Refusal to Accept anything that might be directed

[kitkat]

I am not a religious person that believes the story of how life was created here by a God but I also do not accept from science that no living entity from bacteria to humans ended up with their traits by chance or lucky accidents. We are just beginning to understand the behavior of nature and while much does not make sense to science, the behavior right down to the cellular level is providing lots of evidence of many defenses in place inside at the cellular level and also at the species level to enhance their chances of survival.

 

When science removes the mysteries of life processes and are able to explain the process in detail and them eventually understand the "why" these mechanisms are in place, it is natural for many people to believe that life works to direct itself by constantly inventing new defenses for survival. Religions and Evolutionists are at the extreme opposites of their beliefs and people are expected to side with one or the other. Why can't there be something in the middle meaning the whole cannot control its destiny but many of the parts within does have limited abilities to direct their destiny to a point?

[Phi for All]

Mainly because when you realize that some of what you test and study can be shown to evolve over time, the rest of what you see has the same chance. There is no need for anything to be controlling evolutionary pressure. You're simply talking about hundreds of trillions of organisms over billions of years. Your brief life so far isn't even the ticking of a clock compared to that, and that makes it hard to wrap your head around those kinds of numbers and time-frames.

 

Don't you think, if there was any level of control, that there would be fewer flaws?

 

If you absolutely have to have some awesome powerful "designer", have him set it in motion billions of years ago and then step away from it, confident his process will do its job. I guess that will let you see evolution for the incredible thing it really is.

[Ophiolite]

I also do not accept from science that no living entity from bacteria to humans ended up with their traits by chance or lucky accidents.

I do not know of any practicing biologist, or any individual with a basic knowledge of evolution who believes that the characteristics of bacteria, humans, or any other lifeform are a result of chance and lucky accidents. If you think that is what evolution says then you have rather missed the entire point of Darwin's seminal work and the Modern Synthesis that was derived from it.

 

The central tenet of Darwin's thesis is that traits are selected for. Traits that promote survival and reproduction in a given environment are favoured. More individuals with these traits survive and reproduce than without. The fate of the individuall may be influenced by fate, but the population is directed by the unconscious hand of natural selection: no chance or luck are involved.

 

Where chance and luck do come into play are in providing the variability on which natural selection can work. A mutation might be of immense value to a particular population, but it will be a matter of chance whether or not that mutation, or a similar one, arises.

 

So, I am afraid you are arguing against a position that evolutionary biology does not adopt. Once you understand and accept that, then the reason for the tensions between science and some fundamentalist religions will become apparent.

 

We are just beginning to understand the behavior of nature and while much does not make sense to science, the behavior right down to the cellular level is providing lots of evidence of many defenses in place inside at the cellular level and also at the species level to enhance their chances of survival.

And every one of these 'defences' has been selected for from the variability present in the population. We can stand in awe at the diversity of solutions to living and reproducing that can evolve in this way, but there is no deep mystery to that evolution.

 

 

 

When science removes the mysteries of life processes and are able to explain the process in detail and them eventually understand the "why" these mechanisms are in place, it is natural for many people to believe that life works to direct itself by constantly inventing new defenses for survival.

So? Your statement here is ambiguous. You seem to be saying exactly what I have been saying: new traits arise through mutations; beneficial mutations are selected for; we call the resultant traits survival mechanisms; life is developing survival mechanisms in preference to self-destruction mechanisms through the medium of natural selection. However, while your words can mean precisely that I sense you are implying something quite different. Perhaps you will take the time to clarify this point.

 

 

Religions and Evolutionists are at the extreme opposites of their beliefs and people are expected to side with one or the other.

You will find several people at both extremes of the argument who will agree with that statement. Personally, I think it is nonsense. My own view is that religion and science are wholly compatible in the same way that the fish course and the entree are wholly compatible within a meal. They are quite different; they fulfill different functions; they both provide sustenance, but of different kinds, but both are quite in place within the structure of a meal.

 

The difficulty arises because many religions use dogma, and fear and superstition to corrupt what should be a mechanism for enhancing the spiritual side of life. And some scientists take an equally dogmatic view, setting out for example to disprove the existence of God. As far as extremists on both sides go, Shakespeare said it for me, "A pox on both your houses".

