Human Evolution

[SelfSim]

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

Word salad.
In both cases, you have not provided evidence of where the supposed 'problem' came from. Therefore, in both cases, there's plenty of doubt about the existence of any such 'problem' and thereby, doubt about the existence of 'solutions'.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God had something else planned:

Ah, so that prophecy (if the disciples did not speak out the rocks would) failed? And the fact that it failed doesn't matter?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I disagree. The mothers who were trying to give birth to babies with ever bigger heads had a big problem. It was not simply a hypothetical problem that, uh, when that baby starts coming out, the head might be a little too big.

If you disagree, trying giving birth to a baby with a big head. If you survive, come back and tell us whether you think that is a problem.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Word salad.
In both cases, you have not provided evidence of where the supposed 'problem' came from. Therefore, in both cases, there's plenty of doubt about the existence of any such 'problem' and thereby, doubt about the existence of 'solutions'.

Please tell the mothers that were trying to give birth to babies with large heads that their screams were word salad. Please tell those mothers that the agony of birth was only a supposed 'problem'. Please tell those dying mothers that were screaming in pain at childbirth that there is plenty of doubt about the existence of any such 'problem' as trying to survive while this huge head comes down the birth canal.

 

[SelfSim]

@doubtingmerle, out of respect, I've read back through the thread to @The IbanezerScrooge's comment about Anthropomorphic language in explanations of evolution and I agree with it. I just find the example of ever growing brain/cranial sizes and maternal deaths in childbirth, as being a way too superficial story-like example, which just keeps raising the question with me of: 'Why does it have to be that superficial?' Perhaps its just because you're targetting a specific audience that I just don't fit into(?)

The old view of the goal of Evolution being about species survival, IMO, as being .. well .. err .. out of date, so I find the explanation you've given, serving more to sustain that now superseded concept, that's all.

I'm happy to bow out of this sub-conversation now, having provided my feedback.
Cheers
PS: Apologies for the word-salad comment .. nothing personal if you actually intended simplicity, (conceptually speaking).

 

[driewerf]

It shows that we are not as far apart on things as most might think. But the natural conclusion of the discussion is a draw.

Your side has nothing. Can’t do anything than say “No, I don’t believe that”, but is after 150 yearsd even capable of learning what they rant against. Like the blind following the blind, creationist still follow the fools, like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort or the new star at the creationist firmament, Matt Powell.

(Painting of Breughel)
Incapable of learning anything, too stubborn to correct any mistake they lead their followers, the creationists into the ditches.

In the end one believes one thing while another believes something else.

False. creationists make up what erver they want. Science follows the evidence, wherever it goes. And is bound to what the evidence tells.

But if we were to play this out it would ultimately lead to "substance". We say that the Father and the Word are of the same substance, but no one has ever defined what that substance is. But we know that there is a substance involved. So to ask "what is the substance of God" or "what is the substance of evolution" is to ask the same question. They both work the same way.

“Evolution” refers either to the process of evolution (what happens in nature) or the theory of evolution. None are a substance. The ignorance displayed is what happens when you listen too much to “professional creationists”, instead of scientists who do know what they are talking about.

And both don't work the same way. Science bases it's conclusions on evidence. Corrects mistakes if necessary and learns improves itself.

 

[Shemjaza]

So how can a thing "find a solution"?

By mindless physical processes.

It's common to use the language of agency when describing action by active natural processes.

"Water found a way into the basement."

Well spotted. Evolutionists fall into this trap often. It's obvious that completely random processes cannot produce life. So I read terms like "evolution decided", and "Evolution took a different direction". It's as if evolution was actually a remarkably powerful and intelligent being, you know, like God. That's because God really did create all things.

I'm certain you've had this explained to you before.

When evolution is described in that way it's about the consequences of the process... not about decisions.

When a variation has a statistical advantage in survival it will become more common in the population over the generations. That is all the process of "finding a way" is, but it's easier to picture when you use language normally associated with short time periods and decisions.

It shows that we are not as far apart on things as most might think. But the natural conclusion of the discussion is a draw. In the end one believes one thing while another believes something else. But if we were to play this out it would ultimately lead to "substance". We say that the Father and the Word are of the same substance, but no one has ever defined what that substance is. But we know that there is a substance involved. So to ask "what is the substance of God" or "what is the substance of evolution" is to ask the same question. They both work the same way.

Not in the least.

Evolution is an evidenced physical process that can be observed in real time.

Using the observed process it is possible to make models about long term effects and compare them to evidence on that scale... evolution is supported by this evidence from multiple disciplines of science.

I understand your analogy but it isn't that simple. If we take fish for example. Fish living in fast moving water have to be strong enough to both feed themselves and fight against the current. The strongest fish are better able to survive in the current so the strongest fish are the ones most likely to survive. The ones who survive produce stronger offspring and as a type or class outlast the weaker fish. Simple enough. But that is only one example and there are too many variables.

You understand the concept and that is all evolution is... evolution is the emergent pattern of more successful variations becoming more common or even universal in the the population.

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.

There being two common ideas isn't what leads to either being true. Ideas are just thoughts in people's heads and they can be lost.

The important thing is the reasons to accept any particular idea.

Evolution is a conclusion from evidence in the physical world. Creation is a point of religious conviction.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I just find the example of ever growing brain/cranial sizes and maternal deaths in childbirth, as being a way too superficial story-like example, which just keeps raising the question with me of: [I]'Why does it have to be that superficial?'[/I] Perhaps its just because you're targetting a specific audience that I just don't fit into(?)

My pages Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free and Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free are not meant to be a detailed explanation of evolution. Other people have done a far better job of that. I link to some of those sites.

