Author Topic: Evolution  (Read 10052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 23, 2014, 04:22:42 PM
Reply #15

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Yeah, it's kind of mind boggling, and how everything is made of the same basic atomic structures to become even more multifaceted atomic structures... but quantum physics isn't the same as evolution. I wonder how, or if, particle physics relates to evolution  :confused:

The thing that makes things unique, though they are composed of the same elements, is the configuration. In Chemistry(especially so in organic chemistry), this concept is very important in that the same molecular formula can yield different compounds(isomers) depending on the different structures formed from the same molecular formula. I would be confused if I formed an improper an association, too. Quantum physics plays a role in transcription kinetics and protein folding, though, the correlation you are trying to create is quite wrong, though, you see quantum physics in genetics. For example, a particle of carbon would be indistinguishable from an equal particle of carbon in such a way that if you switched them out, the universe would be in the same state it was prior in quantum statistical mechanics; however, there is a discrete configuration of carbon, so while it would be indistinguishable from another equivalent atom of carbon, it would be distinguishable from say oxygen. It is not mind boggling if you count the different combination of things and then label them relative to the possible configurations you have, though, in concept, you seem to have a hard time doing that with anything(where I have not figured out why that is exactly), so that is probably why it is mind boggling. For example, if I gave you red, blue, and green objects and asked you to count the individual pairings of each, you would be able to easily give me an answer(this is something that is taught to children). See, not mind boggling? It is mind boggling to you because you seem to make the same fallacy in which versus say addressing the pairings, you would address the basic colors and then group them as three instead of the right amount.  
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 09:21:11 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 23, 2014, 05:33:40 PM
Reply #16

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Do you believe in evolution? And if you don't, why?
Do you believe in gravity? And if you don't, why? :)

~Steve
I'm guessing you asked this question to make us realize that you are pretty idiotic if you don't believe in scientific fact.
Something like that. But also to draw another scientific parallel between the two.

See, despite the experiential understanding of gravity that every layman can pick up on, and how humans have long known intuitively that we're "rooted" to the Earth because of it, it wasn't until Sir Isaac Newton that it was seriously studied as a scientific endeavor (Galileo studied it too, but it didn't take off among the rest of the scientific community at that time).

Evolution, on the other hand, was accepted as a natural (or divine) thing at least as long ago as the Greeks. But it also didn't receive serious scientific study until around the time of Darwin and his Theory of Evolution (or at least, that's what teachers of today credit as being the serious start of that thread of scientific inquiry).

Like the original theories of gravity, the original theories of evolution weren't entirely correct. However, it was with study and experimentation that information was gleaned and theories were updated, again and again, enhancing one another towards the path of understanding.

It is scientific fact that evolution happens. It has been proven time and again in selective breeding experiments. It is not up for serious debate among any scientific circle that puts their science before their religion. And thus, yes, to not believe in at least the basic concept of evolution, as the concept that animals species change over time and that genetic variations occur through both mutations and genetic selection over time, is about as silly as not believing in the basic concept of gravity, as the concept that masses attract one another for some odd reason.

So I don't mean to derail your thread and make it sound like the question is kind of moot, because it's not. It's always okay to ask why people do or don't think or believe the things that they do.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 23, 2014, 06:03:13 PM
Reply #17

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
See, despite the experiential understanding of gravity that every layman can pick up on, and how humans have long known intuitively that we're "rooted" to the Earth because of it, it wasn't until Sir Isaac Newton that it was seriously studied as a scientific endeavor (Galileo studied it too, but it didn't take off among the rest of the scientific community at that time).

That is actually false in that Aristotle actually pondered why objects fall when you drop them prior to both Newton and Galileo where Galileo's concept of a pendulum was analogous, in some ways, to the constrained fall of say a rock. The idea was that per the nature of the rock, it will seek to fall to its lower state. It is one of those things they tell people in grade school like Thomas Edison invented the light bulb or Christopher Columbus set out to prove the world was not flat. I do not know why, though. These myths are often times addressed in college, though, I do not know why a lot of people do not teach things correcly from the get go.

Evolution, on the other hand, was accepted as a natural (or divine) thing at least as long ago as the Greeks. But it also didn't receive serious scientific study until around the time of Darwin and his Theory of Evolution (or at least, that's what teachers of today credit as being the serious start of that thread of scientific inquiry).

Also not true. What made Darwinian views initially controversial is that it went against concepts of organic teleology where Greek concepts of growth were teleological at its core(reading material for you: Epigenesis and Preformationism). According to Darwinian concepts, an organism is not working towards a predetermined state of being; rather, adaptations to the environment help shape morphogenic traits. Greek science addressed morphogensis from the stand point of teleology which evolution contradicts on multiple points. This embodies the creationists versus evolutionists debate in that creationists hold to a teleological view point which evolution contradicts (intelligent design), so, technically, while the Greeks investigated development(such as how a seed changes into a tree), they did not investigate evolution anymore than creationists arguments are evolutionary arguments(not in the same sense of the word, at least, Greek concepts of evolution are closer to concepts of development). Versus a human eye being a human eye due to a teleological nature creating such, a human eye came about per adaptions to the environment and not due to a predetermined state. For some stupid reason, a lot of high school teachers, and even college professors, teach things incorrectly.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 06:13:08 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 23, 2014, 06:30:59 PM
Reply #18

JustinReeves

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 55
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
Do you believe in evolution? And if you don't, why?
Do you believe in gravity? And if you don't, why? :)

~Steve
I'm guessing you asked this question to make us realize that you are pretty idiotic if you don't believe in scientific fact.
Something like that. But also to draw another scientific parallel between the two.