[Phi for All]

When science removes the mysteries of life processes and are able to explain the process in detail and them eventually understand the "why" these mechanisms are in place, it is natural for many people to believe that life works to direct itself by constantly inventing new defenses for survival.

I love unsolved mysteries, but only in that they are still left to be solved, maybe by me. I don't think removing the mystery removes any of my love of the world and its amazing variety and complexity.

 

And if life works to direct itself by constantly inventing new defenses for survival, well that's amazing too, considering the forces at work that can destroy us. If you've never been less than a mile from a tornado, or felt the concussion of a close lightning strike, or been scraped ashore across the sea bottom by a rogue wave, you can still think about the truly incredible slow march of evolution as it branches out forming life to match the conditions of this Earth, and be awed by what nature can accomplish.

[Psycho]

I love unsolved mysteries, but only in that they are still left to be solved, maybe by me. I don't think removing the mystery removes any of my love of the world and its amazing variety and complexity.

 

And if life works to direct itself by constantly inventing new defenses for survival, well that's amazing too, considering the forces at work that can destroy us. If you've never been less than a mile from a tornado, or felt the concussion of a close lightning strike, or been scraped ashore across the sea bottom by a rogue wave, you can still think about the truly incredible slow march of evolution as it branches out forming life to match the conditions of this Earth, and be awed by what nature can accomplish.

I happen to agree with you about discovering the meaning of thing and how they work and why they work actually makes them far more interesting, I mean the reality of what happens in a plant everyday is amazing.

 

I have hi-lighted your final ending statement for a philosophical purpose more than a scientific one, as it is most likely one of the features of the confusion with evolution. Nature doesn't exist and in its non-existance isn't aiming to accomplish anything, mutations occur and are selected for, survival is accomplished but that was never the aim of the mutation, the mutation didn't have an aim. What is forgotten by most laymen in their concept of evolution is that many mutations occur that aren't selected for or just come along for the ride and don't advantage and more importantly disadvantage the organism, later in the species development they may by lost or suddenly become an extremely important mutation (due to environmental changes), but probably not, they will just sit there and have no effect.

[Phi for All]

Nature doesn't exist and in its non-existance isn't aiming to accomplish anything, mutations occur and are selected for, survival is accomplished but that was never the aim of the mutation, the mutation didn't have an aim. What is forgotten by most laymen in their concept of evolution is that many mutations occur that aren't selected for or just come along for the ride and don't advantage and more importantly disadvantage the organism, later in the species development they may by lost or suddenly become an extremely important mutation (due to environmental changes), but probably not, they will just sit there and have no effect.

I agree, and it was condescending for me to shade the truth to someone who seems to be straddling a fence. It wasn't accurate and I apologize to the members and especially kitkat. It doesn't always work to change someone's mind by degree, especially with inaccurate information.

[Psycho]

I agree, and it was condescending for me to shade the truth to someone who seems to be straddling a fence. It wasn't accurate and I apologize to the members and especially kitkat. It doesn't always work to change someone's mind by degree, especially with inaccurate information.

 

That wasn't really the point of my post.

[Phi for All]

 

That wasn't really the point of my post.

I realize that, but I felt guilty for hurrying my post just to keep my hash browns from burning.

[kitkat]

I do not know of any practicing biologist, or any individual with a basic knowledge of evolution who believes that the characteristics of bacteria, humans, or any other lifeform are a result of chance and lucky accidents. If you think that is what evolution says then you have rather missed the entire point of Darwin's seminal work and the Modern Synthesis that was derived from it.

 

The central tenet of Darwin's thesis is that traits are selected for. Traits that promote survival and reproduction in a given environment are favoured. More individuals with these traits survive and reproduce than without. The fate of the individuall may be influenced by fate, but the population is directed by the unconscious hand of natural selection: no chance or luck are involved.

 

Where chance and luck do come into play are in providing the variability on which natural selection can work. A mutation might be of immense value to a particular population, but it will be a matter of chance whether or not that mutation, or a similar one, arises.

 

So, I am afraid you are arguing against a position that evolutionary biology does not adopt. Once you understand and accept that, then the reason for the tensions between science and some fundamentalist religions will become apparent.

