn't seek some kind of 'solution' to some kind of problem 'it sees'.

 

[Velaut]

The two main prevailing ideas are either evolution (through random occurrences over long periods of time) or creation (intelligent design) .... there are some that mingle the two.

We don't need a research paper ..... we know what the two main world views are as they are debated unceasingly.

Christianity says that bacteria don't exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity says that bacteria don't exist.

You might want to read Leviticus 14.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Follow the link in the OP. I address that question in the bottom of that linked post.

I see the question of 'where did nature come from' addressed neither in the OP nor in whatever that is (I thought, your website) in the link.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I see the question of 'where did nature come from' addressed neither in the OP nor in whatever that is (I thought, your website) in the link.

We are really off topic here, but for the record, down at the end of the page I link to in the OP I wrote:

For our purposes, we are not so much concerned with how the Big Bang happened, as we are concerned with the ultimate explanation for it. Where did quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation come from? And if other forces were involved, where did they come from?

Perhaps such things always existed. Perhaps it could not be otherwise.

Or possibly someone or something made these universe-making processes such as quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation. If so, who or what did that?

We can propose three alternatives for whatever it is that caused these processes that made our universe:

1. Something caused them.
2. Something caused them. It (or he) had a mind that makes deliberate decisions.
3. Something caused them. It (or he) had a mind that makes deliberate decisions. He also wrote the Bible.

And I go on to discuss those alternatives.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Perhaps an added footnote which distinguishes that its only 'a solution' as far as the observer (or speaker) is concerned(?) Evolution doesn't seek some kind of 'solution' to some kind of problem 'it sees'.

Right. Evolution doesn't seek. Evolution doesn't see. If I had said evolution did any of those things, I could see your concern.

But I didn't say that. I said evolution finds solutions.

And that statement about evolution is literally true. The process of evolution finds solutions, just like computer algorithms find solutions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So how can a thing "find a solution"?

If the "thing" in question is a computer or a dog, for instance, then yes, a thing can find a solution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

False.

At the crucifixion Peter held his peace.

The stones didn't immediately cry out.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We are really off topic here, but for the record, down at the end of the page I link to in the OP I wrote:

For our purposes, we are not so much concerned with how the Big Bang happened, as we are concerned with the ultimate explanation for it. Where did quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation come from? And if other forces were involved, where did they come from?

Perhaps such things always existed. Perhaps it could not be otherwise.

Or possibly someone or something made these universe-making processes such as quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation. If so, who or what did that?

We can propose three alternatives for whatever it is that caused these processes that made our universe:

1. Something caused them.
2. Something caused them. It (or he) had a mind that makes deliberate decisions.
3. Something caused them. It (or he) had a mind that makes deliberate decisions. He also wrote the Bible.

And I go on to discuss those alternatives.

For what it is worth, IF God exists, all truth comes from him, all reality comes from and depends on him, including math and logic, fact (the principle —not just 'facts'), even existence itself and all non-falsifiables like art, beauty etc. and all goodness and justice. If not, there is no God. There could be super-human beings, perhaps —'gods', as such— but not THE GOD.

If one disallows "could not be otherwise" by way of being a non-argument for the existence of God, they must disallow it for the existence of anything else.

Anyhow, as far as I can see, you have not shown what causes nature, unless you limit 'nature' to what we see present day. To me the whole matter is nature, right down to first cause, if you deny his implicating himself into the results of his causation. All you've done is kick the can down the road.

 

[AV1611VET]

False.

At the crucifixion Peter held his peace.

The stones didn't immediately cry out.

God had something else planned:

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

 

[Gene2memE]

The two main prevailing ideas are either evolution (through random occurrences over long periods of time) or creation (intelligent design) .... there are some that mingle the two.

Not really. Evolution is evolution, but creation could be any one of literally thousands of different religious creation tales humans have told through history - all of them equally as likely, because none of them have supporting evidence.

The stories of Rainbow Serpent, Te Ao and Mbombo are just as likely as the Genesis narrative. Those raised in Jewish/Muslim/Christian backgrounds have a stronger affinity the later of the former, but that doesn't make it a better explanation.

Even if evolution were somehow categorically shown to be wrong, creation (or intelligent design) still doesn't get a look in. What would replace evolution is another scientific theory that explains all of the available facts and can be useful in making predictions about the natural world (If X occurs, then we would expect to see Y). Science is bound by methodological naturalism, meaning it cannot accept supernatural explanations.

Creation doesn't get to even be considered until it can bring factual evidence that can be verified. Claiming that 'Goddidit' doesn't count as evidence. Poking supposed holes in evolutionary biology doesn't count either.

 

[SelfSim]

Right. Evolution doesn't seek. Evolution doesn't see. If I had said evolution did any of those things, I could see your concern.

But I didn't say that. I said evolution finds solutions.

And that statement about evolution is literally true. The process of evolution finds solutions, just like computer algorithms find solutions.

I think you missed the point. There is no problem to be solved, except in the mind of the person posing the hypothetical you describe there, which in this case, is you.
Where there is no problem, there can be no solution.

Computer algorithms solve the programmer's problems .. and not their own problems.