Evolution!! Did we come from monkeys?

[Prometheus]

Because ToE is a scientific explanation. All scientific explanations are atheistic, "no magic allowed". Science explains reality in purely natural terms. Religion explains reality in basically magical terms. That is a fundamental conflict and it is not just restricted to evolution. It includes all science from astronomy to geology. If is a clash between explanations of reality. However the clash is purely on the side of the supernaturalists. Science has already won. People just haven't figured it out yet.

Traditionally, religion has been primarily "magical", but science also used to be magical (alchemy). As a devoutly religious person myself, I have always tried to look at religion not as an abstract, "magical" construction, but concretely real with diety that are bound by natural laws. Primitive people must explain diety magically, but a more scientific mind can bring religion into a more real focus by allowing that what appears magical, is merely a manipulation of natural forces by an intellegance dwarfing our own.

[Livemike]

Quote by: lahokamal i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this. http://www.evolutiondeceit.com

Well if you can't that pretty much does it for Christianity doesn't it?
After all God's supposed to be that first organism.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Aaron Spicka NO. Monkeys are similar, but how did the gigantic leap from ape to human happen? If this is true why monkeys still at the same level they have been for the longest time. HUMANS ARE NOT FROM MONKEYS( i think ).

No they are not, they're from apes. As for the "gigantic leap from
ape to human" it tiny compared to the "leap" from fish to amphibians
or from dinosaurs to birds (if there is such). Of course there are no
"leaps" in fact, just each generation getting slightly more human-like
(on average). As for the idea that monkeys still being "at the same
level they have been for the longest time" that has nothing to do
with our own evolution. Monkeys are how they are because that
design succeeds in reproducing well enough to survive. We are how
we are for the same reason. Penguins are how they are because
aquatic flightless birds are a design that works but that doesn't
imply that birds that are not flightless don't work. Read up on
the subject some time.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: lahokamal i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this.

I'd actually like to answer this literally (although good point Livemike).

Technically, evolution dosen't explain the origin of the first life form. Evolution presopposes the existance of life and merely shows how a bacteria can change into an organism that is now typing at a keyboard. Evolution explains how life changes, not how it got here.

What you are asking about is the theory of abiogenesis: life from non-life. There are many good methods for abiogenesis that have been proposed, and I will not describe then here. A google search should do that for you, search for "abiogenesis".

Abiogenesis isn't the only theory for the creation of life though. You have panspermia, which is archeobacteria coming on an asteroid (actually more plausible than it sounds).

And you also have creationism - that god did it. There is actually no evidance that God didn't seed the primordial oceans with primitive archeobacteria. There is no evidance for it either, but such a theory is plausable.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Aaron Spicka NO. Monkeys are similar, but how did the gigantic leap from ape to human happen? If this is true why monkeys still at the same level they have been for the longest time. HUMANS ARE NOT FROM MONKEYS( i think ).

Don't just make statements blindly denying a scientific theory without good evidance. You lose intellectual credibility.

You want to know about the leap? One word: Neoteny.

Neoteny is the evolutionary phenominon when a larval (juvinile) form of an animal becomes sexually mature. This gets a species out of an evolutionary "dead end". This is a well-documented occurance in many species, and there is myriad evidance that humans came out of a neotenic schism with chimps. If you look at body proportions and gene expression ratios in juvinile chimps, you will see a striking similarity with humans.

[Lycan]

Are there any gods that you would say do not exist?

The only gods I believe exist are my own, but I am not claiming that as fact...

If so what criterion have you used to make that statement?

My personal experiences, which I cannot prove or claim to be able to...

Have you honestly applied that same criterion to the god(s) you choose to believe in?

There is no need, my beliefs are based on my experiences, but in that I do not claim them as absolute truth and do acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong, I have no reason or desire to justify them to anyone.

The only honest theist is one that believes in all gods, which not only includes the ones they know about but also the ones they do not know about. It is an untenable position. It cannot be honestly held Starboy

Why? If, based on my experience, I follow my gods, why do I have to believe in other gods that I do not believe exist based on that same experience? I am not claiming they absolutely do not exist, I simply believe they do not. ...and yes my faith is quite honestly held. I do not contorts fact to conform to my faith, so don't contort my faith to conform to your facts.

[gophomaxx]

The theory of evolution is a theory of the development of the present species characteristics and how they developed. It includes the concepts that the forces which created the species are, selective breeding and survival of the fittest and the genetic transformation of creatures results in an improved species which fits the environment even when the envrionment changes. The book which explains the theory is, "Origin of Species " by Charles Darwin.