 

And every one of these 'defences' has been selected for from the variability present in the population. We can stand in awe at the diversity of solutions to living and reproducing that can evolve in this way, but there is no deep mystery to that evolution.

 

 

 

 

So? Your statement here is ambiguous. You seem to be saying exactly what I have been saying: new traits arise through mutations; beneficial mutations are selected for; we call the resultant traits survival mechanisms; life is developing survival mechanisms in preference to self-destruction mechanisms through the medium of natural selection. However, while your words can mean precisely that I sense you are implying something quite different. Perhaps you will take the time to clarify this point.

 

 

 

You will find several people at both extremes of the argument who will agree with that statement. Personally, I think it is nonsense. My own view is that religion and science are wholly compatible in the same way that the fish course and the entree are wholly compatible within a meal. They are quite different; they fulfill different functions; they both provide sustenance, but of different kinds, but both are quite in place within the structure of a meal.

 

The difficulty arises because many religions use dogma, and fear and superstition to corrupt what should be a mechanism for enhancing the spiritual side of life. And some scientists take an equally dogmatic view, setting out for example to disprove the existence of God. As far as extremists on both sides go, Shakespeare said it for me, "A pox on both your houses".

 

 

You have misunderstood me in that when science can explain the "why" in life processes, it longer appears it came about that way by random, lucky, mutations that emerge by chance. The "why" explains the reason why it was "naturally selected" as the best choice. The word "natural selection" teases people that see selection as a choice, therefore a decision mechanism appears to be in place. This is not at the species level in reproduction because I feel if changes start to occur in the offspring that there are many individuals born that also have these changes.

 

Scientists should have realized that using buzz words like "selection" creates a heated debate between evolutionists and religions, or just people like me who believe that life appears to direct itself in many different directions by making choices along the way to improve survival.

 

I do not know of any practicing biologist, or any individual with a basic knowledge of evolution who believes that the characteristics of bacteria, humans, or any other lifeform are a result of chance and lucky accidents. If you think that is what evolution says then you have rather missed the entire point of Darwin's seminal work and the Modern Synthesis that was derived from it.

 

The central tenet of Darwin's thesis is that traits are selected for. Traits that promote survival and reproduction in a given environment are favoured. More individuals with these traits survive and reproduce than without. The fate of the individuall may be influenced by fate, but the population is directed by the unconscious hand of natural selection: no chance or luck are involved.

 

Where chance and luck do come into play are in providing the variability on which natural selection can work. A mutation might be of immense value to a particular population, but it will be a matter of chance whether or not that mutation, or a similar one, arises.

 

So, I am afraid you are arguing against a position that evolutionary biology does not adopt. Once you understand and accept that, then the reason for the tensions between science and some fundamentalist religions will become apparent.

 

And every one of these 'defences' has been selected for from the variability present in the population. We can stand in awe at the diversity of solutions to living and reproducing that can evolve in this way, but there is no deep mystery to that evolution.

 

 

 

 

So? Your statement here is ambiguous. You seem to be saying exactly what I have been saying: new traits arise through mutations; beneficial mutations are selected for; we call the resultant traits survival mechanisms; life is developing survival mechanisms in preference to self-destruction mechanisms through the medium of natural selection. However, while your words can mean precisely that I sense you are implying something quite different. Perhaps you will take the time to clarify this point.

 

 

 

You will find several people at both extremes of the argument who will agree with that statement. Personally, I think it is nonsense. My own view is that religion and science are wholly compatible in the same way that the fish course and the entree are wholly compatible within a meal. They are quite different; they fulfill different functions; they both provide sustenance, but of different kinds, but both are quite in place within the structure of a meal.

 

The difficulty arises because many religions use dogma, and fear and superstition to corrupt what should be a mechanism for enhancing the spiritual side of life. And some scientists take an equally dogmatic view, setting out for example to disprove the existence of God. As far as extremists on both sides go, Shakespeare said it for me, "A pox on both your houses".

 

 

You keep saying traits are selected for by natural selection but what level does the selecting and are there choices involved? At the species level in reproduction, the "selection" has already been chosen since many individuals in the population have it all at the same time in their offspring.

