The Evolution Thread

[SeattleUte]

I thought about starting this in the astronomy sub-forum but decided here would be a stronger play for the CUF hardcore atheists.

So I’m reading this book, “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False,” by Thomas Nagel (Oxford University Press). It has caused an enormous stir in the academic scientific community. Trust me that Nagel is no Hugh Nibley. He is a philosophy and law professor at NYU, and has a towering reputation as an innovative philosopher in secular academia. The “materialist neo-Darwinian conception” in the title refers to the Western scientific consensus that everything can or will ultimately be explained by science, and we humans are, through and through, material or physical, including, most notably, our minds.

The book is brief, 144 pages, and there is much philosophical mumbo jumbo (Nagel is a philosopher, not a scientist, and, by his own admission, the sole source of his scientific knowledge is books written for a popular audience such as Richard Dawkins’). But Nagel’s message may be summarized as follows: The materialist neo-Darwinian conception, says Nagel, cannot account for the appearance of life, the enormous, actually near infinite variety and complexity of life, consciousness, cognition, or the mind.

Nagel contends that even accepting evolution as the explanation for everything (and he concedes its widespread success in explaining a great dal), there simply was not enough time to generate the essentially infinite variety and complexity of life. More fundamentally, he identifies a void, a missing link between the big bang and advent of non-life matter, and the emergence of life, then consciousness, cognition, or the mind.

Specifically: What chemical or physical processes turned dead matter into life? What about evolution explains consciousness (perception of pain, cold, light)? Reasoning? Morality? What evolutionary imperatives produced Shakespeare and Mozart, indeed, the very drive for scientific inquiry? We don’t know. Specifically, nothing about the current materialist neo-Darwinian conception provides any explanation.

Nagel asserts there is such thing as objective morality, i.e., good and evil. Hitler was evil; Thomas Paine was good. (I too believe this.) Nagel expresses skepticism that a random, contingent, accidental process such as described by the neo-Darwinian conception -- i.e., random genetic mutations in combination with natural selection -- could have produced such natural laws.

I have linked two reviews of the book. They are yin and yang. One, by famous Notre Dame professor and philosopher Alvin Plantinga and published in the New Republic, is (not surprisingly) quite positive. The other, by H. Allen Orr, a celebrated biologist and professor at the University of Rochester, and published in the New York Review of Books, is overall well balanced but negative (Orr is well known for constructively engaging theists; he has skewered Dawkins and Hitchins).

One indication of the strength of Mind and Cosmos’ reasoning is that Orr, though overall negatively reviewing the book, concedes: “Brains and neurons obviously have everything to do with consciousness but how such mere objects can give rise to the eerily different phenomenon of subjective experience seems utterly incomprehensible.” (Emphasis original.)

The book has been extensively reviewed in all of the toney periodicals, mostly negatively. Part of the fun is to read the book in parallel with the reviews. Indeed, I felt compelled to do this as a reality check. One thing Nagel does that raises eyebrows is contend that the “intelligent design” advocates have been unfairly maligned and vilified. Though Nagel does not share their religious convictions, and does not credit the answers they provide – he claims to be an atheist, almost a prerequisite if he is to retain any credibility in his field -- he claims they should be praised for asking the right questions of the materialist neo-Darwinian conception.

Being as I am intensely suspicious of orthodoxy, I have been perhaps most interested in his identification of an orthodoxy within the scientific community, the materialist neo-Darwinian conception. The strong negative reactions to Nagel’s book seem to look a lot like orthodoxy.

However, those prosletyzing the materialist neo-Darwinian conception make a convincing argument that our most reliable guide to truth has been empericism and the sciences including reasoning, or senses, and physical measurements, and (essentially as a matter of faith) it seems likely that science will one day provde truthful answers to the questions raised by Nagel.

What could be more interesting than this stuff?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110189/why-darwinist-materialism-wrong

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/?pagination=false

[LA Ute]

Fascinating, SU. You've persuaded me to read this book. (The part about it being only 144 pages was helpful, too.)

[Solon]

Very interesting ideas.

