America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[Dov Henis]

 

Just curiosity:

 

1) what do you believe was the approximate extent and composition of the heavens and the earth when made by god?

 

2) What approximately evolves/has been evolving since god made the heavens and earth?

 

Dov

[Dov Henis]

CraigD,

 

Even though I am still holding my breath for a comment on the standing of AAAS I do plan to reply to yr (#32) posting tonight after I finish work in the orchard, wash and supper...

 

Dov

[Tarantism]

For the same reason that I cannot believe that creationism is not accepted as common fact. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, But I believe that god made the heavens and the earth.

personally i have always seen god as the random event that sparked the beginning of our universe. like a metaphor.

[Dov Henis]

Hi, CraigD.

 

 

1) I embarassingly confess to a lack of verbiage-writing ability and to great difficulty in understanding academenglish langbarrier. Also I try to always write in the language I would use to answer when asked "what do you mean by...".

 

2) If “deeply spiritual scientist” describes to you "scientists who fail to completely embrace materialism as either an epistemology or a morality", then for you there is a "spiritual realm" separate from scientifically defined reality, i.e. there is a science-informed realm and there is a religion

realm... In my opinion (scientifically firm) all "spirituality" inheres in biology.

 

3) I confess also to complete immunity from being impressed with Names and with stands attributed to them. The 16th century "enlightenment" has by now evolved to a degree that each of us can, if he wants, to learn and to assess things without mediation or guidance by Names .

 

4) You do not seriously suggest "religiously modified evolutions versions"...

 

5) Glad to read that you do believe everything can be discussed scientifically, and that you accept that humans are not qualitatively unlike other animals, the earth is not the center of the universe, angels do not watch over us and protect us from harm and when we die we don’t continue living elsewhere. Now you might join those who comprehend that all moral and ethic principles are natural and attested to by the process of evolution of the biological realm...

 

Sincerely respectfully,

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

personally i have always seen god as the random event that sparked the beginning of our universe. like a metaphor.

 

A metaphor? hmmm... what is your idea for the random event?

[Tarantism]

A metaphor? hmmm... what is your idea for the random event?

my idea of a "random" event is any event that can and does occur without any prequisites, and exists inside a relm of infinate possibility. in a sense then, god is the big bang. or maybe if the big bang wasnt so random, then whatever occured before it in this universe, creating boundries within infinity.

[learnin to learn]

dang that is an excellent theory!!

 

my opinion is that god made the laws, the boudaries... everything! and then he left it up to chance. meaning that the big bang is possible. but I dont know how accurate my theory is...

[CraigD]

If “deeply spiritual scientist” describes to you "scientists who fail to completely embrace materialism as either an epistemology or a morality", then for you there is a "spiritual realm" separate from scientifically defined reality, i.e. there is a science-informed realm and there is a religion realm... In my opinion (scientifically firm) all "spirituality" inheres in biology.

I do not believe in a “spiritual realm” separate from objective reality. My not believing in it, however, doesn’t prevent other people from believing in it, some of them scientists.

 

There’s neroanatomical evidence to suggest that the human brain is “wired” to believe in the supernatural, and clinical mental health data to suggest that people who believe in moderation in the supernatural – even though such contrary-to-evidence belief, strictly speaking, diagnosis such people as delusional – enjoy better mental health than both those who believe excessively in the supernatural, and those who, like myself, don’t believe in it at all.

I confess also to complete immunity from being impressed with Names and with stands attributed to them.

Citing authors is an effective way to reference large bodies of well-written literature about specific ideas, and what I intend when I do so. To me, a universe of ideas without names is like a world-wide web without hyperlinks – inefficient and hard to navigate.

4) You do not seriously suggest "religiously modified evolutions versions"...

You are correct – I in no way suggest that "religiously modified evolutions versions" are correct.

 

However, my experiences to date have taught me that it’s often necessary to “meet people half way” when promoting scientific ideas. If, in order to accept that phenomena that can be explained via sound scientific theory and experiment are explained by science, my theistic neighbors need to allow that phenomena that cannot currently be scientifically explained with the same degree or rigor, such as the creation of the universe or the detailed origin of life on Earth, may have involved the intercession of a supernatural deity, I’m not offended. This is preferable, I believe, to the alternative that theists, who comprise the majority of human kind, will categorically reject everything to do with science, or hold science and scientists in deep suspicion and contempt.

Now you might join those who comprehend that all moral and ethic principles are natural and attested to by the process of evolution of the biological realm...

I joined that philosophical school sometime between the mid 1970s and 1980s. :hihi: I strongly suspect that all mental phenomena, which include moral and ethic principles, can ultimately be explained in biophysical terms, though I suspect that the resulting formalism (collection of terms and methods) may come to “feel” more like current abstract algebra than current biology. Despite my leanings in this direction, I have a great deal of respect for theorists (eg: Penrose) who suggest that phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics may play an important roll in mental phenomena, although I tentatively disagree with them.

