Man evolved equal?

[Gadarene]

Aren't you leaving out a few events: such as the formation of the Earth... (et al.) ...and the events that took place at the beginning of this universe???

No. Evolution covers the diversification of life, not the origin of the universe.

You do not seem to actually know what evolution is.

 

[selfinflikted]

Aren't you leaving out a few events: such as the formation of the Earth... (et al.) ...and the events that took place at the beginning of this universe???

The formation of the earth wasn't random. And we have no idea about the events that took place at the beginning of the universe, if there even was one.

 

[Gadarene]

The formation of the earth wasn't random.

Indeed, gravity is a pretty predictable beast.

 

[selfinflikted]

Indeed, gravity is a pretty predictable beast.

Indeed. Not to mention all the other physics involved. Earth formed the same way, more or less, that all other planets form(ed). And, I believe at last count, there are, what? Thousands of other known planets?

 

[rsduncan]

So both of you claim that, given a properly-equipped laboratory and identical amounts of matter, energy, etc, you could reproduce this Earth and this universe???

 

[Gadarene]

So both of you claim that, given a properly-equipped laboratory and identical amounts of matter, energy, etc, you could reproduce this Earth and this universe???

Where are we claiming that?

Given the chaotic nature of the system we are talking about (and that's "chaotic" in the mathematical sense, before anyone gets any ideas - high sensitivity to initial conditions) it would be incredibly difficult to reproduce an entire universe entirely even if one could create one on a whim.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

So both of you claim that, given a properly-equipped laboratory and identical amounts of matter, energy, etc, you could reproduce this Earth and this universe???

Do you want to discuss evolution or abiogenesis? You seem confused..

 

[rsduncan]

It sounded like you were saying that we and this Earth were a foregone conclusion, even sans a personal creator. Now you say the process was "chaotic" in some way, although the "initial conditions" were in our favor from the outset. There are loose ends, here...

 

[rsduncan]

Do you want to discuss evolution or abiogenesis? You seem confused..

I am trying to unravel the knot...

 

[Gadarene]

It sounded like you were saying that we and this Earth were a foregone conclusion, even sans a personal creator.

You were the one saying the entire process is random, when it isn't.

Pre-big-bang, assuming it even makes sense to say "pre"? Open question, absolutely. Though out of religion vs science, I know which has the better track record of actually explaining things with evidence to match, so I know which my money's on.

Now you say the process was "chaotic" in some way, although the "initial conditions" were in our favor from the outset. There are loose ends, here...

And I even pre-empted this mistake

There is no guarantee life would have evolved the same way or even at all given a similar setup, due to this sensitivity to initial conditions. That doesn't mean there is uncertainty about the actual process, nor is it wholly random - which was your initial assertion before goalposts started getting moved around. (Nor is the sensitivity an excuse to insert a deity, for that matter.)

 

[Gadarene]

I am trying to unravel the knot...

Start with learning the difference between the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology.

 

[selfinflikted]

Do you want to discuss evolution or abiogenesis? You seem confused..

Well, that isn't even abiogenesis (how planets form, solar systems, etc). That's just basic cosmology.

 

[rsduncan]

Start with learning the difference between the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology.

OK, Professor. You and self-inflikted were claiming that the outcome we see on this Earth was predictable, which gives your claim the characteristics of an hypothesis. Next you claim that you cannot test the hypothesis even if you were given everything you would need to do so...

 

[selfinflikted]

You and self-inflikted were claiming that the outcome we see on this Earth was predictable, which gives your claim the characteristics of an hypothesis.

We didn't say that. We said the processes are more or less well known, and that it wasn't random. That is not to say the "outcome" is perfectly predictable. No, not at all.

 

[Gadarene]

OK, Professor. You and self-inflikted were claiming that the outcome we see on this Earth was predictable, which gives your claim the characteristics of an hypothesis.

Next you claim that you cannot test the hypothesis even if you were given everything you would need to do so...

Er, no. I said I couldn't, funnily enough, create a spare earth to do experiments on.