[Phi for All]

You have misunderstood me in that when science can explain the "why" in life processes, it longer appears it came about that way by random, lucky, mutations that emerge by chance. The "why" explains the reason why it was "naturally selected" as the best choice. The word "natural selection" teases people that see selection as a choice, therefore a decision mechanism appears to be in place. This is not at the species level in reproduction because I feel if changes start to occur in the offspring that there are many individuals born that also have these changes.

 

Scientists should have realized that using buzz words like "selection" creates a heated debate between evolutionists and religions, or just people like me who believe that life appears to direct itself in many different directions by making choices along the way to improve survival.

But selection is not always a choice when it comes to who survives to reproduce. Attractive traits may seem like a choice, but what about cases like the ʻiʻiwi, the Hawaiian Honeycreeper bird whose bill evolved to curve to fit the lobelioid flowers it favors, which have similarly curved corollas? Indeed, the lobelioids in Hawaii seem to have co-evolved more curved corollas than their mainland cousins due to the evolution of the bird's bills that help it in pollination.

 

This is not a decision process; it's clearly flora and fauna co-adapting to changes that make both more successful. More successful simply beats out less successful. No need for a decision mechanism or a decider.

[Arete]

You keep saying traits are selected for by natural selection but what level does the selecting and are there choices involved? At the species level in reproduction, the "selection" has already been chosen since many individuals in the population have it all at the same time in their offspring.

 

Natural selection is a very simple concept.

1) Due to random mutations in genotypes, there's a range of phenotypes in a given population.

2) Due to a myriad of environmental parameters affecting that population, certain phenotypes are more reproductively successful than others.

3) The genotypes of the next generation (and thus the heritable portions of the phenotype) are influenced by this differential success and thus the population, through generations, evolves.

 

That's really it. All the models of evolution - divergent selection, purifying selection, directional selection etc are all variations or continuations of the same theme.

Co-evolution, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, mosaic evolution, etc all involve assumptions regarding the environmental parameters and directionality of increased fecundity, but also rely on the same, fundamental principle.

 

The concept of "choice" is not part of the scientific theory.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Arete

[kitkat]

There is still much to learn in science and when the complete genomes of microbes to man of all species is completed perhaps a different prospective will emerge that provides definitive answers to questions that will resolve doubt of what the real story is about life's activities.

[Arete]

complete genomes of microbes to man of all species is completed perhaps a different prospective will emerge that provides definitive answers to questions that will resolve doubt of what the real story is about life's activities.

 

Genomic sequencing will not tell you anything about the basics of evolutionary theory that common garden experimentation/field observation/chromosomal assays/allozymes/existing molecular data hasn't already confirmed thousands of times over.

[Psycho]

Genomic sequencing will not tell you anything about the basics of evolutionary theory that common garden experimentation/field observation/chromosomal assays/allozymes/existing molecular data hasn't already confirmed thousands of times over.

This is true but if you make a statement like the former you clearly have completely missed the whole idea of the concept so no amount of information will help, what he actually needs is a good analogy.

[Ringer]

There is still much to learn in science and when the complete genomes of microbes to man of all species is completed perhaps a different prospective will emerge that provides definitive answers to questions that will resolve doubt of what the real story is about life's activities.

 

If you had the blue-print to every car, would you then have a different perspective on how cars came to be what they are today? You know that someone invented the automobile a while back. You also know, more or less, how people have developed different ideas for cars that are used in different situations. Some are more complex than others, but all cars more or less work. Having and understanding may give you a better appreciation of the details of what goes into making cars. You may even be able to see the relationships between the cars as in when they were made and where they were made depending on the parts that go into them more so than if you just saw them in a line up.

 

As a caveat this, like all analogies, has a few flaws, but I hope this gives you an idea of how, even if we had every genome sequenced, the whole of evolutionary theory is on good ground even though we only have a few full blueprints.

[questionposter]

I am not a religious person that believes the story of how life was created here by a God but I also do not accept from science that no living entity from bacteria to humans ended up with their traits by chance or lucky accidents. We are just beginning to understand the behavior of nature and while much does not make sense to science, the behavior right down to the cellular level is providing lots of evidence of many defenses in place inside at the cellular level and also at the species level to enhance their chances of survival.