I'm out of my element in the metaphysical world, or in poking around the mysteries of chemicals-becoming-life, but I too am fascinated by the modern (usually Western) idea that science can answer everything, and that (scientific) progress is inevitable. This relationship with "progress" is ambivalent at best. On the one hand, people will jettison their barely used electronics in order to have the most technologically advanced model, since the understanding is that newer must be better, faster, more efficient, etc. On the other hand, eschatological fears often claim that society is getting worse, that morals are decaying, that the world is quickly reaching a doomsday moment (whether religious, economic, political, whatever).

There are examples in history of progress stalling, of societies taking steps backward technologically. Our faith in reason might best be tempered with a healthy dose of the irrationality of the human experience. As Zorba the Greek says, "The backside of the miller's wife, that's human reason."

[CardiacCoug]

Thanks for the post, SU. Agree that it is interesting stuff.

Gotta say though that it's hard for me to give much credence to Nagel on this topic when he's a philosopher and not a scientist in any sense. What is his alternative explanation for consciousness, reasoning, morality, etc.? The materialist neo-Darwinian orthodoxy exists in science because there is nothing better. Let's hear Nagel's testable alternative hypothesis. :D

For the record I think most of ethics and morality can really be easily explained on an evolutionary basis.

[Applejack]

I will have to pick up this book, but from SU's review and the linked NYRoB review, this seems like a half-baked argument. It seems that Nagel is resting much of his argument on the fact that there are infinitesimal odds of a world with no life naturally progressing into the world in which we live. While it is true that the odds of creating the current set of lifeforms is virtually zero, that doesn't undermine evolution's explanatory power. The ex ante odds of any set of lifeforms being around after hundreds of millions of years of evolution is infinitesimal--evolution does not claim that our set of organisms is the best set.

Nagel is making a quasi-creationist move in claiming that if you created an organism out of whole cloth (as God or Darwin), you would be highly unlikely to have the modern world after setting evolution in motion. But as the NYRoBs points out (paraphrasing Dawkins) this is an argument based on personal incredulity. I have often wondered how life came from nothing, and science certainly has no authoritative narrative about how this occurred. But science is moving closer to answering this question. I find his argument with regards to science's ultimate biological explanatory power to be rather weak.

I won't comment on his cognition arguments as I am under-studied in that area.

[UtahDan]

Summon woot.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks for the post, SU. Agree that it is interesting stuff.

Gotta say though that it's hard for me to give much credence to Nagel on this topic when he's a philosopher and not a scientist in any sense. What is his alternative explanation for consciousness, reasoning, morality, etc.? The materialist neo-Darwinian orthodoxy exists in science because there is nothing better. Let's hear Nagel's testable alternative hypothesis. :D

For the record I think most of ethics and morality can really be easily explained on an evolutionary basis.

Orr, who extensively criticizes the book, addresses your point about Nagel being a non-scientist, and he disagrees with you:


Scientists shouldn’t be shocked by Nagel’s claim that present science might not be up to cracking the mind-brain problem or that a profoundly different science might lie on the horizon. The history of science is filled with such surprising transformations. Nor should we dismiss Nagel’s claims merely because they originate from outside science, from a philosopher. Much the same thing happened when natural theology—the scientific attempt to discern God’s attributes from His biological handiwork—gave way to Darwinism.
It was the philosopher David Hume who began to dismantle important aspects of natural theology. In a devastating set of arguments, Hume identified grievous problems with the argument from design (which claims, roughly, that a designer must exist because organisms show intricate design). Hume was not, however, able to offer an alternative account for the apparent design in organisms. Darwin worked in Hume’s wake and finally provided the required missing theory, natural selection. Nagel, consciously or not, now aspires to play the part of Hume in the demise of neo-Darwinism. He has, he believes, identified serious shortcomings in neo-Darwinism. And while he suspects that teleological laws of nature may exist, he recognizes that he hasn’t provided anything like a full theory. He awaits his Darwin.

I disagree with you as well. It's like saying a judge is unfit to decide a patent dispute or a medical malpractice claim because he's a not a scientist or a doctor. Richard Dawkins most notably but among others has devoted his career to making science understandable to intelligent lay people, for the express purpose of persuading readers to accept the materialist neo-Darwinian conception -- much like a trial lawyer deploys his technical experts and persuasive argument to convince a judge to rule in favor of his client as to a scientific subject matter.

