Probability of evolution

My problem with it exactly. If you skip the complicated bits, it's easy to believe. I guess I can't complain. Most people find it hard to believe in God because they want to understand the complicated parts first. The difference is with science, the truth stand on those complicated building blocks, and if they are questionable, so is the rest of the theory. The genetics doesn't work. I don't like to throw articles around, but since I have to back up my doubts, read: http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm

And how can you defend it if you don't know how or even whether it works? It is easy to say "everything with 2 eyes and 4 legs must be related". How does that "must be" differ from me saying it "must be" created?

As I have said before, for all we know God did employ some kind of evolution in His process of creation.

I'm not one of those people who think you have to choose "either God or evolution". But since I understand the kind of reality presented by belief, I do want to find out where "evolution" becomes a belief system rather than a set of facts, and make people aware that they at least don't have any reason not to believe.
 
I know plenty about evolution, there is alot more to it than the genetics side. I was trying to put it somewhere you can understand because you are coming off as uneducated on the topic.
"chimpanzee's devolved"
that is a ridiculous statement and you should forget about genetics until you can get the basics down. You are VERY far from doing that.
Look at the breeding habits of animals, that is the easiest, why do you think animals fight?
Don't disregard any aspect of nature and you will soon see evolution for yourself. You don't even need to read about it or be taught, its the obvious nature of the planet earth.
 
I like your approach. I'm all for study from first principles.

Animals look for the most suitable partner and do it like they do on the Discovery Channel. No emotion involved. The mantis even eats her mate afterwards.

However, I think there is a difference between 'survival of the fittest' and 'evolution into something fitter' - so much fitter that it starts becoming something else.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Animals look for the most suitable partner and do it like they do on the Discovery Channel. No emotion involved. The mantis even eats her mate afterwards.
Click to expand...
Yes the mantis does do that. So now "animals" do that?
No emotion involved? :confused:
The male human beats his mate and fornicates with her against her will.
The human female chops the penis of her mate after copulation.
Etc etc...
See what generalisations sound like when they are directed at your own? Don't do it to animals. There are plenty of animals that show just as much emotion as we do. Not that that makes a species "god like" in any way. It was merely a trait that evolved due to the fact that it assisted our survival. Other species remained successful without evolving that trait so never did.
I fail to see the relevence.
 
A known characteristic of a species is not called "generalisation". In humans it is pathological, with the praying mantis it is natural. If you wish to classify humans as purely animal or natural, go ahead. I propose then that the evolution of value-based ethics and moral codes have been detrimental to our survival, and that of other species. Why did it evolve, then?
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Right. And we evolved from... who again? Homo erectus?
Click to expand...

you evolved from your parents actually. And they from your grandparents. etc.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Who are genetically further removed from us than chimpansees - who seem not to have evolved at all.
Click to expand...

they have evolved just as much as we did. They weren't around after all when we weren't around.


Originally posted by Jenyar

Why didn't the circumstances that caused one species to evolve not ensure their continual evolution? Isn't the mechanism for evolution "survival of the fittest"? That sounds like evolutionary osmosis. Did all species evolve from different places, or did they all evolve from one set of principle substances?
Click to expand...

no...the mechanism is natural selection.

Originally posted by Jenyar

If we aren't fit for so many things, why haven't we developed all kinds of wings and antennae en sonar? What organises the evolutionary tree into speciation?
Click to expand...

Maybe we don't need wings. Ever think of that?
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
A known characteristic of a species is not called "generalisation". In humans it is pathological, with the praying mantis it is natural.

Pathological is natural.
And yes that is what the MANTIS does, but if I remember correctly you used the term ANIMALS, thats what I have a problem with. I can confidently say you don't know *all* the characteristics of any species, therefore don't rule anything out for any of them. You are not in the position to do that.

If you wish to classify humans as purely animal or natural, go ahead. I propose then that the evolution of value-based ethics and moral codes have been detrimental to our survival, and that of other species. Why did it evolve, then?

They haven't been detrimental to OUR survival at all, people who have ethics are still allowed to breed aren't they? Thats all that matters. Whatever works, works, and that is what sticks in the species profile.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
I have another analogy - baking a cake in a kitchen.
Click to expand...
Actually, the cake analogy is one of my favorites because it so clearly elucidates the error in the anthropic argument for creation. To put it succinctly: The anthropic argument assumes the outcome as a necessary condition.

Using the analogy; upon observing that the measurements of the pan correspond exactly to the measurements of the cake you conclude that the measurements of the pan are necessary, that they could not be anything else. But the only thing that mandates this is the shape of the cake, and as we all know, the shape of the cake is determined by the shape of the pan not the other way around.

Use a differently shaped pan and the cake will be a different shape or perhaps not form at all. The reasoning is the reverse of reality. Our 'shape', the 'shape' of life is a result of the particular conditions of this Universe, if these conditions were different life would be different, or nonexistent.

Yet nowhere do we have evidence that life started of its own accord.
Click to expand...
Nothing conclusive, no. However, we do have evidence that the 'ingredients' for life occur naturally. We have yet to see any evidence that even suggests a creator.

Except that you would see cakes being created all the time. If the process is so inevitable, why did it stop, and are we left with trying to preserve life and stop species from becoming extinct?
Click to expand...
Evolution, explains why. The primary reason as far as Earth is concerned is life itself. Life uses those chemicals that could possibly become new life; it actively seeks out and consumes them. Life is fitter for survival than any 'pre-life' that may 'attempt' to emerge.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
I do want to ... make people aware that they at least don't have any reason not to believe.
Click to expand...
I want to make people aware that they, at the very least, don't have any reason to believe.
 
propose then that the evolution of value-based ethics and moral codes have been detrimental to our survival, and that of other species. Why did it evolve, then?
Click to expand...
it evolved because it was able to- our bigger more complex brains developed by better diets consisting of protein (i.e. meat- vegetarians, i just don't understand them, if we didn't eat meat in the first place they wouldn't even be able to make the "moral" choice not to eat meat now). our bigger brains were capable of thought, equaling the ability to be able to hold strong convictions about things and holding strong convictions about things makes people fight more fiercly- therefore those who believed survived to pass on that trait. it is only recently that you come into murky waters about why we have moral codes- it was probably to stop the insenselous(sp?) violence and corruption that existed not even 100 years ago. there is very good evidence of divergent evolution- where species adapt to their surroundings when a geographical barrier form cutting part of a population off (e.g. tectonic movement which is currently pushing mt. everest even higher- it's also the 50 anniversary of when edmund hiliary and tenzing norgay (that is real bad spelling, sorry to show ignorance) first conquered everest- a kiwi and a nepalese) forcing sub-species to adapt. it is blatantly obvious all around us. it is blatantly obvious in humans to. as a species we are going bald, our jaws are becoming narrower, etc. diviergent evolution is just as relevant as evolution itself- that's why i believe in evolution (there are other reasons of course, but they are more complex and have probably already been voiced).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top