My questions for an 'evolutionist'

[liftmeup]

I am asking about Darwinian evolution here, as decribed in 'On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection'.

1. Why have humans got superintelligence?

I know that you probably know a few people who don't match this category, but in general, the human intellect is one far removed from any other organism. Language seems to be the significant starter. Man has 'the word'. No other creature in the world has this one trait.

I was taught that natural selection pares away all that is unnecessary or a hindrance to survival and favors genes necessary for survival. The 'matter of life and death' imperative is at all times the genetic selector in nature. Therefore I postulate upon a human ape ancestor (before it had the word). This ape ancestor was surviving ok as it was, so what on earth could have happened to bring 'the word' into its genome as a requirement for its survival? Plenty of animals have rudimentary forms of language but none has obviously needed 'the word' to live. The world is clearly not that demanding.

2. Can a more complex genome arise from a simpler one?

Dawkins was asked this question but couldn't answer. See:

Richard Dawkins Owned, Note he did not answer the question - YouTube

He states that modern creatures are not the same as the 'ancestors' that were around millions of years ago. So...

3. Why hasn't the coelocanth changed?

This fish exists in the fossil record and is aged at 400 million years. It was assumed (wrongly) to have gone extinct 65 million years ago in the time of the dinosaurs, and yet still lives in the Caribbean and in the Indian ocean. It is considered a 'living fossil'. How can a genus like this stand genetically still, all this time, when science teaches that constant evolutionary pressures have brought about all the other 'modern' creatures we see today?

4. Has the process of speciation been adequately evidenced?

That being, the divergence of one species into two with a solid genetic barrier between them that does not permit hybrids? Ring species such as Larus appear to be false examples and form a genetically-complex superspecies group (Liebers, 2004). Similarly the Galapagos finches all hybridize easily.

5. By what means can an evolutionary process of natural selection contribute to the mutation of the inanimate, gene-less substrates of 4 billion years ago, into the semblances of living cells?

It seems to me at this point that it cannot. Clay, being inanimate has no imperative to survive, therefore no mechanism by which to improve itself.

 

[CabVet]

1. Why have humans got superintelligence?

Because we can. I know this answer will not satisfy you, but it is the only one there is.

2. Can a more complex genome arise from a simpler one?

Yes, gene (and even whole genome) duplications are common. I can link to hundreds of references on this subject, do you want them?

3. Why hasn't the coelocanth changed?

Why didn't bacteria change? Why didn't corals (which are older than coelacanths) changed)? You have to change the theme, if you just ask the same questions that are asked in creationist websites it will just look like you are copying and pasting from them. Anyhow, here is the answer (for all of the above):

Because they didn't need to. Their habitat was very stable during this entire time and there was no need to change. Evolution does not have a purpose. To quote Darwin: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change". The idea that evolution has a direction or eliminates "old" things is a false one propagates by creationists.

4. Has the process of speciation been adequately evidenced?

Yes, I can give you links to literally hundreds of scientific papers on this subject if you want. The fact that a species hybridize does not mean that it is not undergoing speciation.

5. By what means can an evolutionary process of natural selection contribute to the mutation of the inanimate, gene-less substrates of 4 billion years ago, into the semblances of living cells?

None.

It seems to me at this point that it cannot. Clay, being inanimate has no imperative to survive, therefore no mechanism by which to improve itself.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis, I suggest you start a new thread and maybe read about it first. Life did not start with "clay".

 

[liftmeup]

Because we can. I know this answer will not satisfy you, but it is the only one there is.

In what way does that answer satisfy you?

(thank you for your other replies.)

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Why have humans got superintelligence?

For the same reasons that cheetahs have superspeed, elephants have supersize, sharks have supersharp teeth, and bats have superhearing. It is an adaptation that was selected for in our species because it has aided us in competing for food and survival.

I was taught that natural selection pares away all that is unnecessary or a hindrance to survival and favors genes necessary for survival.