[SeattleUte]

I will have to pick up this book, but from SU's review and the linked NYRoB review, this seems like a half-baked argument. It seems that Nagel is resting much of his argument on the fact that there are infinitesimal odds of a world with no life naturally progressing into the world in which we live. While it is true that the odds of creating the current set of lifeforms is virtually zero, that doesn't undermine evolution's explanatory power. The ex ante odds of any set of lifeforms being around after hundreds of millions of years of evolution is infinitesimal--evolution does not claim that our set of organisms is the best set.

Nagel is making a quasi-creationist move in claiming that if you created an organism out of whole cloth (as God or Darwin), you would be highly unlikely to have the modern world after setting evolution in motion. But as the NYRoBs points out (paraphrasing Dawkins) this is an argument based on personal incredulity. I have often wondered how life came from nothing, and science certainly has no authoritative narrative about how this occurred. But science is moving closer to answering this question. I find his argument with regards to science's ultimate biological explanatory power to be rather weak.

I won't comment on his cognition arguments as I am under-studied in that area.

I think everybody agrees that the cognition arguments are the best ones that raise the most profound questions. I've heard Dawkins claim he can't explain consciousness or cognition (though he's confident that science will one day be able to explain this).

Nagel does come very close to making a case for God. There's an interesting quote in Plantinga's review from the past where Nagel says essentially he's an atheist because he doesn't like religion, he finds it distasteful (not hard to empathize with him), and doesn't want to be associated with religious arguments. Still, intelligent desiagn purveyors and creationists are loving his book.

[Ma'ake]

I smell a rat. How can a philosopher make judgements about how quickly biodiversity emerged and whether it was boosted by some supernatural force?

From my perspective, even if there is no non-natural explanation that survives scrutiny, it's still quite possible there's something more, and we're simply incapable of knowing that "plane". Maybe this guy is just trying to tweak the hardened atheists.

There's a geological formation from here in Northern Utah called the "Farmington Canyon Complex", which was formed between 2.5 and 2.7 Billion years ago, long before the Wasatch sprung up, before the birth of the rocks in the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

These rocks were formed without any evidence of plant or animal life, possibly during the Pangea time frame. Because of Lake Bonneville, small rocks from this formation were washed down the shoreline, and across the street from my house is a lot of sand, from a Bonneville shoreline. I go over and collect these rocks when I can find them and give them to old people as a means of persepective.

I keep one of these small rocks in my office, because whenever I start to think I might be getting old, the rock reminds me this is all literally a "blink of the eye".

[Ma'ake]

I think everybody agrees that the cognition arguments are the best ones that raise the most profound questions. I've heard Dawkins claim he can't explain consciousness or cognition (though he's confident that science will one day be able to explain this).

Related to cognition, it looks like we branched from the other primates about 35 million years ago.

http://planetsave.com/2013/02/23/unique-brain-structures-found-in-humans-different-and-unique-structures-found-in-other-primates/

[Applejack]

I think everybody agrees that the cognition arguments are the best ones that raise the most profound questions. I've heard Dawkins claim he can't explain consciousness or cognition (though he's confident that science will one day be able to explain this).

Nagel does come very close to making a case for God. There's an interesting quote in Plantinga's review from the past where Nagel says essentially he's an atheist because he doesn't like religion, he finds it distasteful (not hard to empathize with him), and doesn't want to be associated with religious arguments. Still, intelligent desiagn purveyors and creationists are loving his book.

I think that science can explain aspects of cognition and that ability will only improve with time. Again, I am not a follower of this field, but even beyond evolutionary psychology, there is much to be learned from fields such as behavioral economics in trying to explain the advantages of certain cognitive traits, if not the way in which those traits arose.

I have always felt that the most unanswerable question for an avowed Atheist has nothing to do with life. Rather, that question addresses why there is something and not nothing; why (not when, where, how fast, with what result) did the big bang occur?

[SeattleUte]

I have always felt that the most unanswerable question for an avowed Atheist has nothing to do with life. Rather, that question addresses why there is something and not nothing; why (not when, where, how fast, with what result) did the big bang occur?

I agree.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Great thread, SU. This is an interesting concept.




For the record I think most of ethics and morality can really be easily explained on an evolutionary basis.

Many of the experiments showing 'monkeys have morals' agree with you. In fact, chimpanzees have been shown to possess a high degree of innate 'morality' or 'ethics' that extend beyond a simple instinct or learned tribal knowledge.