 

When science removes the mysteries of life processes and are able to explain the process in detail and them eventually understand the "why" these mechanisms are in place, it is natural for many people to believe that life works to direct itself by constantly inventing new defenses for survival. Religions and Evolutionists are at the extreme opposites of their beliefs and people are expected to side with one or the other. Why can't there be something in the middle meaning the whole cannot control its destiny but many of the parts within does have limited abilities to direct their destiny to a point?

 

I don't get what the debate is. Couldn't god have just wanted evolution to happen?

 

But unfortunately, what tends to happen is the extremists on both sides think they are better than the other side for their set of beliefs, which I find very ironic because evolution is neither a religion nor a mystical force that says you have to do anything, its just a process that happens to happen. With evolutionists, they tend to think they accept science and therefore they are mentally superior as a result of evolution as well as somehow regressing to some archaic state like they "accept" animalistic tendencies and think they have to act on them, and with religious extremists, they tend to think that because people of other religions are not protected by their divinity that the God(s) of the religious extremists consider the religious extremists more important and the lives of people of other faiths to be meaningless.

Edited November 2, 2011 by questionposter

[Brainteaserfan]

I don't get what the debate is. Couldn't god have just wanted evolution to happen?

 

But unfortunately, what tends to happen is the extremists on both sides think they are better than the other side for their set of beliefs, which I find very ironic because evolution is neither a religion nor a mystical force that says you have to do anything, its just a process that happens to happen. With evolutionists, they tend to think they accept science and therefore they are mentally superior as a result of evolution as well as somehow regressing to some archaic state like they "accept" animalistic tendencies and think they have to act on them, and with religious extremists, they tend to think that because people of other religions are not protected by their divinity that the God(s) of the religious extremists consider the religious extremists more important and the lives of people of other faiths to be meaningless.

Ok, I'm speaking generally now, and not about my own beliefs.

 

You said you don't get what the debate is. Since christians (again, generally speaking) believe God created every terrestrial animal, and every water animal, and told them to "bring forth after their own kind," then that seems to defy evolution, where animals would not be "bringing forth after their own kind." Does that help?

 

PS- I don't believe that I am better because of my belief in Creationism. If I did not hold a Christian viewpoint, I am pretty sure that I would accept evolution (meaning that we all came from a common ancestor and the rest-- I do believe that some small level of evolving has occurred over time)

[questionposter]

 

PS- I don't believe that I am better because of my belief in Creationism. If I did not hold a Christian viewpoint, I am pretty sure that I would accept evolution (meaning that we all came from a common ancestor and the rest-- I do believe that some small level of evolving has occurred over time)

 

Well then your not an extremist are you?

[Brainteaserfan]

Well then your not an extremist are you?

I think most would concur that some small level of evolution has occurred. From my reasoning, God created animals with an ability to adapt slightly to their surroundings.

 

I suppose you will have to define "extremist." I believe that God created me -- I certainly don't think we evolved from chimps.

[Arete]

I think most would concur that some small level of evolution has occurred. From my reasoning, God created animals with an ability to adapt slightly to their surroundings.

 

I suppose you will have to define "extremist." I believe that God created me -- I certainly don't think we evolved from chimps.

 

This might be nit picking, but no evolutionary biologist worth noting believes that either - chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. This ancestor was neither chimp or human, and a number of intermediate organisms have existed (as documented in the fossil record) between the two modern states and that common ancestor - no one sensible is suggesting a chimp gave birth to a human one day. http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

 

In the strict scientific sense, evolution is a continuous process, the division into macro (e.g. speciation) and micro evolution (population level change) is an artificially applied concept.

Given that speciation due to divergent selection has actually been experimentally modelled and directly observed, I would personally find it hard to reconcile a viewpoint that speciation cannot occur, and the line drawn between micro and macro evolution becomes a lot more subjective and blurred.

I'm not challenging your views - they're your business, but I am wondering where you draw the line?

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209, http://www.genetics....184/2/401.short, http://www.annualrev...urnalCode=genet

[questionposter]

I think most would concur that some small level of evolution has occurred. From my reasoning, God created animals with an ability to adapt slightly to their surroundings.