Untrue. Even us humans carry a lot of baggage from our evolutionary history such as an appendix that is no longer used for plant digestion and a tailbone that no longer supports a tail. These features now play a very rudimentary role compared to the same features in other species and in our ancestors.

2. Can a more complex genome arise from a simpler one?

Yes. Is the human genome more complex than the chimp genome? Can you show me a difference between the two genomes that evolution could not produce?

Dawkins was asked this question but couldn't answer.

Reality is not limited to what Dawkins can or can not think of at the drop of a hat.

3. Why hasn't the coelocanth changed?

It has. The modern coelocanth, belonging to the genus Latimeria, is not found anywhere in the fossil record.

This fish exists in the fossil record and is aged at 400 million years. It was assumed (wrongly) to have gone extinct 65 million years ago in the time of the dinosaurs, and yet still lives in the Caribbean and in the Indian ocean. It is considered a 'living fossil'. How can a genus like this stand genetically still, all this time, when science teaches that constant evolutionary pressures have brought about all the other 'modern' creatures we see today?

Coelocanth is an Order of fish and is made up of hundreds of different species, only two of which are still living. The living species are different from all of the fossil species.

4. Has the process of speciation been adequately evidenced?

Yes. Humans and chimps are separate species, and we do share a common ancestor.

5. By what means can an evolutionary process of natural selection contribute to the mutation of the inanimate, gene-less substrates of 4 billion years ago, into the semblances of living cells?

Obviously it can't which is why no one is proposing that evolution gave rise to the first life. You are thinking of abiogenesis.

 

[WisdomTree]

I'm going to say co-operation which evolved into culture and society which made the language a necessity for humans. That's just me though...

You really gotta differentiate between the theory of evolution and abiogenesis cause they are two different things.

 

[WisdomTree]

Is abiogenesis even a theory? From what I can gather it is just a hypothesis.

 

[CabVet]

In what way does that answer satisfy you?

(thank you for your other replies.)

I was going to answer it in more detail and then I saw Loudmouth's post, so I will just paste his answer:

For the same reasons that cheetahs have superspeed, elephants have supersize, sharks have supersharp teeth, and bats have superhearing. It is an adaptation that was selected for in our species because it has aided us in competing for food and survival.

 

[CabVet]

Is abiogenesis even a theory? From what I can gather it is just a hypothesis.

Correct, it is a hypothesis. The best one we have so far, but still just a hypothesis.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

Our brains have actually been designed with an amazing compensatory capacity. After a stroke, some of the lost function can be taken up by other, undamaged portions. Also, the region of the brain to do with hand control enlarges as people learn to play, say, the guitar. In people who go blind, the sense of touch is greatly enhanced to compensate. Why should chance mutation, coupled with natural selection, favour the development of exquisite touch in blind individuals? Most blindness occurs way past the reproductive years, so from a Darwinian point of view, such ‘compassionate’ design features, useful only in case of major disaster, are hard to explain. They make sense in a body designed by an intelligent Creator to cope in a fallen world. Our brain is by far the most complex thing in the universe.

Evolution requires a simple form of life to have morphed into increasingly complex organisms. Since the basis for biological complexity is genetic complexity, some biologists propose that the complicated genomes in modern organisms arose from one or a few genes in a common ancestor through duplication, with subsequent neofunctionalization through mutation and natural selection.

(1) gene duplications are aberrations of cell division processes and are more likely to cause malformation or diseases rather than selective advantage;

(2) duplicated genes are usually silenced and subjected to degenerative mutations;

(3) regulation of supposedly duplicated gene clusters and gene families is irreducibly complex, and demands simultaneous development of fully functional multiple genes and switching networks, contrary to Darwinian gradualism.

Evolutionists assume that the fossil-bearing rock layers have been laid down over millions of years, hence when creatures like the coelacanth are absent from upper rock strata they presume that means that the coelacanth must be extinct.

All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood.

