My problem with evolutionary biology

[Naraoia]

Actually, a close reading of Genesis does ot oppose anything Scinece says.
And, as far as BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION... Henesis agrees that the Plant Kingdom came befoe the Animal kingdom.

The ironic thing is, that's not true. Land plants (which are the only kind Genesis even mentions) came long after animals. The approximate dates of their first fossil appearances are 470 million years ago and 580 million years ago, respectively. Furthermore, the first land plants were something like liverworts. Not trees bearing fruit by any stretch...

And that's only one of several historical facts that Genesis gets wrong.

Both science and genesis agree on the first life coming about by some sort of Spontaneous Generation.

"By a god" doesn't really meet my definition of "spontaneous"...

 

[keith99]

Since Jade Margery dealt with most of this, I'll just pick out the issue of testability.

The key point is that seemingly contradictory behaviours, if adaptive, should occur in different situations. And it's possible (maybe not always, but often enough) to use natural selection to predict which situations should and shouldn't result in each behaviour.

For a simple example, you could argue that generally humans cooperate when it suits their selfish needs (or the selfish needs of their genes, as the case may be). This is a testable hypothesis. For example, it predicts that we will behave more cooperatively when we can't get away with selfishness, e.g. when others are watching. (As far as I know, this is actually true.)

We should add in the point made in the book 'The Selfish Gene'. It looks at being passed on from a different angle, not the individual, but the gene.

If something genetic make it more likely I'll scarifice my own wellbeing of others this could work out to increasing the spread of that gene (specifically my siblings and children have a 50% chance of having that gene). This explains both 'altruistic' actions and also the general tendency to have more of that towards those like ourselfs.

Genetic trends also can relate to a culture, even in animals. Actions that seem to be pro survival are anything but if they run against the culture.

 

[Jazer]

Land plants (which are the only kind Genesis even mentions) came long after animals.

Really, that is a good trick. What did the animals eat while they were waiting for the plants to come along?

 

[Naraoia]

Really, that is a good trick. What did the animals eat while they were waiting for the plants to come along?

Palaeontology 101: land animals didn't appear until well after land plants. Before that, animals ate what marine animals eat today. Algae. Protists. Each other. (Was that really so hard to figure out?)

 

[Gracchus]

Palaeontology 101: land animals didn't appear until well after land plants. Before that, animals ate what marine animals eat today. Algae. Protists. Each other. (Was that really so hard to figure out?)

Hard? For some it is bloody impossible!

 

[quatona]

This quote represents my major qualms with making evolutionary biology the be-all and end-all of causes for life, humanity and human actions and interactions:

"Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.” ---Dr Philip Skell

1. It´s odd how he picks examples that are moral valuations rather than objective data. Of course this alone makes it hard or even impossible to test them scientifically.
2. Since evolution is a permanent process of "natural selection" a variety of traits would have to be expected (or else there wouldn´t anything to be selected from).
3. With evolutionary changes conditions change and require further adaptions. We are never observing an end result (except when a species goes extinct).

I don't understand how natural selection can on the one hand bring about people who are inherently selfish and want to propagate their genes and on the other hand bring about people that are altruistic and helpful because this also in the long term propagates their genes and the species.

So what would you expect when observing the process of natural selection? Uniform members of a species who always change uniformly, instantly and simultaneously?

It doesn't sit right with me that natural selection can be touted as the cause but give two opposing effects.

Try to think of natural selection as a permanent process of trial and error, not as the result of the efforts of a premeditating entity.

 

[quatona]

Great response right there. Why are there so many traits which we consider negative but also lead to greater survival rates? Greed is a good example. The people in this world that have the most opportunity to find any mate and make lots of babies are the ones that are very wealthy and take more than they give. The kings and lords of the past often had multiple wives or mistresses and fathered many, many children and yet they were quite greedy which is seen largely as a vice and not a virtue.

Evolution (theory) is not about morality.

 

[Huram Abi]

Really, that is a good trick. What did the animals eat while they were waiting for the plants to come along?

Bacteria, fungi, and each other.