See, despite the experiential understanding of gravity that every layman can pick up on, and how humans have long known intuitively that we're "rooted" to the Earth because of it, it wasn't until Sir Isaac Newton that it was seriously studied as a scientific endeavor (Galileo studied it too, but it didn't take off among the rest of the scientific community at that time).

Evolution, on the other hand, was accepted as a natural (or divine) thing at least as long ago as the Greeks. But it also didn't receive serious scientific study until around the time of Darwin and his Theory of Evolution (or at least, that's what teachers of today credit as being the serious start of that thread of scientific inquiry).

Like the original theories of gravity, the original theories of evolution weren't entirely correct. However, it was with study and experimentation that information was gleaned and theories were updated, again and again, enhancing one another towards the path of understanding.

It is scientific fact that evolution happens. It has been proven time and again in selective breeding experiments. It is not up for serious debate among any scientific circle that puts their science before their religion. And thus, yes, to not believe in at least the basic concept of evolution, as the concept that animals species change over time and that genetic variations occur through both mutations and genetic selection over time, is about as silly as not believing in the basic concept of gravity, as the concept that masses attract one another for some odd reason.

So I don't mean to derail your thread and make it sound like the question is kind of moot, because it's not. It's always okay to ask why people do or don't think or believe the things that they do.

~Steve
I don't believe you derailed this thread at all. I think you contributed a lot to this topic so thanks :)

January 23, 2014, 06:34:35 PM
Reply #19

JustinReeves

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 55
  • Karma:
    6
    • View Profile
See, despite the experiential understanding of gravity that every layman can pick up on, and how humans have long known intuitively that we're "rooted" to the Earth because of it, it wasn't until Sir Isaac Newton that it was seriously studied as a scientific endeavor (Galileo studied it too, but it didn't take off among the rest of the scientific community at that time).

That is actually false in that Aristotle actually pondered why objects fall when you drop them prior to both Newton and Galileo where Galileo's concept of a pendulum was analogous, in some ways, to the constrained fall of say a rock. The idea was that per the nature of the rock, it will seek to fall to its lower state. It is one of those things they tell people in grade school like Thomas Edison invented the light bulb or Christopher Columbus set out to prove the world was not flat. I do not know why, though. These myths are often times addressed in college, though, I do not know why a lot of people do not teach things correcly from the get go.

Evolution, on the other hand, was accepted as a natural (or divine) thing at least as long ago as the Greeks. But it also didn't receive serious scientific study until around the time of Darwin and his Theory of Evolution (or at least, that's what teachers of today credit as being the serious start of that thread of scientific inquiry).

Also not true. What made Darwinian views initially controversial is that it went against concepts of organic teleology where Greek concepts of growth were teleological at its core(reading material for you: Epigenesis and Preformationism). According to Darwinian concepts, an organism is not working towards a predetermined state of being; rather, adaptations to the environment help shape morphogenic traits. Greek science addressed morphogensis from the stand point of teleology which evolution contradicts on multiple points. This embodies the creationists versus evolutionists debate in that creationists hold to a teleological view point which evolution contradicts (intelligent design), so, technically, while the Greeks investigated development(such as how a seed changes into a tree), they did not investigate evolution anymore than creationists arguments are evolutionary arguments(not in the same sense of the word, at least, Greek concepts of evolution are closer to concepts of development). Versus a human eye being a human eye due to a teleological nature creating such, a human eye came about per adaptions to the environment and not due to a predetermined state. For some stupid reason, a lot of high school teachers, and even college professors, teach things incorrectly.
I'm pretty sure that during the time Darwin published his theory of evolution, it was controversial due to the fact that it went against the orthodox view on how man was created

January 23, 2014, 07:36:27 PM
Reply #20

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
I'm pretty sure that during the time Darwin published his theory of evolution, it was controversial due to the fact that it went against the orthodox view on how man was created

Metaphysically speaking, the supposed creation of man is not as simple as a lot of people think since the act of form and how things come to have form is metaphysically complex, in itself. Especially seeing that Christians believe that God imbued man with a soul, so that raises complex questions, in itself(for example how and when does a soul attach to the body or is it always there?). It is also physically complex, too. You run into the same problem with most Christian teachers that you run into with high school teachers improperly teaching and overly simplifying things. Considering what we know about how intention teleologically constrains physical probabilities, it is possible to come up with paradigms that allow for evolution within a Christian framework. Not saying I agree with that. My father is a Catholic who is the one who handed me my first book on genetics who took me to science museums whee be believes something akin to God creating man through the facilitation of evolutionary processes. 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 07:41:32 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 23, 2014, 08:34:03 PM
Reply #21

Shadowx089

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****
  • Regular Member

  • 409
  • Karma:
    -6
  • Personal Text
    Regular Member
    • View Profile
For me the answer is simply yes. It is obvious based on the degree of differences in humans alone that it does occur.