I love this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo
Further tests show that when chimpanzees undergo the same experiment, the chimp who is given the grape for performing the same task for which the other chimp is given a cucumber will actually refrain from eating the grape. The chimpanzee's sense of fairness actually extends out to other beings outside of himself, rather than just internally as with the capucchin.

[Virginia Ute]

I think that science can explain aspects of cognition and that ability will only improve with time. Again, I am not a follower of this field, but even beyond evolutionary psychology, there is much to be learned from fields such as behavioral economics in trying to explain the advantages of certain cognitive traits, if not the way in which those traits arose.


I am interested to know what you have read about how science can explain aspects of cognition. I have a pretty decent understanding of the CNS and what happens within neurons on a molecular and chemical basis, but I have never seen or read anything that can adequately explain how sodium and calcium moving in and out of neurons can create personality, morality, etc.

[Ma'ake]

Here's one of my favorite TED video, by Laurie Santos, a primate researcher at Yale, who has discovered that humans and new world monkeys share a specific type of thinking error.

Interesting stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUd8XA-5HEk

[Applejack]

I am interested to know what you have read about how science can explain aspects of cognition. I have a pretty decent understanding of the CNS and what happens within neurons on a molecular and chemical basis, but I have never seen or read anything that can adequately explain how sodium and calcium moving in and out of neurons can create personality, morality, etc.

This is not my field by any means, so I'll defer to someone who can more adequately address the topic. But from a completely non-molecular point of view, there is a lot of research as to why certain traits (physical, emotional, social, etc) would be evolutionarily beneficial and therefore have better odds of being passed down.

As for the molecular correlation, I know next to nothing about real neuroscience. But clearly we can associate the prevalence or absence of certain proteins or hormones with certain personality traits/mental states. Clearly science cannot tell us everything there is to know about cognition (far from it), but it certainly can explain some very basic personality/morality aspects of humankind. I think it's reasonable to suspect that explanatory power will improve significantly within my lifetime.

[SavaUte]

Thanks for that. Interesting experiment. They talk about it in super Freakenomics, too.

One thing she doesn't mention is that monkey prostitution started as a result of this experiment

[Virginia Ute]

This is not my field by any means, so I'll defer to someone who can more adequately address the topic. But from a completely non-molecular point of view, there is a lot of research as to why certain traits (physical, emotional, social, etc) would be evolutionarily beneficial and therefore have better odds of being passed down.

As for the molecular correlation, I know next to nothing about real neuroscience. But clearly we can associate the prevalence or absence of certain proteins or hormones with certain personality traits/mental states. Clearly science cannot tell us everything there is to know about cognition (far from it), but it certainly can explain some very basic personality/morality aspects of humankind. I think it's reasonable to suspect that explanatory power will improve significantly within my lifetime.

I agree, I think that we have a lot to learn still. I understand how certain traits/mental states are passed down through evolution, and I also understand how certain proteins, hormones, and chemicals give us certain traits, but I just cannot conceptualize (based on my limited knowledge of neuroscience) the bridge between the physical properties of our brains and the being that exists inside of my head. I understand the physiology behind what causes me to be mad, tired, sleepy, etc, but there is still something more to it.

I also find it interesting that even an atheist (not referring specifically to you AJ, as I don't really know where you stand) still has to exercise a great deal of faith and hope in something (science) as they construct their perception of the world.

Anyway, that rant probably made little to no sense...I definitely feel a little out of my league with some of y'all on here when it comes to being able to eloquently convey my thoughts on these kinds of things.

[Applejack]

I agree, I think that we have a lot to learn still. I understand how certain traits/mental states are passed down through evolution, and I also understand how certain proteins, hormones, and chemicals give us certain traits, but I just cannot conceptualize (based on my limited knowledge of neuroscience) the bridge between the physical properties of our brains and the being that exists inside of my head. I understand the physiology behind what causes me to be mad, tired, sleepy, etc, but there is still something more to it.

I also find it interesting that even an atheist (not referring specifically to you AJ, as I don't really know where you stand) still has to exercise a great deal of faith and hope in something (science) as they construct their perception of the world.

Anyway, that rant probably made little to no sense...I definitely feel a little out of my league with some of y'all on here when it comes to being able to eloquently convey my thoughts on these kinds of things.

