Human Evolution

[driewerf]

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.

Yet, the ignorance of creationists about evolution, the theory of evolution and sciences in general is staggering.
Can you guess why I made the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution?

 

[driewerf]

the point being the god of the bible is the same god that created everything in 6 days..... we cant recreate God into whatever we like him to be

Oh yes, that's exaclty what we have been doing the last 4000 years or something. Mankind has created gods in its own image. Compare the Egyptian gods with the nordic gods, and you see that each people created it's deities in it's own image.

 

[eleos1954]

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."



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.



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.



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.



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.

Data has been and is being gathered. Data gathered has to be interpreted ... the interpretations of the data gathered varies.

I understand the evolution theories require the physical .... creation does not require it ... because of that difference that does not neither confirm or deny either. Both are reasonable/plausible possibilities.

We have learned we live in an extraordinary complex and vast universe.

There can, and are a lot of "details" that are argued, however real basically without those details is ..... it just happened some how (and the theories vary) or it was designed by a supernatural intelligent entity.

Intelligent Design

God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.

God does not need the material to create.

So the divide in the beliefs will continue and always be debated.

 

[Estrid]

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

So much easier when all diseases and mental conditions were
supernatural, eh?
"Supernatural", aka superstition is what you get in lieu of
education / knowledge.

Our maid is from Philippines. As a child she was blamed for her
sisters illness- she had a crocodile spirit in her that had to be removed.

So she was taken to another island where she was held
down while her hand was sliced up with a piece of glass.

Later, her sister got well.

That proved the treatment works.

There's your "it's supernatural" mentality at work.

 

[Estrid]

Data has been and is being gathered. Data gathered has to be interpreted ... the interpretations of the data gathered varies.

I understand the evolution theories require the physical .... creation does not require it ... because of that difference that does not neither confirm or deny either. Both are reasonable/plausible possibilities.

We have learned we live in an extraordinary complex and vast universe.

There can, and are a lot of "details" that are argued, however real basically without those details is ..... it just happened some how (and the theories vary) or it was designed by a supernatural intelligent entity.

Intelligent Design

God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.

God does not need the material to create.

So the divide in the beliefs will continue and always be debated.

Um, what are the two plausible theories?

 

[AV1611VET]

So much easier when all diseases and mental conditions were
supernatural, eh?
"Supernatural", aka superstition is what you get in lieu of
education / knowledge.

Our maid is from Philippines. As a child she was blamed for her
sisters illness- she had a crocodile spirit in her that had to be removed.

So she was taken to another island where she was held
down while her hand was sliced up with a piece of glass.

Later, her sister got well.

That proved the treatment works.

There's your "it's supernatural" mentality at work.

Evidently they didn't listen to God's missionaries, did they?

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[HTacianas]

Where in the article does it reference too many variables?

In the course of human evolution, how many changes were caused by environment and how many changes may have been caused by DNA manipulation of a host by a parasite?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nice fiction story, dude!

Would you rather my story included talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man in a whale, and a global flood?

At least my story has overwhelming evidence.

 

[renniks]

Would you rather my story included talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man in a whale, and a global flood?

At least my story has overwhelming evidence.

Lol, not even a little.

 

[Estrid]

In the course of human evolution, how many changes were caused by environment and how many changes may have been caused by DNA manipulation of a host by a parasite?

Find out

 

[Estrid]

Lol, not even a little.

So, you know more than any scientist on earth.

 

[HTacianas]

Find out

Red this over if you'd like:

https://www.otago.ac.nz/parasitegroup/PDF papers/Poulin2010-ASB.pdf

 

[Frank Robert]

In the course of human evolution, how many changes were caused by environment and how many changes may have been caused by DNA manipulation of a host by a parasite?

The PDF you linked to mentions DNA 3x. Parasite DNA manipulation doesn't appear to be very important to the author.

 

[HTacianas]

The PDF you linked to mentions DNA 3x. Parasite DNA manipulation doesn't appear to be very important to the author.

When reading a scientific publication you have to also examine the sources quoted:

Phenotypic variability induced by parasites: - PubMed

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you rather my story included talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man in a whale, and a global flood?

Not as it pertains to the Creation Week.

But YES, I would like your beliefs to conform to what the Bible says.

At least my story has overwhelming evidence.

Is that why you call yourself "doubtingmerle"?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you know more than any scientist on earth.

Let's put it this way:

I know something they don't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

SelfSim, are you just bluffing? You say you are a Humanist, but you post some really bizarre stuff. And I've seen you do this on another thread. Are you really a Humanist, or are you just pretending?

I went to check on your past posts and find that your page is private, so nobody can see what you posted in the past. Are you hiding something?

Can you show me a couple examples of posts where you actually posted anything positive about the Humanism you claim to be part of?

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'.

No, of course I won't add a note on my site saying that evolution is just "a solution" that those who believe in evolution claim. Evolution is real. It leads to real solutions to problems that animals have in the struggle for existence.

And for some reason you add the strawman argument that I said evolution "seeks" and "sees". I said neither of those. So why do you attack my writings for saying that?

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.

Which is just plain bizarre. Hominids were getting ever bigger heads, and needed a solution to get babies down the birth canal. To try to write this of as a hypothetical problem only in my own mind is just plain silly.

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

This is a misrepresentation of computer programming. Programmers write programs that can be used by other people to solve problems that those real people need to solve. Computer programs solving problems is indeed quite analogous to evolution solving problems.

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'.

You continued to deny that it would be a problem for a hominid to have a baby with an adult-sized human head, which is just plain silly.

@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.

The rest of us were not debating the basics of evolution. We were discussing the best way to word statements about the evolutionary process that we all agreed on. But somehow you jumped into this healthy debate between skeptics with a frontal attack on evolution itself while pretending to take one side of the argument.

I have seen you use this same tactic on another thread also (A thread about "Nothing"). What is going on here?

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(?)

Evolving a hominid with a big brain is not a superficial problem. It took hundreds of thousands of years. Adaptions included not just a larger brain, but adaptions to brain structure; adaptions to delay growth of the skull until after birth; and many adaptions that allowed hominids to become fearsome hunters that could supply all the protein needed by those big brains.

And the evidence strongly indicates that it actually happened.

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.

Survival of the fittest is not a well, err, uh, out of date concept. When you come here and tell us that survival of the fittest has been superseded, while making not a single argument for evolutionary science or humanism, I am left scratching my head. What are you doing here?

I'm happy to bow out of this sub-conversation now, having provided my feedback.
Cheers

OK, so you come here attacking basic concepts of evolution like survival of the fittest, and then decide to bow out? What is this, a hit and run false flag operation?

PS: Apologies for the word-salad comment .. nothing personal if you actually intended simplicity, (conceptually speaking).

Is that an apology, or a passive aggressive attempt to get in one last dig? You apologize for condemning my simplicity, for I must be writing nothing but simplicity? In context of what you have said in total, I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Anyway, if you really are here as a Humanist, then please show us a few posts where you actually posted something in favor of humanism, rather than this drivel.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But YES, I would like your beliefs to conform to what the Bible says.

So you would like me to start believing that grasshoppers have just 4 legs?

Is that why you call yourself "doubtingmerle"?

Thats a name I picked 20 years ago. It is what it is. I can't change it without starting all over with a new account.

And if I started all over, I would never reach 3,800,000 posts.

 

[renniks]

So, you know more than any scientist on earth.

Not ever scientist accepts the evolution story.

 

[AV1611VET]

I went to check on your past posts and find that your page is private, so nobody can see what you posted in the past. Are you hiding something?

Merle, do you see where it says you have 9230 posts?

If you click on that number, all your posts will come up.