Theory of Evolution

Forums › Off topic › Theory of Evolution

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2167841 26-Jan-2019 12:51

Rikkitic:

We already know how to make Coke and marshmallows and scaling that up to a planetary level is just a matter of time and technology. So Coke and Marshmallow planets may not be exceptional at all. Someone just has to want to do it. No God required at all.

Changing tack a little ... Humans, being semi-intelligent designers, have an amazing capacity for underestimating the complexity of our planet, biology and ecology. We are speedily destroying ecosystems on a global scale. I don't think advanced human civilizations will persist long enough to get to the point where we can terraform our own planet by design, let alone new worlds. We are very rapidly destroying the natural ecology of our planet at an ever increasing rate. Mostly, this is driven by human population growth and economic systems that don't listen to scientific evidence. I don't see us ever getting to the point of making Coca-cola oceans, but we are doing a fine job of over fishing and polluting our oceans with toxic waste.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2167851 26-Jan-2019 12:53

Rikkitic:
There are two ways of looking at the existence of Coca-Cola oceans and marshmallow continents. On the one hand, this would provide the best proof we could ever find of a Supreme Creator because this truly would be a miracle. Only an all-powerful God could do such a thing. Of course, such a deity could also rewrite the rules so 'natural' processes would lead to this.

On the other hand, this has already occurred in one sense, because human beings are a result of natural processes and we already know how to make Coke and marshmallows and scaling that up to a planetary level is just a matter of time and technology. So Coke and Marshmallow planets may not be exceptional at all. Someone just has to want to do it. No God required at all.

So you need people to make Coca Cola? I thought we were talking about a sewage pond turning into Coca Cola by itself.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2167853 26-Jan-2019 12:56

KiwiTim:

Changing tack a little ... Humans, being semi-intelligent designers, have an amazing capacity for underestimating the complexity of our planet, biology and ecology. We are speedily destroying ecosystems on a global scale. I don't think advanced human civilizations will persist long enough to get to the point where we can terraform our own planet by design, let alone new worlds. We are very rapidly destroying the natural ecology of our planet at an ever increasing rate. Mostly, this is driven by human population growth and economic systems that don't listen to scientific evidence. I don't see us ever getting to the point of making Coca-cola oceans, but we are doing a fine job of over fishing and polluting our oceans with toxic waste.

And here we have the answer to the silent universe paradox: No-one with the capability to be an Intelligent Designer ever lasts long enough to do it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2167854 26-Jan-2019 13:00

KiwiTim:

Rikkitic:

We already know how to make Coke and marshmallows and scaling that up to a planetary level is just a matter of time and technology. So Coke and Marshmallow planets may not be exceptional at all. Someone just has to want to do it. No God required at all.

Changing tack a little ... Humans, being semi-intelligent designers, have an amazing capacity for underestimating the complexity of our planet, biology and ecology. We are speedily destroying ecosystems on a global scale. I don't think advanced human civilizations will persist long enough to get to the point where we can terraform our own planet by design, let alone new worlds. We are very rapidly destroying the natural ecology of our planet at an ever increasing rate. Mostly, this is driven by human population growth and economic systems that don't listen to scientific evidence. I don't see us ever getting to the point of making Coca-cola oceans, but we are doing a fine job of over fishing and polluting our oceans with toxic waste.

I agree with that. Im not sure its that we under estimate our environment. Despite our super amazing capability, we are over endowed with greed, the lust for power. So we find it easy to say we agree with climate change, we will support that, after our cheap coal has been burned. Other species manage themselves, but we cannot. Oddly, we can, but as the pyramid of the population goes higher, we have more power, we want more power, so we forego our ability to manage our environment, because we can succeed in retaining power for a few years (politics)

Theoretically, communism could work, as that removes the need for power for many people, and the desire to be better tan the Joneses. Similarly, people such as the Amish also do not have these needs, so they could pitch in the save the environment. But these are off course minorities, the rest of us want everything now, and power. Some of us might spout our desire to support climate change, but if that meant a lower standard of living..........maybe not

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2167855 26-Jan-2019 13:03

frankv:

Getting back to the topic: The astronomically small improbability of life is completely overbalanced by the astronomically large number of opportunities for life.