I think we largely agree. There certainly seems to be something larger than the random firing of synapses going on in my head. I think the real debate is whether science will one day be able to tell us what that is, or not. Nagel seems to be saying no. While he may be right, his reasoning doesn't convince me. If you look at the last 50 years of biological science, it is clear that science can tell us much, much more about the origins of life than anything else out there. Where science hasn't begun to say anything is on the question of why things exist at all. So far at least, religion and philosophy are more interested in that question than science is.

[DanielLaRusso]

ITT: the Anthropic Principle in action.

[LA Ute]

Nagel seems to be saying no. While he may be right, his reasoning doesn't convince me. If you look at the last 50 years of biological science, it is clear that science can tell us much, much more about the origins of life than anything else out there.

I agree. I'm no scientist, but I think it is unwise to "never" about most questions about the capabilities of science.


Where science hasn't begun to say anything is on the question of why things exist at all. So far at least, religion and philosophy are more interested in that question than science is.

True. I think most scientists would agree with you too.

[LA Ute]

[Note: This post and the thread by this name began in the Institute of Religion subforum, but we moved it here and merged with a thread by another name that SU had begun. Just in case anyone is confused.]

I'm posting this in the Institute of Religion subforum because it fits here, kinda sorta. I find evolution and the related science fascinating. To me there is no doubt that species evolve, but as a believer, I think mankind is here because God wants us here and arranged for us to be here. I'm just not sure of the specifics of how he did that. My personal belief is that we did not descend from apes, but I recognize that I could be wrong and I am willing to be surprised by new information.

Anyway, that's just a preamble. I don't want this to be a thread about a religious-scientific debate. I hope it will be about the science and what is being discovered.

Here's a start. This Atlantic article caught my eye:

The Neanderthals May Have Died Out Because of ... Bunnies? (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/the-neanderthals-may-have-died-out-because-of-bunnies/273684/)

Excerpt:


The bulky-browed primates, the scientists speculate, were unable to adapt their hunting skills to small game. And that was not a small thing, because big game are just that: big. Hunting larger animals -- chasing them, felling them, hauling them home -- expends considerable resources of time and energy. Small game, on the other hand, is less demanding of hunters. It might take more cunning to catch a rabbit, but it generally takes less physical energy. And this discrepancy might have made an important evolutionary difference, the thinking goes, particularly as large animals reduced in numbers. "We suggest," the authors write, "that hunters that could shift focus to rabbits and other smaller residual fauna, once larger-bodied species decreased in numbers, would have been able to persist." Neanderthals, on the other hand, "may have been less capable of prey-shifting."


The evolutionary status of Neanderthals, it's worth noting, remains a subject of debate among paleontologists: Were they a distinct species, or simply a less-evolved version of humans? Should we call them, properly, Homo neanderthalensis, or is it more accurate to classify them as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens? (Fa and his colleagues break down the distinction as "Neanderthal" versus "Anatomically Modern Human," or AMH.) These are taxonomic niceties, though. What's clear is that humanity, Darwinistically speaking, won. We became what we are, and Neanderthals stayed stuck in their evolutionary moment.


Interesting stuff.

[UtahDan]

We need woot.

[LA Ute]

More grist for the mill:

Is extinction really such a bad thing? (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2013/03/extinction.html)


IT'S not something that you would expect London's Natural History Museum to extol, but its new exhibition says extinction may not be so bad after all.


"Extinction, like death, is a natural part of life," declares a sage epigraph at the start of this thoughtful exhibition. "Extinction isn't necessarily the end of the world, it could be just the beginning..."


The exhibition aims to make visitors question their ideas on extinction. Is it any worse when caused by humans than by meteorites or volcanic eruptions? Should conservation be our watchword, or should some organisms go extinct?

[FountainOfUte]

My personal belief is that we did not descend from apes, but I recognize that I could be wrong and I am willing to be surprised by new information.


I'm more open to the idea of the evolution of man than I was growing up. Like you, I believe in God and that our existence did not happen independent of him. So, he ultimately directed it, but why could he not have used evolution over the course of millions or even billions of years to do it? What looks like chaos or chance to us could be a formula perfectly executed by a timeless, omniscient being -- grand designs well beyond our spiritual or scientific comprehension. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that that's the case.