 

I suppose you will have to define "extremist." I believe that God created me -- I certainly don't think we evolved from chimps.

 

Well that doesn't make sense, chimps are still pretty different from humans, the process of evolution is very very slow, and its because the way it happens is completely random mutations just happening to be successful. So lets say 999,999,999 times out of 1,000,000,000 a dinosaur is born with no feathers, but once in a while, that 1 time out of 1,000,000,000 a dinosaur happens to be mutated either from radiation or some chemical or etc, and that mutation allows the dinosaur to be more likely to survive cold weather, and its offspring will also have that same genetic trait, so its offspring will also be more likely to survive cold weather, and then another 1 time out of 1,000,000,000, a dinosaur grows more feathers than usual, which allows it to be more resistant to even colder weather. So now within the same species, there's dinosaurs with feathers and dinosaurs without, and a gigantic blizzard sweeps through. The dinosaurs without the feathers die, and the ones with feathers survive, and thus species is wholly changed.

As you can see, a dinosaur never just gives birth to a bird.

Edited November 2, 2011 by questionposter

[Brainteaserfan]

Well that doesn't make sense, chimps are still pretty different from humans, the process of evolution is very very slow, and its because the way it happens is completely random mutations just happening to be successful. So lets say 999,999,999 times out of 1,000,000,000 a dinosaur is born with no feathers, but once in a while, that 1 time out of 1,000,000,000 a dinosaur happens to be mutated either from radiation or some chemical or etc, and that mutation allows the dinosaur to be more likely to survive cold weather, and its offspring will also have that same genetic trait, so its offspring will also be more likely to survive cold weather, and then another 1 time out of 1,000,000,000, a dinosaur grows more feathers than usual, which allows it to be more resistant to even colder weather. So now within the same species, there's dinosaurs with feathers and dinosaurs without, and a gigantic blizzard sweeps through. The dinosaurs without the feathers die, and the ones with feathers survive, and thus species is wholly changed.

As you can see, a dinosaur never just gives birth to a bird.

I acknowlege that it could be interpreted that way, but I don't get the sense that that is what the Bible meant, because ultimately we would be coming from a far different species.

[kitkat]

This might be nit picking, but no evolutionary biologist worth noting believes that either - chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. This ancestor was neither chimp or human, and a number of intermediate organisms have existed (as documented in the fossil record) between the two modern states and that common ancestor - no one sensible is suggesting a chimp gave birth to a human one day. http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

 

In the strict scientific sense, evolution is a continuous process, the division into macro (e.g. speciation) and micro evolution (population level change) is an artificially applied concept.

Given that speciation due to divergent selection has actually been experimentally modelled and directly observed, I would personally find it hard to reconcile a viewpoint that speciation cannot occur, and the line drawn between micro and macro evolution becomes a lot more subjective and blurred.

I'm not challenging your views - they're your business, but I am wondering where you draw the line?

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209, http://www.genetics....184/2/401.short, http://www.annualrev...urnalCode=genet

 

This too might be nitpicking but no one knows what this common ancestor was, what it looked like, and by that fact even if you did find a fossil you still would not know if it was our common ancestor.

[Realitycheck]

It's not a perfect system. If it were perfect, there would never be mutations. The overwhelming majority of mutations result in deformities disallowing the continuance of that particular genetic line. If it was perfect, evolution never would have happened. What usually causes mutations? Things that are toxic and exist all over the unclean world. So, in essence, it is imperfection which drives change, enabling diversity and advancement.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Realitycheck

[questionposter]

I acknowlege that it could be interpreted that way, but I don't get the sense that that is what the Bible meant, because ultimately we would be coming from a far different species.

 

So what if that's not what your bible meant? What does the science of evolution have to do with that?

And you still don't get it, because we didn't come from a far different species, we only came from a slightly different species, who then came from a species slightly different to it, and that species came from a species slightly different to that, and etc.

 

In fact, there's already ways in which different parts of the human race has evolved even within 6,000 years. Have you ever heard of the Black Plague? Well only the Europeans who happened to have mutations containing strong immune systems survived it, and they passed that on.

Edited November 2, 2011 by questionposter