I suppose this is meant for me but I wasn't taking a position on the correctness of either straw man. To clarify, I was pointing out a specious statement - it would make a good joke because it has a hook and could evoke the right emotional impact - that isn't a useful argument or a good basis to discuss the differences between opposing positions:

Paul1977:

To that I say rubbish. It's like saying the odds of winning lotto are so low as to be statistically zero - this may well be true, but try telling that to the guy that won.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2167960 26-Jan-2019 14:10

kingdragonfly: From another thread. Opening here to discuss

nunz:
kingdragonfly: Good find... However you've fallen for the "theory of evolution" argument. There's also the "theory of gravity"

<... A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction about the relationship between two variables.

A theory is a well-established, tested explanation that provides a unified description of some aspect of the natural world. A theory is based on substantiated data, repeated testing, and the consensus of a wide group of scientists/researchers

And there you have the problem.
It's not tested
It's not substantial data
And it doesn't hold up under new information

I think itwas hawkung who calculated three odds of evolution at some thing like 10exp43000 or there abouts

Modern genetics show humans are closer to kangaroos than monkeys yet the same blocks keeps getting wheeled out as an absolute truth

Umm... Logical non sequitur methinks. Who mentioned religion?

Also 150 years of Darwin - how's it going finding that missing link?

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2167962 26-Jan-2019 14:13

kingdragonfly: Honestly I don't know what point Nunz is trying to make. I think "evolution is a theory, and so is the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, so both theories are equally valid."

Another argument says, "no one was alive billions of years ago, so we'll never know the truth."

Other arguments against evolution: The Earth isn't billion of years old, it is thousands of years old, and evolution is limited or non-existent.

The last argument is "we don't know everything, so it must be God."

The cartoon represent science educator Bill Nye and the President of the Creation Museum Ken Ham in a three hour debate.

You can argue that neither Bill Nye or Ken Ham are the best people to represent the debate.

However Bill and Ken both make pretty easy to understand points

To be clear, I believe Adam and Eve didn't ride dinosaurs, the earth is round, the moon landing happened, and evolution is a fact.

See this is where i get confused. I never mentioned religion, Adam and Eve or ... I did mention hawking, and modern genetic based evolutionary theory.

I may be a Christian but I thought evolution was complete bollocks well before ever discovering God.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2167977 26-Jan-2019 14:31

nunz:

Also 150 years of Darwin - how's it going finding that missing link?

Actually, they found it. Or not. People will believe what they want to.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

17157 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2167983 26-Jan-2019 14:36

tdgeek:
While there is no doubt that many things need to align, to me, life is not amazing. It's normal. Some chemicals, and/or Amino acids, liquid water, heat, electricity, then you can have life. All of those factors are common. If you could remove every life form on Earth right now, tomorrow there will be life, as the ingredients are common, and they are here, and thus, they are everywhere in the Universe as I believe the Universe make up of elements is the same. With some variability if a star was super big or too small, and where you get some special events such as quasars, the elements probably vary. But in general, the ingredients we have in our small solar system are no doubt common and typical.

Life is probably bursting to happen, it just needs the common ingredients to be in one place at the same time to exist or start

Also need some cross pollination and fertilisation apparently:

Rice University study 2019: Study: Planetary delivery explains enigmatic features of Earth’s carbon and nitrogen

Most of Earth’s essential elements for life — including most of the carbon and nitrogen in you — probably came from another planet.

Earth most likely received the bulk of its carbon, nitrogen and other life-essential volatile elements from the planetary collision that created the moon more than 4.4 billion years ago, according to a new study by Rice University petrologists in the journal Science Advances.

“From the study of primitive meteorites, scientists have long known that Earth and other rocky planets in the inner solar system are volatile-depleted,” said study co-author Rajdeep Dasgupta. “But the timing and mechanism of volatile delivery has been hotly debated. Ours is the first scenario that can explain the timing and delivery in a way that is consistent with all of the geochemical evidence.”

