TheCatt wrote:I don't think I could ever quite grasp how something has come from nothing.
LET THERE BE LIGHT.
Well, right. Supernatural being or spontaneous generation of matter -> Either is pretty much magic to me.
I've thought for years the the whole "dark universe" (dark matter, dark energy, dark protons, dark iPods) was the scientific worlds version of God.
"Well no... there's absolutely no proof that these things are out there, but they allow us to answer important questions like'Why don't my equations work?'"
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
As long as we are aware that while dark matter is in the realm of theoretical physics, there is, as was mentioned earlier, mountains of evidence supporting theory of evolution, and not a single bit of evidence that can positively disprove it. If there was, 'evolution' would be declared incorrect.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I don't necessarily agree with that. The more we learn, the more the theory of evolution is supported.
Used to be we could only observe what was out there, and how interacted with its environment. Then we started incorporating the fossil record, and the evidence was there. Then we discovered DNA, and evolution was supported there. Then we discovered RNA and mRNA, and it was supported there. Things check and cross check and it can be amazing to see the puzzle come together.
The only thing that says it doesn't work is the bible, and that is vague on what it actually says if you don't take it literally; GOD CREATED THE BEASTS OF THE LAND AND THE FISH OF THE SEA AND SAID FOR THEM TO BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. But he never DIDN'T say "and evolution is how I will do it..." so whatever. It gives religious people an 'out' to still accept science.
Biology on earth works because the laws of the physical universe allow it to work. It is complex, but we are talking about an unfathomable amount of time in which to experiment with an unfathomable amount of mutation. No human can wrap their head around it except as a big picture, but the mountains of evidence are there. Literally mountains, if everything humans have learned about evolution of life on this planet were to all be written down. Versus... a Book, and millions of people who never took Biology 141 and who have in the past been known to burn other books that disagreed with their Book.
When I hear someone say, "All I know is that I didn't come from a monkey," all I hear is, "I am ignorant and may someday be a threat to you if you challenge my world view to which I cling so dearly, because there are more of me than there are of you. God said suffer not a witch to live."
Edited By GORDON on 1283611386
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:I don't necessarily agree with that. The more we learn, the more the theory of evolution is supported.
And I don't disagree with that. But the more we learn, the less we understand about the mechanics of it.
As you look at the fossil record, there are relatively short amounts of time (in geological terms) where a huge amount of new and diverse species suddenly appear and long stretches of time where not a lot changes in the makeup of animals.
Then there's the bat, which was always confusing to Darwin's supporters. Before anything resembling flight occured with bats, they went through an amount of time where not only would half formed wings be of absolutely no benefit to the creature, but they'd have actually been a hinderance to survival. Imagine us with 4 foot long fingers dragging behind us while being chased by a tiger.
A few years ago they said they think they found the gene that got flipped in bats that would have allowed them to form fully functional wings in just a handful of generations. I don't have any reason to say they're wrong, but that really doesn't fit neatly into what to that point had been our understanding of evolution.
All I'm saying is that at this point we have the understanding of the process that a 4 year old has of a gun. They know you point it and pull the trigger and it makes a big bang and puts a hole in what you're aiming at, but the mechanics of gun powder and propulsion and the swirl of the inside of the gun barrel and everything else aren't understood yet.
That being said, I hope if my Autobot gene ever gets flipped I get to turn into a fire truck, because that would be kind of cool.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
I agree that evolution happens, but this has always been one of those fields where the more we learn the less we know.
What? By definition, the more you learn about something, the less remains unknown -- unless you've got a very Lord Kelvin-like view of "what you don't know" actually is.
And I don't disagree with that. But the more we learn, the less we understand about the mechanics of it.
So ... the more new things we learn, the more we learn there's all kinds of other crap related to it that we didn't know about before? That seems only logical since we're trying to understand in a couple hundred years what happened over the course of a couple hundred million (at least).
As you look at the fossil record, there are relatively short amounts of time (in geological terms) where a huge amount of new and diverse species suddenly appear and long stretches of time where not a lot changes in the makeup of animals.
Assloads of meteorological and geographical phenomena, coupled with the fact that we'll pretty much always be missing some part of the fossil record.
Before anything resembling flight occured with bats, they went through an amount of time where not only would half formed wings be of absolutely no benefit to the creature, but they'd have actually been a hinderance to survival.
Natural selection isn't survival of the fittest; it's the survival of the most prolific. Your species (given that climate & geography) might be able to survive a worthless trait or two provided they can reproduce enough or avoid predators with enough frequency. Even definitively calling something a "hindrance" is sketchy at best. Animals find all kinds of clever ways to use weird-ass evolutionary traits. Zoologists discover "new" natural behaviour in modern animals all the time. The fact that we find evidence of a trait in the fossil record means there's a decent chance it wasn't completely worthless. We simply haven't figured out its purpose yet and might never be able to.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
And even if your autobot gene got flipped, that would be just a mutation, not evolution. Evolution is defined as a change in the traits of a population over time. You, as a firetruck, would never be able to pass on your autobot gene, because, even as a human, you are unattractive to women.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
This is just speculation. Often there were thought exercises in bio class that were "speculate why this trait would aid in survival," and I always came up with good suggestions, but then the 'correct' answer was still better than what I came up with.