By definition, natural selection is a selective process, so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest. The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment.

A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form.

 

[verysincere]

I was taught that natural selection pares away all that is unnecessary or a hindrance to survival....

You have every right to feel frustrated at the poor biology education you received. Many of us had that same experience in our backgrounds, even if we were educated as part of different generations. If I recall, my high school biology book had zero chapters focused on evolution and the topic barely arose. And even if falsehoods like the one you mentioned (above) were not a part of the class, many of us heard such lies about evolution (including that coelacanth "living fossil" distortion) at church or from parents.

A poor education which fails to address various topics is a serious problem---but an education that includes myths and disinformation meant to denigrate real science and real evidence is appalling.

 

[verysincere]

>"Evolutionists assume that the fossil-bearing rock layers have been laid down over millions of years, hence when creatures like the coelacanth are absent from upper rock strata they presume that means that the coelacanth must be extinct."
>
>


Illogical. No. Scientists assume that a species is extinct when no live populations of that species can be found today.

There are a great many coelacanth species which are extinct. We consider them extinct because they cannot be found today. The fact that two species of coelacanth (which are very different from the fossil coelacanth species you mentioned)are being studied as live populations today is not at all in conflict with the theory of evolution. Some species are lost to the past and others adapt and evolve and can be found today.

A quick consultation of the technical literature would spare you the embarrassment of posting false information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..snip..
Evolutionists assume that the fossil-bearing rock layers have been laid down over millions of years, hence when creatures like the coelacanth are absent from upper rock strata they presume that means that the coelacanth must be extinct.

No, that is not an assumption. Rates of deposition in similar environments today were measured and the amount of time necessary extrapolated from that for the initial age estimates. They were very rough but we know we needed ages in the hundreds of millions of years to deposit all of the sedimentary rocks found on the Earth. That was correlated by radiometric dating which began in the early 1900's. Fossils cannot be dated directly but they can be bracketed.

All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood.

No, that is clearly not true. Do you have a real source to back up this claim?

By definition, natural selection is a selective process, so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest. The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment.

Natural selection is only half of the evolutionary process. The other half is natural variation. Mutation, copying errors etc. bring changes to the genome. Some bad some good most neutral. Natural selection takes out the bad so that all that is left is the neutral and the good. The neutral changes may become good changes later, or even bad changes later, when the environment changes.

A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form.

One average size modern protein. Modern life did not form during abiogenesis. The first cells were very simple with very simple proteins.

You cannot beat evolution by using straw man arguments. If you learned what you were arguing against it would help, but be careful. There is no such thing as an honest informed creationist.

 

[Tiberius]

I am asking about Darwinian evolution here, as decribed in 'On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection'.

Actually, we know there's a whole lot more to evolution than what Darwin knew. He didn't know about genes or DNA, for example.

1. Why have humans got superintelligence?

I know that you probably know a few people who don't match this category, but in general, the human intellect is one far removed from any other organism. Language seems to be the significant starter. Man has 'the word'. No other creature in the world has this one trait.

I was taught that natural selection pares away all that is unnecessary or a hindrance to survival and favors genes necessary for survival. The 'matter of life and death' imperative is at all times the genetic selector in nature. Therefore I postulate upon a human ape ancestor (before it had the word). This ape ancestor was surviving ok as it was, so what on earth could have happened to bring 'the word' into its genome as a requirement for its survival? Plenty of animals have rudimentary forms of language but none has obviously needed 'the word' to live. The world is clearly not that demanding.

You keep saying 'the word' in quotes. Do you mean something other than simple words? Many life forms have words, names and languages. Dolphins and some parrots give each other names, for example.

2. Can a more complex genome arise from a simpler one?

Dawkins was asked this question but couldn't answer. See:

Richard Dawkins Owned, Note he did not answer the question - YouTube

He states that modern creatures are not the same as the 'ancestors' that were around millions of years ago. So...