That doesn't mean an origins hypothesis can't be tested. Cosmological models are tested all the time. Gravity waves, cosmic microwave background radiation.

And evolution isn't a hypothesis, it's a theory. Again, it's tested all the time. What do you think scientists have been doing for the last 150 years?

The theory does allow predictions to be made about what we find. Tiktaalik is a prime example of this. It is a transitional form found within the timeline it was predicted to be found in, and with transitional features between the species that came before and after it.

 

[selfinflikted]

The theory does allow predictions to be made about what we find. Tiktaalik is a prime example of this. It is a transitional form found within the timeline it was predicted to be found in, and with transitional features between the species that came before and after it.

It's true that the theory of evolution enables us to make certain predictions, like the type you've described above. But I think rsduncan was asking if we could recreate the universe/earth formation and predict the outcome, overall. That is quite impossible to do at present.

Even if there is an extremely similar "earth" in some other solar system in another galaxy (actually, it's extremely probable that there is), chances that life would evolve in exactly the same way it did here are immeasurably small. I think, with out current knowledge base, it would be impossible to predict the outcome of evolution elsewhere in the universe.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

If God did not grant us all with a soul created in His image, then we are the mere product of random evolution (I'm not saying that evolution did or did not happen by the way). But if evolution did occur AND there is no God who grants us a soul, then there is no sense in saying that we are all equal as people. The thought that random, unethical, cold, and uncaring biochemical chance produced a bunch of beings that are completely equal to each other is absurd.

Discuss

Rest completely assured, that Consciousness didn't come from Materials like planets, dirt, hydrogen gas, and helium ! lol..... Neither did our Moral Conscience (moral oughtness) . We were fashioned very carefully by a like personal Creator and he wanted Humans to be drastically different from the animals of the Forest that rely on instinct. The MOST arrogant thing imaginable is trying to convince Oneself they are just 'an animal' seeking to get its needs, urges, and desires met at all cost. , and so rejecting God. Its an eternal crime to go this route.

Heres a good summary on the OP : Implications of Evolution in Morality/Culture



The only reason macro evolution and abiogenesis is hanging on by a thread is because the general public would loose faith in the scientific community , and, theyd have to re-write all the school textbooks including getting rid of the titillizing air-brushed Monkey Men lineup . When Evolutionists themselves speak out against their field, you know its been fallacious all along :

" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.



" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.



" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway,
1991, page 59.


" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on
Trial. 1991. page 82.

From an article in Science Digest Special---

" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94



" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the
greatest deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup,
Embriologist. Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.

" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.



" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature (than a Creator)"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.

And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer (and my
favorite) ----

" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- agnostic Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116

 

[selfinflikted]

Rest completely assured, that Consciousness didn't come from Materials like planets, dirt, hydrogen gas, and helium ! lol..... Neither did our Moral Conscience (moral oughtness) . We were fashioned very carefully by a like personal Creator and he wanted Humans to be drastically different from the animals of the Forest that rely on instinct.

Evidence?

 

[Gadarene]

It's true that the theory of evolution enables us to make certain predictions, like the type you've described above. But I think rsduncan was asking if we could recreate the universe/earth formation and predict the outcome, overall. That is quite impossible to do at present.

Even if there is an extremely similar "earth" in some other solar system in another galaxy (actually, it's extremely probable that there is), chances that life would evolve in exactly the same way it did here are immeasurably small. I think, with out current knowledge base, it would be impossible to predict the outcome of evolution elsewhere in the universe.

Sure. But that doesn't mean we can't understand the process. I was mainly calling attention to the flaw in the argument that if we can't reproduce an entire spare universe then the theory can't be tested at all. It is clearly nonsense.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Well, that isn't even abiogenesis (how planets form, solar systems, etc). That's just basic cosmology.

Perhaps I interpreted him incorrectly?

I assumed when he meant reproducing earth in a properly equiped laboratory he was including life in the reproduction, as life is known only to exist on earth.