The evidence was compiled from a combination of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments in Dasgupta’s lab, which specializes in studying geochemical reactions that take place deep within a planet under intense heat and pressure

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2167992 26-Jan-2019 14:57

Rikkitic:

We have so many interesting discussions here. About the harm or otherwise of different drugs, of conservative or liberal social policies, of crime and punishment. In all these discussions, reams of facts and figures are cited, logic is questioned, arguments are presented, but in the end it all comes down to what people believe. There can never be any absolute proof of anything, only probability.

I believe in science when it is properly practised and presented. Of course science hoaxing also exists, as well as genuine mistakes. But we don’t have cars and computers and smart phones because someone prayed for them. Science delivers. Religion does not, except in an abstract sense to those who are prepared to put up with its assumptions. I don’t question that religion offers much to those who value it, but it doesn’t bake bread or explain why my fingers and toes come in fives.

Science offers good explanations for a lot of things that we experience in life, though of course it still can’t explain what happens to us after we die, assuming anything does. But it explains a lot more in ways that make sense to me than religion does.

Yet even science has trouble when it starts delving into stuff like quantum physics paradoxes, or the nature of black holes, or the time before the Big Bang, or even the Big Bang itself. When pushed to its extremes, science as we understand it breaks down into absurdities. But it still explains a whole lot of other stuff.

Ultimately, science is just like religion. It is a matter of belief, even faith. Either you believe in the way it explains things, or you don’t. I believe in science. I have never been able to believe in religion. It just doesn’t explain anything in a way I find satisfactory. Science may not yet have answers to the big questions, but it does pretty well with lots of the little ones. Religion doesn’t even do that. Maybe it offers rules to live by, but it doesn’t explain why those rules exist, or what makes them better than other ones. It just says this is what you have to do, and you will be punished if you don’t. That seems a bit old-fashioned to me.

Not being an expert on evolution, I have to go on what little I know, or think I know, and what ‘feels’ right to me. I am aware of some of the criticisms and I don’t doubt there are holes in the ‘theory’. Like all science, it is a work in progress (as opposed to the absolute, unchanging assertions in the bible). I don’t know if we are closely related to kangaroos or not. I hadn’t heard that one before. But I do know that fossils exist and dinosaurs once roamed the earth, unless that is also a vast scientific conspiracy, and I know that the finches Darwin studied displayed differences that appeared to be related to their environments. I know the world is filled with plants and animals and micro-organisms that show differing degrees of similarity to each other, and I know that short-lived creatures like fruit flies can be made to show signs of apparent evolution, just as flu viruses do so vaccines have to be changed every year, or bacteria are doing so some strains are becoming resistant to antibiotics. If I have to pick a theory that explains all this, I will go with evolution until someone comes along with something better. For me, biblical proclamation is not something better.

I'm not disagreeing with you....really I'm not...but a quick side thought...

> But we don’t have cars and computers and smart phones because someone prayed for them

However we do have lots of other things because we prayed for them. Abolition of slavery, women's rights, freedom of speech ... Interestingly there was a blind study done on hospital patients who had people pray for them vs those who didn't. The patients didn't know and the prayers were not necessarily religious .. just people participating. People who were prayed for got better with better outcomes, faster etc than those who didn't .. at a statistically significant greater rate. That's science and religion. But that too has people quoting stats in both directions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

https://www.newsmax.com/health/headline/prayer-health-faith-medicine/2015/03/31/id/635623/

My argument against evolution is based on three things:

Probability
Irreducable Complexity Issues (One feature needs another and that needs another ...but none can appear without the others also appearing simultaneously)
Genetic Tree of life destroys Darwin's morphological tree

To say Christans only believe in Creation and not evolution is wrong. There are many Christians who believe that God is the progenitor of life that evolved, others say it happened more quickly, others say He/She made life instantaneously. Evolution is not anti god, although some of Darwin's cronies did state it was a good way to deny God for their own convenience. It was originally just a guy trying to explain what he saw.