So, I hold out evolution to be a plausible idea. Concurrently, while I believe there was a literal Adam, I start to think it likely that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve is an overly simplified metaphor to explain a process that would take volumes and volumes of books to describe and explain. Instead, God gave us a 10-page pamphlet and said "This should be good for now. Just go with it until I give you more." Then again, if it went down just as Genesis says, that's fine, too.

So, somehow I'm able to calm the dissonance that occurs between Darwin and Genesis. I believe both. The truth of man's existence could be a hybrid or some other process altogether that no one has even dreamed up yet. I can't wait to find out the truth. It will be fascinating. If it started with apes, I'm fine with that. If it came from lumps of clay and ribs, that's fine, too.

[LA Ute]

I do love the idea that Neanderthals died out because they couldn't catch rabbits. My dog can't catch them either, but I think her species is safe as long as humans are around.

[DU Ute]

I'm more open to the idea of the evolution of man than I was growing up. Like you, I believe in God and that our existence did not happen independent of him. So, he ultimately directed it, but why could he not have used evolution over the course of millions or even billions of years to do it? What looks like chaos or chance to us could be a formula perfectly executed by a timeless, omniscient being -- grand designs well beyond our spiritual or scientific comprehension. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that that's the case.

So, I hold out evolution to be a plausible idea. Concurrently, while I believe there was a literal Adam, I start to think it likely that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve is an overly simplified metaphor to explain a process that would take volumes and volumes of books to describe and explain. Instead, God gave us a 10-page pamphlet and said "This should be good for now. Just go with it until I give you more." Then again, if it went down just as Genesis says, that's fine, too.

So, somehow I'm able to calm the dissonance that occurs between Darwin and Genesis. I believe both. The truth of man's existence could be a hybrid or some other process altogether that no one has even dreamed up yet. I can't wait to find out the truth. It will be fascinating. If it started with apes, I'm fine with that. If it came from lumps of clay and ribs, that's fine, too.


What he said.

[Scratch]

I'm posting this in the Institute of Religion subforum because it fits here, kinda sorta. I find evolution and the related science fascinating. To me there is no doubt that species evolve, but as a believer, I think mankind is here because God wants us here and arranged for us to be here. I'm just not sure of the specifics of how he did that. My personal belief is that we did not descend from apes, but I recognize that I could be wrong and I am willing to be surprised by new information.

Anyway, that's just a preamble. I don't want this to be a thread about a religious-scientific debate. I hope it will be about the science and what is being discovered.

Here's a start. This Atlantic article caught my eye:

The Neanderthals May Have Died Out Because of ... Bunnies? (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/the-neanderthals-may-have-died-out-because-of-bunnies/273684/)

Excerpt:



Interesting stuff.

I essentially agree with this, with the exception that I think it's much more likely that God used evolution as his tool for creating man, as well as for everything else. It just seems like there's too much science out there. That said, as with everything else with a theological twist, I'm not going to claim definitively that it was one or the other, because God can do it however he wants.

[Virginia Ute]

What he said.

I agree with you about what he said :)

[concerned]

I'm posting this in the Institute of Religion subforum because it fits here, kinda sorta. I find evolution and the related science fascinating. To me there is no doubt that species evolve, but as a believer, I think mankind is here because God wants us here and arranged for us to be here. I'm just not sure of the specifics of how he did that. My personal belief is that we did not descend from apes, but I recognize that I could be wrong and I am willing to be surprised by new information.

Anyway, that's just a preamble. I don't want this to be a thread about a religious-scientific debate. I hope it will be about the science and what is being discovered.

Here's a start. This Atlantic article caught my eye:

The Neanderthals May Have Died Out Because of ... Bunnies? (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/the-neanderthals-may-have-died-out-because-of-bunnies/273684/)

Excerpt:



Interesting stuff.


i saw an interesting article a week or so ago about how dogs evolved from wolves, in a very short period of time (biologically speaking, perhaps less than 10,000 years). The primary biological adaptation was that dogs became capable of digesting and living off of carbohydrates, particularly wheat and potato. Wolves can only digest meat. The chicken and egg question is how the biological adaptation interacted with domestication. I wish I could find the link to that article.

Technically, of course, people did not evolve from apes; each evolved from a common ancestor, and their lineages split 5 million years ago or more, IIRC.