 

[cupid dave]

The ironic thing is, that's not true. Land plants (which are the only kind Genesis even mentions) came long after animals. The approximate dates of their first fossil appearances are 470 million years ago and 580 million years ago, respectively. Furthermore, the first land plants were something like liverworts. Not trees bearing fruit by any stretch...

And that's only one of several historical facts that Genesis gets wrong.

"By a god" doesn't really meet my definition of "spontaneous"...

Actually, Genesis refers not to "grass" as interpreted by the KJV trnaslators in 1650, but to "the first sprouts of life," and then a list of plants which evolved from those first sprouts.

Look up the word in the concordance and see that I am correct.

 

[cupid dave]

Bacteria, fungi, and each other.

Bacteria is plant life:

bacteria |bak?ti(?)r??|
a member of a large group of unicellular microorganisms that...

.... have cell walls but lack organelles and an organized nucleus,.

Formerly included in the plant kingdom, they are now classified separately (as prokaryotes which have neither Cell Walls or nuclei membranes).

 

[Jazer]

Hard? For some it is bloody impossible!

It is impossible to understand how atheists can be so obstinate when God has given and done so much for them.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

It is impossible to understand how atheists can be so obstinate when God has given and done so much for them.

I know, crazy huh!

 

[Huram Abi]

Bacteria is plant life:

bacteria |bak?ti(?)r??|
a member of a large group of unicellular microorganisms that...

.... have cell walls but lack organelles and an organized nucleus,.

Formerly included in the plant kingdom, they are now classified separately (as prokaryotes which have neither Cell Walls or nuclei membranes).

Formerly included with fungi, you mean, and classified as Schizomycetes?

If we group things together based on similar solutions to environmental challenges, we would have to say that bats and insects should be classified as birds because they have wings. We don't do that because it doesn't tell us anything meaningful or useful about recent descent.

Getting into the details, plant cell walls are made out of cellulose, while bacteria cell walls are from peptidoglycan which is a crystal lattice structure and fungi cell walls are chitin. While these are similar solutions, there is no physical indication of descent.

If you choose to believe they are the same, that is your choice. But the assumption is not confirmed by any empirical knowledge or natural observation. There isn't a scientifically deduced reason, taxonomical or otherwise, to classify bacteria as plants. Such a belief must be faith-based.

 

[Self Improvement]

It is impossible to understand how atheists can be so obstinate when God has given and done so much for them.

Your god does not exist. He is a myth, a fable, imaginary. Right there on the wall in between my picture of Zeus and the Boogeyman I have hanging an empty picture frame representing your god.

 

[Naraoia]

Actually, Genesis refers not to "grass" as interpreted by the KJV trnaslators in 1650, but to "the first sprouts of life," and then a list of plants which evolved from those first sprouts.

I did not refer to grass either, but it's not just the KJV that specifies the first plants created as flowering plants. And definitely land plants. Day three from the NIV:

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

So, yeah. Land plants are still younger than animals, unless none of the keywords in that passage mean what they mean.

Look up the word in the concordance and see that I am correct.

You could help me out with a link to such a concordance, perhaps?

Bacteria is plant life:

Bacteria are an entirely different domain of life from plants and animals. E. coli is less related to Staph. aureus than you to a banana tree.

(Although the sneaky bastards do hide inside real plant life )

Formerly included in the plant kingdom, they are now classified separately (as prokaryotes which have neither Cell Walls or nuclei membranes).

I think this is what they call a "self-defeating citation".

Formerly including with fungi, you mean, classified as Schizomycetes?

If we group things together based on similar solutions to environmental challenges, we would have to say that bats and insects should be classified as birds because they have wings. We don't do that because it doesn't tell us anything meaningful or useful about recent descent.

Getting into the details, plant cell walls are made out of cellulose, while bacteria cell walls are from peptidoglycan which is a crystal lattice structure and fungi cell walls are chitin. Similar solutions, but do not indicate descent.