However it has been turned into a religion by the generally devout atheists - such as Dawkins assertions in his books and speeches.

If we dislodge any religious argument out of the evolution discussion it still becomes evident it has too many holes and is too improbable to work as currently explained. Many explanations mix evolution with adaptation (and no one argues adaptation) and that makes for a mess of confusion. The gaps in evidence is too great to use fossils as reliable evidence. So many claims from fossils have been back tracked or shown to be hoaxes.

Someone recently said if everyone in Europe died today there would be less than 4 fossils left behind. As such the distance between fossils (geographically and temporally) in the past with much less dense populations should raise concern about those who try to link the few we have together. (assuming the 4 fossils assertion is correct).

Fossil theory too is flawed with consistent rates of sedimentation, consistent carbon, consistent all sorts of things assumed. Take the grand canyon - 1000s of years old correct? Maybe not - there have been other small canyons appear in short time spans (tens and hundreds not thousands of years) owing to river flow changes - yet so much relies on un-proveable assumptions. It's like the current fetish around global warming. It is supposedly caused by carbon dioxide build up but studies using similar techniques to fossil archeology show (maybe) that carbon dioxide build up happens after warming increases. That and the fact that grapes were grown clear across Britain in the 1200's - so it was warmer than it is today...pre-industrial revolution

The discussion of the origin of life, the origin of the universe and the origin of everything is at best a metaphysical discussion where philosophy possibly has more to say about things than hard / soft science. Similarly quantum physics.

AS for God ... The 'born again' Christian they will claim an experience and then base their beliefs upon that, the Bible and tradition. I personally believe in God - even when I don't want to. I often find Him an annoying reality that interferes with what I want to do (and I'm not talking legalism here). I also find He is often right and grow a little when I get my head straightened out. There are times when I believe in God despite myself. So to me He is a reality whether I like it or not (and to set the record straight - my life is better because of my relationship with Him).

Now that may impinge on my thoughts about evolution - in so much as I don't agree with a complete random accident start. But then again neither did Hawkin so maybe I'm not in too bad a company (intellectually speaking).

What it doesn't impinge on is my intellect. God never tells me to loose my brain and just dumb down. Faith and reason normally go well hand in hand. Religion and faith have more to do with the moral / spiritual aspects of life and to then confuse them with having a deleterious affect on intellect is to put two different things together. Many great scientists have come to their science as a joy of discovering the wonders God has set before us. It is a form of worship that has them growing in information as they discover the God they love in their studies...tracking Gods footprints.

God is not afraid of truth (whether He / She exists or is a figment of our imagination) as supposedly God is truth. If God told Christians to not use their intellect and to lie (to themselves / others) about what they learn, then it is obvious He is not God at all - after all omnipotence isn't scared of anything.

If we really want to discuss evolution lets ditch the Christian / Genesis / Religion arguments and discuss evolution. I'm more than happy to discuss at a scientific level without dragging God into it. How about you aetheists / agnostics? Or is it that you need to argue God to hide the fact your scientific view point is too shallow to maintain without distraction? :b

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2167993 26-Jan-2019 14:59

Rikkitic:

nunz:

Also 150 years of Darwin - how's it going finding that missing link?

Actually, they found it. Or not. People will believe what they want to.

Three homonoids in 3 million years ... Nope ... doesn't do it for me. Some of the middle fossil have 'evolved' aspects and some devolved. Lots of speculation with not much back up reasoning.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2167994 26-Jan-2019 15:03

TwoSeven: I think one day, Geekzone might do a post on what science - and more specificially, what the scientific method is and how different fields practice it. At least, it would be great if people could learn the terminology and not misuse it.

Anyhow - in a nutshell, science is based on empirical measurement and direct observation. Loosely speaking, if the scientific method has been followed correctly, the output - scientific fact, cannot be argued with. However, one is free to disagree with the outcome, and even present ones own ideas as a hypothesis as a counter argument. However, I would suggest that one can only dismiss the original facts if ones new theory has more supporting evidence than the original.