Rather, at my site, I am giving a simple summary of why I deconverted. So, I would rather refrain from detailed discussions of the mechanism of evolution.

That being said, I do want my words to be clear, and am more than willing to change the wording where it would be helpful. For instance, I plan to edit my discussion at my site on the origin of physical processes based on the feedback I got on this thread. So yes, I appreciate and consider the feedback.

And no, as of this time, I see no compelling need to change the words "evolution found a solution".

 

[Larniavc]

This for one (actually thousands if not millions):

Host Manipulation by Parasites: Cases, Patterns, and Remaining Doubts

Where in the article does it reference too many variables?

 

[Larniavc]

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.

No. You made that up. If you are unable to support what you are asserting you to withdraw your claim.

 

[Larniavc]

Then what's chemical evolution?

Chemicals don’t evolve, they react. Or not

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then what's chemical evolution?

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

Evolution is also a word that means change.

Words can have more than one meaning, surprise, surprise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Chemicals don’t evolve, they react. Or not

Then what's chemical evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is also a word that means change.

Words can have more than one meaning, surprise, surprise.

Then what's chemical evolution?

Please don't tell me abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, when I know better.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then what's chemical evolution?

Please don't tell me abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, when I know better.

Not what you're trying to make it out to be, since, as I said before, evolution means change.

And no, you do not know better.

 

[Astrid]

I understand your analogy but it isn't that simple. If we take fish for example. Fish living in fast moving water have to be strong enough to both feed themselves and fight against the current. The strongest fish are better able to survive in the current so the strongest fish are the ones most likely to survive. The ones who survive produce stronger offspring and as a type or class outlast the weaker fish. Simple enough. But that is only one example and there are too many variables.

It's far from that simple. There are fish that specifically
live in very fast water or waterfalls not by being strong but
by inging to the bottom.
The current in fast water is not uniformly fast. Eddie's, for
example. The inside on a bend. The bottom of the .channel.

Fast muscular fish don't stay out there fighting the current, though .they
are capae of doing so for a short time.

 

[renniks]

How can an animal we would class as an ape walk out of the forest and become human? It’s a long story.

It appears that, in The Great Rift Valley in Africa, a unique stretch of grasslands opened up as the continents moved. Certain apes ventured out of the woods, perhaps searching for food. They found a different world, one in which they could survive using the high intelligence inherent in all apes. Problem solving was so important out here, brains began to evolve for higher intelligence.

Likewise, out in the plain, there was an advantage to standing upright. One could travel more efficiently, look out over the tall grass to see predators, and use one’s hands for many tasks. The combination of increased intelligence with increased availability of the hands worked out quite well in this new environment, leading to strong evolution of these traits.

But intelligence and dexterity alone would have left our ancestors helpless in the vast grassland. They found that, like us, they needed each other. It’s true. We all need somebody to lean on. So, our ancestors used their new brainpower for more than just individual problem solving. They used their brains to communicate with other humans. This turned out to be quite difficult. Understanding other humans is hard. If you want to communicate effectively with me, you need a big brain.

With effective communication, we learn from each other. You learn things from me. I learn things from you. Together, the combined knowledge can lead to new ideas. The end result can be far greater than simply adding two experiences. And so, there is a huge advantage to good communication. This requires a lot of brainpower.

As human cooperation and brainpower became ever more important, brains became larger, and that can be a big problem for the mothers. There is only so much head that can squeeze down the birth canal. Unfortunately, many hominid females must have died in childbirth–may they rest in peace–as evolution drove brain sizes larger.

But, once again evolution found a solution. If the skull can wait to finish its growth until after birth, then it is easier to give birth to a child who will have a large adult brain. For the mothers, this was good news. They could give birth to babies that then grew up with big brains capable of better supporting the mother, her other offspring, and her grandchildren. This solution was a winner.

But there was a big side effect to all this. Hominid babies are quite helpless while their brain grows. They go through a prolonged childhood before emerging as super-intelligent hominid adults. Other animal babies can walk and begin caring for themselves soon after birth. Not so with humans or our close ancestors. Nevertheless, when intelligence is a primary necessity for survival, the sacrifice can be worth it. The mother devotes herself to her helpless baby, yes, but oh what a wonder this produces.

How can a mother afford to spend all this effort raising children? It takes a village. That’s right. Child raising requires a team: mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, cousins, neighbors, anybody. And that is the beauty of the intelligence and social communication that had evolved. It allowed these humans to develop as a team, caring for each other and for the young. That led to longer childhoods; to larger brains; to more intelligence; to better communication and cooperation; and back around to longer childhoods and still larger brains. It was an endless upwards spiral.

This led to all the wonderful adaptions of humans: better tools to hunt and get the needed protein to feed these demanding brains; fires to scare away predators; fires to cook meals; loss of hair, which allowed more persistent hunting without overheating; clothing and blankets to stay warm without all that hair; language; structured social interaction; and yes, partying into the wee hours of the morning while sitting around the campfire. Keep that up for hundreds of thousands of years, and before long we see a big change.

None of that requires direct intervention of God. It is simply the working of nature, driving one evolutionary line in a unique direction after a number of prior adaptions had given that genus a unique survival strategy. No miracle was required.

Excerpted from my website: Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free

Nice fiction story, dude!

 

[BPPLEE]

,

 

[eleos1954]

Christianity says that bacteria don't exist.

LOL .... I'm Christian and yes indeed bacteria does exist.

Where did you get that idea?

 

[eleos1954]

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.

meaning it cannot accept supernatural explanations.

Yep .... so in lieu of that theories are put forth.