 

I think there’s value to be had from a serious, scientific exploration of questions like "how can there be deeply spiritual scientists?", “how can religious people accept scientific methods”, and even “can religion be discussed scientifically?” and hope this thread can continue being a vehicle for such discussion.

[Turtle]

There’s neroanatomical evidence to suggest that the human brain is “wired” to believe in the supernatural, ...

 

So there is.:)

But a less theological explanation finds support from an experiment conducted at a British college psychology department: Maybe that common element of modern religions was the product of Darwinian evolution.

 

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/living/religion/15254298.htm?source=rss&channel=macon_religion

[cwes99_03]

The idea of selective evolution sounds good but if one look at history often selective advantage does not always win the day. Two animals may be ready to fight with the winner passing on the future. At that moment a tree falls on the one with obvious selective advantage, causing evolution to go down a different path. Or during times of famine, a stupid animal stumbles upon a stockpile of food. He goes on to be the future of that species. Simple twists of fate change the future and the idea of only the best moving evolution is simplicitic.

 

I have often pointed out that evolution had huge gaping holes. You mention above that chance could happen so that the best evolutionary path was not the path ultimately followed because of chance occurences.

 

The problem with the above idea and evolutionary theory is that, evolutionary theory imposes the idea that eventually if the survivor was not the best choice 1) it too would die and not pass on it's genetic code, 2) an eventual mutation of this one would ultimately lead back to the one that had the chance tree fall on it.

 

But you are correct in the first point. Evolution cannot predict.

However, it can also not explain. I read not to long ago that (I think National Geographic) once published a quote that if one were to look at the supposed evolutionary history of man as a slide show, one would realize that the slide show was missing 999 out of every 1000 slides.

 

This would suggest that there is not nearly enough evidence to link the supposed human evolutionary remains that have been found. It would also suggest, that the evolution of man which is supposed to have taken what, 3 million years, would have gone through some 10000 major evolutionary steps. This would mean that every 300 years or so we would see a major evolutionary change in man.

 

Well in 3000 years of recorded history we haven't.

 

Another point, biology often describes two animals as belonging to different species, while these two animals have no problem producing mixed offspring. Would a biologist suggest that a chinese man, african man, european man, and hispanic man are all different species? No it is absurd to them to think such a thing, yet they do exactly that with birds, dogs, cats, horses, etc all the time.

 

It is interesting to note that some of these "species" do not naturally choose to mate with another "species" as is the case with some birds, but sometimes they do. Look at the facts of the past 70 years of study of Darwin's finches.

[Tarantism]

dang that is an excellent theory!!

 

my opinion is that god made the laws, the boudaries... everything! and then he left it up to chance. meaning that the big bang is possible. but I dont know how accurate my theory is...

my other opinon as fr as religious conviction goes is this....god exists quite happily in those who belive in him, therefore as long as someone believe in a creator there is one. dig?

[Zythryn]

I disagree with virtually 100% of your post, however I don't have time to address the many points I would oppose.

 

So for now:

 

It would also suggest, that the evolution of man which is supposed to have taken what, 3 million years, would have gone through some 10000 major evolutionary steps. This would mean that every 300 years or so we would see a major evolutionary change in man.

 

Well in 3000 years of recorded history we haven't.

 

Why 3 million years? And why 10000 'major evolutionary steps'?

 

Please define 'major evolutionary step'.

 

If you are looking at evolution from the first single celled organism, I believe that is closer to 3 Billion years, not 3 Million years.

 

Even though I don't see any support for your number of 10000, IF you roughly calculate the rate of 'major evolutionary changes' as being constant (which I would also argue) your own numbers would then reflect each major evolutionary change at 300000 years, not 3000.

[CraigD]

The idea of selective evolution sounds good but if one look at history often selective advantage does not always win the day. Two animals may be ready to fight with the winner passing on the future. At that moment a tree falls on the one with obvious selective advantage, causing evolution to go down a different path. Or during times of famine, a stupid animal stumbles upon a stockpile of food. He goes on to be the future of that species. Simple twists of fate change the future and the idea of only the best moving evolution is simplicitic.

…

 

The problem with the above idea and evolutionary theory is that, evolutionary theory imposes the idea that eventually if the survivor was not the best choice 1) it too would die and not pass on it's genetic code, 2) an eventual mutation of this one would ultimately lead back to the one that had the chance tree fall on it.

It doesn’t follow that if an evolutionary process, such as biological evolution, doesn’t find an optimum solution in a earlier some “generation”, it will find it in a later one. Experience with artificial evolutionary processes, such as “evolutionary computing” (EC) computer programs, repeatedly demonstrate that even very well-designed evolutionary processes more often than not settle on sub-optimum solutions. Although biological systems are far more difficult to rigorously analyze than computer programs, they appear to share this tendency to find merely adequate, not optimal, solutions.

But you are correct in the first point. Evolution cannot predict.