[Sullyute]

I don't have any issue with evolution per se. In the Pearl of Great Price, God tells Abraham that:


18 ...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

So why couldn't neandrathals and other potential forefathers simply be the intelligences that were simply less intelligent than Homo Sapiens?

I know that we like to think that there is a huge gap between apes and man and that God wouldn't have to pick a cutoff as the cutoff would be obvious, but maybe with an infinity of intelligences there is going to have to be a hard cutoff from "Adam" (potential to be like God) and "pre-adamites" (no potential to be like God).

Just some food for thought.

[Rocker Ute]

I know that we like to think that there is a huge gap between apes and man and that God wouldn't have to pick a cutoff as the cutoff would be obvious, but maybe with an infinity of intelligences there is going to have to be a hard cutoff from "Adam" (potential to be like God) and "pre-adamites" (no potential to be like God).

Just some food for thought.

Your theory might hold water if there wasn't a giant contingency of MLMs in Utah County that seem pretty proficient at finding victims which would technically be considered Homo sapiens.

[Hadrian]

My personal belief is that we did not descend from apes, but I recognize that I could be wrong and I am willing to be surprised by new information.
This statement reminds me of this video about taxonomy. Not only did we descend from apes, we are apes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

[SeattleUte]

i saw an interesting article a week or so ago about how dogs evolved from wolves, in a very short period of time (biologically speaking, perhaps less than 10,000 years). The primary biological adaptation was that dogs became capable of digesting and living off of carbohydrates, particularly wheat and potato. Wolves can only digest meat. The chicken and egg question is how the biological adaptation interacted with domestication. I wish I could find the link to that article.

Technically, of course, people did not evolve from apes; each evolved from a common ancestor, and their lineages split 5 million years ago or more, IIRC.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/23/science/la-sci-how-dogs-evolved-20130124

[Ma'ake]

The rate of evolution varies between species, and is related to lifespan. The classic very rapid evolver is the fruit fly, whose DNA changes very quickly, with a lifespan of about 2 to 3 days. At the other end of the spectrum is the Bristlecone Pine tree, where life spans can be 4500+. It's pretty amazing those trees are still around and doing pretty well, when you think about it. That is a loooong time, room for some variation in climate. Of course our own distinguished professor of Geography, now Emeritus, Donald Curry, has an infamous place in the Bristlecone story. In 1964, in what is now Great Basin National Park, Curry bored a Bristlecone to determine its age. The tree died, but it turned out to be something like 4488 years old. Curry had to be one of the few people on campus to breath a sigh of relief when Pons and Fleishman went down in flames.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Here is an interesting article I saw today. The overwhelming preponderance of genetic evidence points to a common male ancestor somewhere between 60,000 and 170,000 years ago. But recent discoveries show a tribe in the Congo whose Y chromosome split off 340,000 years ago. Of course the DNA is mixed with modern DNA, but the archaic markers still exist.

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn23240-the-father-of-all-men-is-340000-years-old.html

[SeattleUte]

My personal belief is that we did not descend from apes.

Do you believe we have evolved at all? If so, do you believe we have evolved from simpler life forms? How much simpler? Where is the line? If you don't believe humans have evolved, why the exception for humans among animals?

[LA Ute]

Do you believe we have evolved at all? If so, do you believe we have evolved from simpler life forms? How much simpler? Where is the line? If you don't believe humans have evolved, why the exception for humans among animals?

The scientific evidence seems to be that we did evolve. It is possible that we did not. In any case, I believe God caused humans to be here and that we are his children. How that came to be, I don't know. It's not important to me to know exactly how. As I said, I am prepared to be surprised either way. I just find the study of evolution fascinating.

[CardiacCoug]

One of the most interesting things I like to read about is when humans developed those uniquely human traits: complex language, appreciation of art and music, self-awareness, fear of death, belief in God, etc.

Seems like that started about 400,000 years ago -- where evidence of ritual burial and artwork starts, along with human control of fire.

I know you didn't want to make this a theology vs. science debate LA but I gotta say it bugs the hell out of me when intelligent people say things like "Well it could have all happened like it says in Genesis." "Adam and Eve could have been literal people." etc.

Genesis is a creation MYTH. That is so freaking obvious that I don't see how anybody could believe in a God who would ask people to dumb themselves down enough to call the Genesis creation myth anything other than myth, a fictional story, a creation narrative. Maybe in the 1800s it was OK to believe in a literal Adam and Eve but I think even very religious people have moved past that and will admit that they know it's fictional if they're being honest with themselves and others.