Yes. Complex genomes can arise from simpler ones due to gene duplication. Dawkins explains it quite nicely in several of his books.

3. Why hasn't the coelocanth changed?

This fish exists in the fossil record and is aged at 400 million years. It was assumed (wrongly) to have gone extinct 65 million years ago in the time of the dinosaurs, and yet still lives in the Caribbean and in the Indian ocean. It is considered a 'living fossil'. How can a genus like this stand genetically still, all this time, when science teaches that constant evolutionary pressures have brought about all the other 'modern' creatures we see today?

it has. The species of coelocanth alive today is a different species to the one we find in the fossil record.

4. Has the process of speciation been adequately evidenced?

That being, the divergence of one species into two with a solid genetic barrier between them that does not permit hybrids? Ring species such as Larus appear to be false examples and form a genetically-complex superspecies group (Liebers, 2004). Similarly the Galapagos finches all hybridize easily.

Yes.

5. By what means can an evolutionary process of natural selection contribute to the mutation of the inanimate, gene-less substrates of 4 billion years ago, into the semblances of living cells?

It seems to me at this point that it cannot. Clay, being inanimate has no imperative to survive, therefore no mechanism by which to improve itself.

All evolution needs is a mechanism by which objects can duplicate themselves (which is fairly common, even among chemicals) and for that duplication process to be imperfect. As long as some of those imperfections will alter the chance for that object to duplicate itself, either for better or for worse, then you'll get evolution.

 

[Davian]

Our brains have actually been designed with an amazing compensatory capacity. After a stroke, some of the lost function can be taken up by other, undamaged portions. Also, the region of the brain to do with hand control enlarges as people learn to play, say, the guitar. In people who go blind, the sense of touch is greatly enhanced to compensate. Why should chance mutation, coupled with natural selection, favour the development of exquisite touch in blind individuals? Most blindness occurs way past the reproductive years, so from a Darwinian point of view, such ‘compassionate’ design features, useful only in case of major disaster, are hard to explain. They make sense in a body designed by an intelligent Creator to cope in a fallen world. Our brain is by far the most complex thing in the universe.

"Our brains have actually been designed with an amazing compensatory capacity. After a stroke, some of the lost function can be taken up by other, undamaged portions. Also, the region of the brain to do with hand control enlarges as people learn to play, say, the guitar. In people who go blind, the sense of touch is greatly enhanced to compensate.

Why should chance mutation, coupled with natural selection, favour the development of exquisite touch in blind individuals? Most blindness occurs way past the reproductive years, so from a Darwinian point of view, such ‘compassionate’ design features, useful only in case of major disaster, are hard to explain. They make sense in a body designed by an intelligent Creator to cope in a fallen world.5 Our brain is by far the most complex thing in the universe."

Our brain: Do we only use a small portion of it?


Another cut-and-paste creationist.

 

[liftmeup]

I was going to answer it in more detail and then I saw Loudmouth's post, so I will just paste his answer:

I'm sorry I don't find this answer convincing at all. Speed, size, aggression, senses are all demonstrably useful in the survival struggle.

One of the classic natural selection cases is the peppered moth. In cities, the black phenotype predominated, in the country, the variegated form predominated. The only reason they did is because death selected out the ones that were disadvantaged in their inappropriate coloration.

It is the 'this will kill you before you reproduce' imperative of a feature that brings about the 'evolution'. So, apes and other lower order primates have lived, continue to live just as they are without superintelligence, including the presumed ancestors of humans. I see that creatures such as chimps have few natural enemies. They are pretty much apex predators. Being omnivorous they have many dietary options too. There is not a strong selection pressure upon them.

It seems that superintelligence is not a pre-requisite for well-developed primates to survive and appears to be similarly a kind of biological extravagance.

 

[liftmeup]

You have every right to feel frustrated at the poor biology education you received. Many of us had that same experience in our backgrounds, even if we were educated as part of different generations. If I recall, my high school biology book had zero chapters focused on evolution and the topic barely arose. And even if falsehoods like the one you mentioned (above) were not a part of the class, many of us heard such lies about evolution (including that coelacanth "living fossil" distortion) at church or from parents.