[Prometheus]

Lycan:

I do not mean to be crass or insensative toward a religious testimony being borne in this thread, but this section is titled "science and technology". Unless you are discussing science, take it to religion.

Unless you want to take a scientifically empyrical approach to religion... but that normally dosent work.

[Prometheus]

The theory of evolution is a theory of the development of the present species characteristics and how they developed. It includes the concepts that the forces which created the species are, selective breeding and survival of the fittest and the genetic transformation of creatures results in an improved species which fits the environment even when the envrionment changes. The book which explains the theory is, "Origin of Species " by Charles Darwin.

Is this an interjection from the peanut gallary, or is there a point hidden in that verbatam definitioin?

[gophomaxx]

A return to the basic science involved should save the discussion from wandering into the ethereral regions of philosophy and speculation. That is the point of the definition I wrote.

[gophomaxx]

Quote by: gophomaxx A return to the basic science involved should save the discussion from wandering into the ethereral regions of philosophy and speculation. That is the point of the definition I wrote.

http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The...Species/14-1-2
The book is available at the above link if some have not read it recently as I suspect.

[Lycan]

so this is ok.....

At the root of it, most supernaturalist must practice a double standard to hold to their beliefs. They must protect their pet beliefs from the same standards of enquiry that they would subject any other claim to. They must be dishonest.

and this is ok...

Why is it assumed that the theory of evolution and the existance of God must be antagonistic of oneanother? Religious texts give only metaphorical descriptions of how the world was created, so no description of how the universe was created ought to contradict the scientific evidance. I see no logical fallacy in a religious person accepting that god (or what have you) created the animal life on earth through the process of evolution. With this in mind, why do religion and science have to continue bickering over this.

and this is ok....

Are there any gods that you would say do not exist? If so what criterion have you used to make that statement? Have you honestly applied that same criterion to the god(s) you choose to believe in? The only honest theist is one that believes in all gods, which not only includes the ones they know about but also the ones they do not know about. It is an untenable position. It cannot be honestly held. Starboy

and this...

Because ToE is a scientific explanation. All scientific explanations are atheistic, "no magic allowed". Science explains reality in purely natural terms. Religion explains reality in basically magical terms. That is a fundamental conflict and it is not just restricted to evolution. It includes all science from astronomy to geology. If is a clash between explanations of reality. However the clash is purely on the side of the supernaturalists. Science has already won. People just haven't figured it out yet. Starboy

But my post (which is hardly religious testimony) is the one pointed out as religion invading your science catagory...

[Prometheus]

Come come now, you know the answer. All of the posts you quote are specifically in relation to how science is perceived in relation to science. Basically the coincidance of science with other explinations.

Your post was a testimony. You stated a religious opinion with only religious support.

[FIFI]

Genetic changes still occur in many organisms today. Did you know 100 yrs ago, blonde was the #1 natural hair color? Now it is estimated that natural blondes will be extinct around 2060.
Or how about the fact that Salmon fish born in the wild are less effected by certin chemicals than raised fish. Its all evolution baby! But why can't evolution and religion go hand in hand?
If there is a higher being, maybe it guided evolution? Its no use to deny evolution exists, unless, of course, you want to deny the evidence.

[Prometheus]

There are many silly people who claim a delineation between macroevolution and and microevolution. They claim that the only changes we have observed (hair color and the lke) are micro, while changes like emerging from the sea are macro, and unproven.

The fallacy of course is that if enough microevolution ocurs in the same direction you get macroevolution, so by admitting one you get the other. But people still try...

[FIFI]

exactly, its not like we just grew legs one day and started to walk. It took hundreds of millions of years.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: FIFI Genetic changes still occur in many organisms today. Did you know 100 yrs ago, blonde was the #1 natural hair color? Now it is estimated that natural blondes will be extinct around 2060. Or how about the fact that Salmon fish born in the wild are less effected by certin chemicals than raised fish. Its all evolution baby! But why can't evolution and religion go hand in hand?

Even more compelling than estimates is the emergence of a nylon-consuming bacteria (mutated Flavobacterium sp. K172) in Japan. Also known as the Nylon Bug.

Quote by: FIFI If there is a higher being, maybe it guided evolution? Its no use to deny evolution exists, unless, of course, you want to deny the evidence.