The difficulty of predicting outcomes of biological systems is also shared by EC. The value of EC is actually due to the ability of a simple EC program to solve a problem that is very difficult to solve by “predicting” the future state of the EC program with a non-EC program.

 

Difficult to predict systems are not confined to biology and computing. Even a system governed by the well-defined rules of classical mechanics can have future states that are impossible to predict given practical limitations. A commonly discussed example is a “sand pile” or perfectly spherical “grains” dropped at a precise rate from a precise position. Even though the precise position of each grain at any time is, in principle, calculable, very small unknowns in the size, material characteristics, and position of the grains when released results in a system where the actual position, and even the gross, visible shape of the pile, differ dramatically from prediction. Rather than being called “unpredictable”, such systems, characterized by critical dependency on initial (and incremental) conditions, are known as “chaotic” – a slight misnomer, as despite their unpredictability, they still follow well defined, orderly rules.

 

Despite it’s inability to actually predict the outcome of a real world, chaotic system, it’s inappropriate to say that classical mechanics “cannot predict”.

 

A biological system is a chaotic system with many more parts, where the precise rules governing them are far less understood, and the time scales involved are much greater, than the sandpile example. So, while in principle, the origin of species can be explained by a more advanced version of molecular biology, practically the best current explanation require a theory that attempts to describe the system in “metaphoric” terms. Darwinian Evolution encompasses a collection of mostly agreeing, slightly competing theories believe to be the best of this kind of theory yet described.

However, it can also not explain.

Many people find the explanation of the state of the current biological world to be well-explained by Darwinian evolution. Therefore, in the common use sense of the word “explain”, as well as more formal ones such as hypography member DoctorDick’s “An explanation [is] a method of obtaining expectations from given known information” (see “A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself”), I don’t believe it makes sense to say any well-explored theory does not explain. It’s popularity indicates that evolution explains better than previous scientific theories for the origin of species.

…This would mean that every 300 years or so we would see a major evolutionary change in man.

I think this is inaccurate. Zythryn’s previous post describes some of my objections well.

[Mohit Pandey]

are you so sure? Religion is ones personal belief based on "facts" and "evidence" from a book (the bible) While science is someones personal belief based on facts and evidence from science books and research! so are they so different? In terms of science do you believe exactly what I do about what happens in a cell? of course not. Does everyone believe the same thing about their religion? of course not. everything is open to ones own interpretation.

 

I don't think you are correct.:) The facts and evidence from a religious book cannot be verified. No proof can be given about their truth except that they are from a holy/religious book.

But the facts and evidence from science books and research can be verified .

[learnin to learn]

Turtle brought this to my attention earlier, I failed to consider reproducibility, but thanks for noticing my error.:D

[HydrogenBond]

If one looks at the big picture of life, life has been moving forward in a progressing way. Human are more advanced than apes, and humans now are more advanced than they were 5000 years ago. To me this implies that evolution is following a logical progression, i.e, cells, multicells, plants to animals, sea to land, reptiles to mammals, etc. I believe the progression is implicit of life gaining potential. The potential is connected to the hydrogen proton.

 

Mutations and such, help explain the discontinuous data that we have collected. This theory/data combo is analogous to watching a movie with many of the frames missing. The characters will appear to quantum jump in and out of scenes as the movie progresses. This quantum jumping might be explained with parallel universes and other dimensions. One would be hard pressed to refute this convenient concensus theory, since the discontinuous movie does indeed show such quantum jumping. If we add all the lost frames back, a logical order is seen in touch with reality.

 

Evolution theory has a problem generating realtime data. Something so basic would be expected to be as common as grass. Instead, every now and then a data point sort of appears. Why so rare? The reason it is rare is that realtime data is continuous and not discontinuous.

[InfiniteNow]

If one looks at the big picture of life, life has been moving forward in a progressing way.

This is redundant. Moving forward is progression.

 

I believe the progression is implicit of life gaining potential. The potential is connected to the hydrogen proton.

Support this statement.

 

 

Mutations and such, help explain the discontinuous data that we have collected. This theory/data combo is analogous to watching a movie with many of the frames missing. The characters will appear to quantum jump in and out of scenes as the movie progresses. This quantum jumping might be explained with parallel universes and other dimensions. One would be hard pressed to refute this convenient concensus theory, since the discontinuous movie does indeed show such quantum jumping. If we add all the lost frames back, a logical order is seen in touch with reality.

Wouldn't a better explanation be sudden and unexpected changes in an enronment resulting in mass extinction events? Then, you don't need to bring in the already questionable concept of quantum leaps, parellel universii and unseen dimensions. Or, it could just be that we need more time to fill in the gaps. Why go into the realm of the unexplained when other possibilities are much more likely?

 

 

Evolution theory has a problem generating realtime data. Something so basic would be expected to be as common as grass. Instead, every now and then a data point sort of appears. Why so rare? The reason it is rare is that realtime data is continuous and not discontinuous.

I disagree tremendously with your first sentence here, hence the rest is a bunch of hogwash too (IMO). Realtime data is both extant and plentiful.