I doubt one day there was a mouse that didn't have wings but one day grew wings. Mutation typically doesn't behave like a comic book where a person is bitten by a radioactive spider and somehow that venom rewrites the DNA of every cell in the body in exactly the same way. Typically mutation happens before birth when a random bit of information in the sperm or egg is changed by a random happenstance. A lot of things can alter a single molecule inside a body.
So I bet one day there was a mouse that had babies, and one of them had a mutation with webbed arms, like how some humans are born with webbed fingers and toes. This particular webbed mouse was able to escape from predators because it figured out that it's webbed fingers/arms/whatever would break a fall if it jumped from the top of a tree. This specimen lived to reproduce, and all of the offspring had webbing just like its parent. Those webbed offspring also had the "can escape from predators by jumping from high places" advantage.
Eventually, when there was a big population of webbed mice, another mutation increased the amount of that webbing so it actually worked like the wings of a bird, a concept known as "convergent evolution." Bees and hawks both have wings and fly, but that doesn't mean they are closely related.
Maybe around this time the echolocation mutation happened, some were born with really good hearing and were able to detect their squeaks bouncing off of bugs, and these flying mice now had a 'food gathering' advantage. Over time this favorable trait bred true and was strengthened.
Interesting to note: all mammals generally have the same bone structure. One bone int he upper arm, 2 in the lower arm, differentiated wrist, hand, and finger bones, all in the same proportions. RIb cage, pelvis, backbone. One bone in the upper leg, 2 in the lower, etc. This applies to bats. They have the same number of fingers and bones as a human, just shaped differently, and some may be fused. But they are all there and there are no open mysteries about where bats fit on the tree of life.
People don't just wake up one day and find their "autobot gene has been switched on," just like how there's no actual working lab process that would allow the venom of a spider bite to rewrite the DNA in every cell you have. These things typically happen gradually within a population, and from birth.
Edited By GORDON on 1283789498
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince wrote:Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand...
Would bats growing wings have been a mutation or evolution?
Mutation is a random thing that happens when one or more bits of DNA get copied slightly differently from one generation to the next. It's one mechanism that can affect the evolution of a species. It appears to be the only thing that can inject random (yet occasionally constructive) chaos into the process, though.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Followed a link on MSN about something and it took me to The Huffington Post where I found this article which is relevant to this discussion.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
If the universe is accidental, there is no God and life has no meaning - it's just an accident. But if the universe is intentional, then there is God and, yes, life has a meaning.
If you depend upon something for the entire meaning of your life, you're probably going to believe it exists, regardless of anything.
As to the bat thing, as Gordon expressed there are many many steps between mouse and bat that are useful to the evolving proto-bat. I wouldn't be surprised if in another few thousands of years the flying squirrel convergently evolves into another sort of bat.
Although, it's important to note that that doesn't mean there would be no more flying squirrels. Because evolution isn't about a species changing over time as a unit, it's about individuals and their variation. The whole idea of species is often very blurry. Sometimes kids are different than their parents, and sometimes those kids are more successful, and when that happens the average description of what we call a member of the species has changed slightly. That's all evolution is.
As to there being no purpose without God, I call bullshit for two reasons:
1) It's possible to have purpose without God; at a minimum "go have kids better than yourself who then evolve the species" is one way to look at it, and
2) even if there is a God that doesn't imply purpose at all, depending on the nature of the god in question. You have to postulate a god that cares about your purpose in order to have it mean that God = purpose, so it's all very circular and illogical.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Leisher wrote:Followed a link on MSN about something and it took me to The Huffington Post where I found this article which is relevant to this discussion.
First, science deals with God not as a supernatural entity, but as something natural.
If that's true, then it's worth noting there's NOTHING in all of existence we know of that happens just once. One cosmic being statistically implies the existence of lots of others.
If the universe is accidental, there is no God and life has no meaning - it's just an accident.
Plainly false. God doesn't give life its only possible meaning. Alternatives have been pointed out. Insects don't have religion (as far as we know), but bees still pollinate flowers w\o it & that seems good enough for them.
And it shows, using recent scientific data, that the universe is fine-tuned for life...
Uh, whoa. If you were to take a random member of a random species from this planet (or any other, I'd argue, if you'd care to take it that far) & drop it at a random point in the universe, there's a strong, strong chance that critter will end up dead in a few seconds. There's probably more than a few places where life can survive & even flourish, but there's lots more places that snuff it out.
In fact, quantum theory tells us that things are so bizarre that particles only decide in which place they are when we look at them. If we accept these weird concepts, why don't we accept a simpler evidence: that the universe is intentional?
Because we've got mathematically backed, reproducible experiments which back the theory certain particles behave in weird-ass ways. Unless you can find design plans for the universe that look to predate the Big Bang, I'm not buying into any intentional design. I'm not buying into the fact that there's some all-powerful cosmic engineer that can create all things & this is the best he could do.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Yeah, what about the bat thing is weird? Changes tend to happen gradually over time, but there's nothing that prevents some (from a species perspective) semi-cataclysmic event that wipes out lots of your brethren, except for the few w\ that one odd mutation.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."