This is a concept which has been flirted with before under the guise of "adaptive mutagenesis," as opposed to selective mutagenesis which is what is currently held as the driving force behind evolutionary change. To put this into layman's terms, mutagenesis is a fancy word for a mutation, a change in an organism's genetic material. There are numerous kinds of mutations that can occur, some changes more radical than others. Thankfully, it is well known that most mutations are, in fact, neutral in their disposition; that is, they are neither beneficial nor deleterious to the survival of an organism in its present environment.

Selective mutagenesis is environmentally-driven change. That is, the success, failure, or indifference of a mutation as well as the likelihood of that mutation to occur, is influenced by the pressures of natural selection. This is not to say selective mutagenesis will apply pressure for a specific result, the result will be whatever it may be.

By saying "selective pressures" you are only saying that the conditions may or may not be right for a certain mutation to happen. In reality, scientists have no way to predict mutations, and there is no way to tell from the start whether a mutation will be "good" or "bad" or have no effect whatsoever. When pressure is applied, the rate of mutation will be dictated by the force of the pressure. However, despite wanes and waxes in mutation rates, the number of beneficial, neutral, and deleterious mutations always remains proportionate. There is no more or less likelihood that a "good" or "bad" mutation may result.

Adaptive mutagenesis refers to endogenous change; that is, change initiated from within the organism itself. Theoretically, this change is not accomplished through the use of machines, or physical aids. It is performed entirely through the internal mechanisms already available to the organism. To further complicate the matter, the change does not typically begin in the genome, unless that is where the pressure exists the most. The change may originate through cognitive functions: having an immensely strong willpower, for example; or the possibility that a heightened realization of self could influence change; and memory may play a role, since this is a "guided" effort. I quote guided because although an example of adaptive mutagenesis may indeed be endogenous, there is always the question of whether the organism was conscious of its effort, or if it were simply a natural process all along. Either case would be sufficient evidence.

Unfortunately, there is not much support yet for adaptive mutagenesis. It is certaintly an interesting avenue of study, but with no known instances of the event -- either natural or in experimentation -- it is impossible to study the phenomenon directly, if it indeed exists. The strongest case against AM, in my opinion, is the sheer randomness of mutations. In my wholly unprofessional and less-than-academic opinion, evidence for AM should at least be partially reflected by an imbalance in the disposition of mutations within a specific rate. To my knowledge, no such imbalance has been observed (yet). Still, there may be compelling evidence elsewhere, and it is just as likely we have not yet observed this event. A third option is that AM has a very minor influence, and is easily missed over the vast timeline of biological evolution.

Perhaps Prometheus could shed some more light here. Or we can start a new thread, because there is quite a bit of ground, including a discussion of epigenetics, that I've yet to cover here, and I don't want to derail the thread anymore than it may already be.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Unfortunately, there is not much support yet for adaptive mutagenesis. It is certaintly an interesting avenue of study, but with no known instances of the event -- either natural or in experimentation -- it is impossible to study the phenomenon directly, if it indeed exists. The strongest case against AM, in my opinion, is the sheer randomness of mutations. In my wholly unprofessional and less-than-academic opinion, evidence for AM should at least be partially reflected by an imbalance in the disposition of mutations within a specific rate. To my knowledge, no such imbalance has been observed (yet). Still, there may be compelling evidence elsewhere, and it is just as likely we have not yet observed this event. A third option is that AM has a very minor influence, and is easily missed over the vast timeline of biological evolution.

Yikes, you expressed concern that the thread may be derailed and lo and behold....

Could one argue for a modified AM? After all evolution has been going on for some time now and the most common mechanisms for change within species is not the outright replacement of genes but the modification of genes. Arms become wings, feathers become hair and so on. Could it be possible that over time there could be a buildup of genetic combinations that could easily change back to a previous configuration in a much faster way than the changes needed to create the original set of traits from the more ancient species? That in some sense AM is taking place when change is driven by not only the environment but what was in the genome from the past?

Starboy

[asterix404]

yes, yes we did... why is this thread so long?

[Prometheus]

I have never liked the idea of adaptive mutegenesis. I have explored it, but don't consider it's evidance to be all that compelling. It's fallacy is cause and affect. Biological systems cannot deduct the proper evolutional avenue, they can only use trial and error - selective mutigenesis.

I don't even think that human intellegance could be considered AM because it is not passed on through heredity, which is stipilated as part of allelic evolution.