If you choose to believe they are the same so you can keep your present worldview, that is your choice. But your belief is faith based and not related to any empirical knowledge. There is no taxonomical reason to classify bacteria as plants and no evidence to support your claim.

is all I can add to this.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We label a trait a 'vice' because when someone else has it, it lowers our chance for survival. It's the heart of hypocrisy really, do as I say but not as I do. Being greedy helps you survive, but so does convincing other people not to be greedy, because then maybe they will share with you. This is the sort of thing that gets enshrined in culture, as Roach pointed out. Different cultures have different ideas of what 'bad' behavior is. Greed is, as far as I know, universal, but other sins definitely aren't--Lust, for instance. There are several cultures that do not view lust as a bad thing because they don't see anything wrong or shameful about having sex, even with people you are not married to. (Although your spouse, if you have one, may be less than pleased, it is not on the same level as the response you get in a culture that has puritanical roots like ours.)

Once again, a good response. The foundation of all vices is hypocrisy. This is awfully bleak

The lord or king with all the wives and mistresses may have been biologically successful because of his greed, but he likely also created a lot of resentment and anger in those who had less than him, which might have eventually lead to his overthrow and death to him and to all his children, meaning biological failure. (It happens pretty frequently like that in history actually.)

This seems awfully convoluted. Can Occam's Razor be applied to this explanation?

But the point is that just because lots of people or a culture calls a behavior wrong, that doesn't mean the behavior is biologically wrong. It's only biologically wrong if it leads to the end of your genetic line. And when I say wrong, I don't mean in a good/bad sense, I mean in a works/broken sense.

I feel a contradiction in here. You've said that natural selection 'picks' traits that can be contradictory because these contradictory traits apply to different situations and sometimes to an individual and sometimes to an individual and his relation to a social unit. You then said that greed is such an example because culture calls it behaviorally 'wrong' while it is not 'biologically' wrong. But is it not also biologically 'right' because you've said that greed-as-a-vice is beneficial biologically to the propagation of your genes because more people will share with you etc.?

Evolution and natural selection don't create perfect creatures that fit exactly into their niche in the puzzle of life and society. We're a tattered mess of tiny variations, an allele here, a protein there, some a little greedier, some a little smarter, some a little more fragile, with bits and pieces of useless junk DNA along for the ride. We're not masterfully designed and engineered, we're assembled in a metaphorical garage with whatever can be scrounged just so long as it works.

Which is, in the end, all that really matters. Does it work? Do we survive long enough to have kids? Do -they- survive long enough to have kids? If the answers are yes all the way down, then we're a (biological) success.

Does it work? Ah yes, functionalism; the antithesis of truth

If functionalism is the answer then truth does not exist. And I guess based on your faith icon, perhaps you don't believe truth exists anyway
Functionalism gets rid of all the "whys" and just focuses on the "hows" because the "whys" don't matter so long as it works.

 

[Jazer]

Your god does not exist. He is a myth, a fable, imaginary.

You just contradicted yourself. First you say He does not exist and then you say he is. He is what? What is the "myth"? Is He a better or a worse myth then the myth your willing to kill and injure people over? My "myth" is that God is love and life and health and healing. Your myth is that it is ok to hate, kill and destroy. It is ok to blow people to pieces and let someone else pick up those pieces. Or do you have to clean up your own mess and pick up the remains yourself?

Life is funny. We had a foreign exchange student from China. We gave him food and a place to live. Everyday I transported him and we did all we could to help him. Then at the end of the year, right before he left he told me something. That at one time his father was in the China Army and it was his job to drive the truck to deliver weapons to north vietnam.

Maybe you can explain that to me. This man who wants to fight against Americans sends his son over here to be educated. We treat his son as if he was our own son. I am sorry your myth does not make any sense to me. It is just to inconsistent for me to figure out. To many contradictions. Our "myth" says make a choice and decide. You can not keep going back and forth. You can not be double minded or you will be unstable in all your ways.

 

[Doveaman]

Your god does not exist.

Is this your belief?

Do you have any evidence to support your belief?

 

[quatona]

Is this your belief?

Do you have any evidence to support your belief?

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Ration]

It is impossible to understand how atheists can be so obstinate when God has given and done so much for them.

He drove me away from him...