A poor education which fails to address various topics is a serious problem---but an education that includes myths and disinformation meant to denigrate real science and real evidence is appalling.

Well you are not elucidating on what might be a better truth.

 

[liftmeup]

Natural selection is only half of the evolutionary process. The other half is natural variation. Mutation, copying errors etc. bring changes to the genome. Some bad some good most neutral. Natural selection takes out the bad so that all that is left is the neutral and the good. The neutral changes may become good changes later, or even bad changes later, when the environment changes.

There is no such thing as an honest informed creationist.

Are you suggesting that random mutation could give rise to refined human intellect? I presume such a process would have to be gradual, therefore it would require many many many such desirable random mutations in sequence to get humanity to where it is. And in each case, a selective pressure on those without the mutation to die.

 

[verysincere]

Well you are not elucidating on what might be a better truth.

Was that not obvious? Better biology education that emphasizes the importance of evolutionary processes would be as "a better truth".

I don't believe that the God of the Bible is a liar (as so many young earth creationist colleagues have implied.) I deny that God has filled his creation with evidence of billions of years and evolutionary processes which never happened. The overwhelming evidence for billions of years and the wonders of evolution---perhaps the greatest of God's creations---is all around us because the Creator is honest and allows us to observe his works. (I refuse to accept the "weak god" of young earth creationism and somehow keep a straight face while ignoring the evidence that multiplies by the dad. Creation is NOT a "big lie" of God trying to fool us by planting misleading data.)

So "a better truth" is one where God's revelation in scripture and God's revelation in creation are both heeded. God does not contradict himself and he doesn't lie. (And that conclusion is why I left the American young earth creationist cult after many years of casually accepting TRADITION over scripture. I started heeding scripture over creationist manglings of the Biblical text. Of course, a career in Greek and Hebrew exegesis was a big help.)

 

[Orogeny]

I'm sorry I don't find this answer convincing at all. Speed, size, aggression, senses are all demonstrably useful in the survival struggle.

So is intelligence. Outsmarting your predators prolongs survival and improves reproductive odds.

It is the 'this will kill you before you reproduce' imperative of a feature that brings about the 'evolution'. So, apes and other lower order primates have lived, continue to live just as they are without superintelligence, including the presumed ancestors of humans. I see that creatures such as chimps have few natural enemies. They are pretty much apex predators. Being omnivorous they have many dietary options too. There is not a strong selection pressure upon them.

It seems that superintelligence is not a pre-requisite for well-developed primates to survive and appears to be similarly a kind of biological extravagance.

Where are you coming up with 'super intelligence'? How are you measuring our intelligence vs. other species? Is this measure quantitative or qualitative? Given this measurement, is our intelligence so much larger than our nearest relative that it could not be a product of natural selection? If so, why? Is the magnitude of our intelligence, relative to that of our nearest living relative (the bonobo) larger than the length of a giraffe's neck relative to that of its nearest living relative, the okapi? Or more different than elephants are to their closest living relatives, the Sirenians? Why or why not?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you suggesting that random mutation could give rise to refined human intellect?

Random mutation plus natural selection.

I presume such a process would have to be gradual, therefore it would require many many many such desirable random mutations in sequence to get humanity to where it is.

So far so good.

And in each case, a selective pressure on those without the mutation to die.

Indeed -- and one of the more likely places for that pressure to come from could be those with the mutation.

Consider: a group splits into two, and after a few generations, one group becomes slightly smarter than the other. Not a whole lot, but when food gets scarce (flood, drought, ice age, whatever) the smarter group is able to get to the now-limited resources before the unintelligent one.

Or perhaps the smarter group is better equipped to get away from predators than the other one.

The possibilities are endless, but the point remains that the more intelligent group has the edge.