However, something bothers me about it.

Inanimate objects don't seem to evolve, like a rock for example or a cell phone. They don't seem to evolve. So when it comes to our existence. I question how can inanimate object become animated objects and evolve without being able to evolve in the first place.

Even if we were to credit primordial ooze we would have to question how an inanimate molecule manged to reach a state that it was capable of evolving. When is it considered alive? How did it become alive by random chemical reactions? There just doesn't seem to be a good enough explanation if this is the case.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 08:42:45 PM by Shadowx089 »
Comfort of the Lord, comforted by God.
If nothing existed but the Source and the Source - Created everything - Is the Creation from the Source? - If the Creation can behold intelligence - Then does the Source also have intelligence? - After all - The Source was far more than its Creation.

January 23, 2014, 09:11:24 PM
Reply #22

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Inanimate objects don't seem to evolve, like a rock for example or a cell phone. They don't seem to evolve. So when it comes to our existence. I question how can inanimate object become animated objects and evolve without being able to evolve in the first place.

Even if we were to credit primordial ooze we would have to question how an inanimate molecule manged to reach a state that it was capable of evolving. When is it considered alive? How did it become alive by random chemical reactions? There just doesn't seem to be a good enough explanation if this is the case.

The answer lies in chemistry. You have what is called molecular self-assembly.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

March 25, 2015, 09:10:52 PM
Reply #23

Trihalo42

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 4
  • Karma:
    1
    • View Profile
I seem to have this psychotic need to bring people up to speed on Evolution theories. I think it's because of Neil Tyson's groupies throwing so much hate and ignorance around the internet.

First off, the typical reason for these threads is an attempt to make people who are religious seem "unscientific". Simply put, the atheist media icon known as Neil deGrasse Tyson said in an interview on Big Think that there is no conflict between science and religion. It's only a minority of religious people who try to create a conflict.
http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-and-faith

Another thing these threads typically do is assume that "evolution" has explained how life began and why things are the way they are now. "Evolution" itself is often divided up into the origins of life, macro evolution, micro evolution, etc etc. This usually leads to someone trying to argue in favor of some small point and claiming that everything else with the word "evolution" attached to it is true by association. Another reference comes from Tyson is seen in Season 1 Episode 2 of the Cosmos reboot, "some of the things that molecules do". Near the end Tyson is speaking about early earth and says,
 
"Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. Not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began."

That quote tends to shut down the "evolution explains all life everywhere ever" crowd. But that's about the origins of life, and not about adaptive mutations and "natural selection".

Another bit from Tyson was in a Tweet he made. He was speaking about the classic question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? He suggested that what laid the chicken egg was not quite a chicken. This is a reference to mutations creating new species. A few of us responded that significantly different creatures either cannot produce offspring or they create hybrids. So if it was a chicken that came from the egg, the only organisms around it could then breed with would not be chickens. This leads into the problems we see with white tigers.

A sexually reproducing organism that is governed by hereditary traits that experiences a significant mutation, that then breeds back with the general population that does not share that mutation, will produce hybrids. Further breeding of those hybrids with the general population that does not share that mutation will see that mutation "bred out" of the line. We see this in white tigers in that we have to inbreed them to preserve that mutation. This in turn has led to research that attempts to show how mutations can somehow build up among a group of organisms and enough of them experience simultaneous mutations to create a sufficient population to preserve the mutation without inbreeding.

This is a reason that Charles Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Quoting that sends most evolutionists into a rage, as people continue to explain things as being "small steps" and using the theory of "co-opting genetic material". The thing is, even if an organism "co-opts" genetic material, it has to have a sufficient pool of other organisms to breed with to continue that mutation, else it gets "bred out". Thus the research on how traits might re-emerge in a large group of organisms.

A problem comes in with the people echoing the idea that things evolve in direct response to their environment, as if DNA had some level of intelligence and could re-write itself like a geneticist creating better GMOs. It doesn't work like that.

Another problem is with the people in the "it's all completely random" camp, that don't get the whole white tiger thing. That goes along with the research showing that mutations tend to occur along areas of the genetic code called "hot spots". Certain markers tend to cause mutations to be focused in those areas, thus preserving the basic traits of a species and only allowing slight changes such as size or coloration. So "evolution" is random, but that randomness in our time appears to be locked into certain regions of the code. No real evidence on this being the case or not millions of years ago.

So saying that "evolution" has been absolutely scientifically "proven" is a false statement. There's plenty of evidence, but there's still research being done to fill in the holes. Until that research is completed, it is "scientific" to question any results.