An example, we thought the earth flat until some person presented more empirical evidence that it wasnt.

Belief, as far as I know, cannot be proven and is not emperical. As it was suggested to me recently, the best one can do with belief is to convince someone else to have the same belief.

Each I think has its own strengths and weaknesses, one can be useful for generating understanding and the other can be usful in generating rich communities and cultures.

I think one day, Geekzone might do a post on what belief - and more specificially, what faith is and how different fields practice it. At least, it would be great if people could learn the terminology and not misuse it.

Much of my belief is empirical ... but we would need another thread discussing historical reasons to believe / have faith in Jesus

gzt

17157 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2167995 26-Jan-2019 15:04

Further analysis of sample brought home by Apollo 14 astronauts 50 years ago. Kind of off topic further evidence of above:

[Url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/25/4bn-year-old-earth-rock-found-in-apollo-14-crews-moon-haul] Guardian: [url] What may be one of the oldest known rocks from Earth has been found in the material that Apollo 14 astronauts brought home from the moon nearly 50 years ago.

It is thought that the rock, made up of quartz, feldspar and zircon, crystallised deep beneath Earth’s surface about 4bn years ago and was catapulted towards the moon in a collision with an asteroid or comet soon afterwards.

“It is an extraordinary find that helps paint a better picture of early Earth and the bombardment that modified our planet during the dawn of life,” said David Kring, a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas.

Chemical analysis of the 2g fragment suggests it formed more than 12 miles underground in an oxidising environment, which can be found on Earth but not on the moon. A major impact then excavated the rock and blasted it into space, according to a report in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

Article contains link to paper.

gzt

17157 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2168003 26-Jan-2019 15:11

nunz: I may be a Christian but I thought evolution was complete bollocks well before ever discovering God.

I agree. Some people in this topic keep confusing those two things. The vast majority of people who identify as christian have no problem with the established facts of evolution and evolutionary theory from Darwin to the present day.

How do you feel about carbon dating?

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2168004 26-Jan-2019 15:13

Hammerer:

frankv:

Getting back to the topic: The astronomically small improbability of life is completely overbalanced by the astronomically large number of opportunities for life.

I suppose this is meant for me but I wasn't taking a position on the correctness of either straw man. To clarify, I was pointing out a specious statement - it would make a good joke because it has a hook and could evoke the right emotional impact - that isn't a useful argument or a good basis to discuss the differences between opposing positions:

Paul1977:

To that I say rubbish. It's like saying the odds of winning lotto are so low as to be statistically zero - this may well be true, but try telling that to the guy that won.

1 - In probability theory / math there is an understanding that when a number gets too large it is equated with infinity or nothing. It is too large to bother about. Hawkin's improbability would be covered in that.

2 - As for larger number of opportunity's for life ... how do you quantify that? You see my reasoning would be. We know 9 planets (shout out to Pluto - what's up??) and lots of moons etc of which only ours can sustain life. We have said no to far more planets and moons and only yes to Earth. As such the ratio of possible to impossible is well skewed towards impossible.

Similarly what we do know of other solar systems / galaxys shows thousands of not a hope of life and only a couple have been listed as being maybe possibles.

That ratio puts the probability against much much much higher than for. That would negate your statement the possibilities for are higher at a Macro level

Getting to a micro level - e.g. only earth. No other signs of spontaneous life have been shown. Our theory of evolution has a single life form changing and splitting - with a single base to our tree of life. if it didn't start with two trees and parrallel evolution on earth where things are ideal you can pretty much wipe the idea of life elsewhere as the many more chances here on earth didn't take ... probably as there are too many chances against.

The lottery argument is a false argument. It's a closed system with a predetermined outcome. Its like having a gun with 100 chambers and 99 bullets. 1/100 person will get lucky .. and it isn't luck - its just chance, someone had to get the empty chamber as it was set up in advance by an intelligence in a closed - predetermined system.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12