[LA Ute]

One of the most interesting things I like to read about is when humans developed those uniquely human traits: complex language, appreciation of art and music, self-awareness, fear of death, belief in God, etc.

Seems like that started about 400,000 years ago -- where evidence of ritual burial and artwork starts, along with human control of fire.

I know you didn't want to make this a theology vs. science debate LA but I gotta say it bugs the hell out of me when intelligent people say things like "Well it could have all happened like it says in Genesis." "Adam and Eve could have been literal people." etc.

Genesis is a creation MYTH. That is so freaking obvious that I don't see how anybody could believe in a God who would ask people to dumb themselves down enough to call the Genesis creation myth anything other than myth, a fictional story, a creation narrative. Maybe in the 1800s it was OK to believe in a literal Adam and Eve but I think even very religious people have moved past that and will admit that they know it's fictional if they're being honest with themselves and others.

You need to finish with "I know this is true." :D

Seriously, if you're arguing that it's outlandish to say "I think God caused man to be here, but I don't know how he did that, and evolution may have been the way" is flawed thinking, that's fine. But you ought to pick other, more attractive targets for your scientific concerns, like the universal resurrection. I believe in that too.

BTW, many believers think the Biblical Adam and Eve story may well be allegorical, in whole or in part. That's how I see it. But I acknowledge that I wasn't there so I don't know. You're the one arguing from a position of certainty. But I still love you, bless your hardened scientific heart. :D

[SeattleUte]

One of the most interesting things I like to read about is when humans developed those uniquely human traits: complex language, appreciation of art and music, self-awareness, fear of death, belief in God, etc.

Seems like that started about 400,000 years ago -- where evidence of ritual burial and artwork starts, along with human control of fire.

I know you didn't want to make this a theology vs. science debate LA but I gotta say it bugs the hell out of me when intelligent people say things like "Well it could have all happened like it says in Genesis." "Adam and Eve could have been literal people." etc.

Genesis is a creation MYTH. That is so freaking obvious that I don't see how anybody could believe in a God who would ask people to dumb themselves down enough to call the Genesis creation myth anything other than myth, a fictional story, a creation narrative. Maybe in the 1800s it was OK to believe in a literal Adam and Eve but I think even very religious people have moved past that and will admit that they know it's fictional if they're being honest with themselves and others.

I don't think intelligent people say it all could have happened like Genesis.

[CardiacCoug]

BTW, many believers think the Biblical Adam and Eve story may well be allegorical, in whole or in part. That's how I see it. But I acknowledge that I wasn't there so I don't know. You're the one arguing from a position of certainty. But I still love you, bless your hardened scientific heart. :D

Yep, and the person who wrote Genesis surely wasn't there so he doesn't know either. Of that I am certain without a shadow of a doubt and solemnly bear testimony. Amen. :D

[Jarid in Cedar]

You need to finish with "I know this is true." :D

Seriously, if you're arguing that it's outlandish to say "I think God caused man to be here, but I don't know how he did that, and evolution may have been the way" is flawed thinking, that's fine. But you ought to pick other, more attractive targets for your scientific concerns, like the universal resurrection. I believe in that too.

BTW, many believers think the Biblical Adam and Eve story may well be allegorical, in whole or in part. That's how I see it. But I acknowledge that I wasn't there so I don't know. You're the one arguing from a position of certainty. But I still love you, bless your hardened scientific heart. :D


A+B=C, but as B approaches 0, A=C

[SeattleUte]

You need to finish with "I know this is true." :D

Seriously, if you're arguing that it's outlandish to say "I think God caused man to be here, but I don't know how he did that, and evolution may have been the way" is flawed thinking, that's fine. But you ought to pick other, more attractive targets for your scientific concerns, like the universal resurrection. I believe in that too.

BTW, many believers think the Biblical Adam and Eve story may well be allegorical, in whole or in part. That's how I see it. But I acknowledge that I wasn't there so I don't know. You're the one arguing from a position of certainty. But I still love you, bless your hardened scientific heart. :D

The reason that evolution as presently characterized by mainstream science doesn't work as a mechanism of design is that fundamental to mainstream science's scheme is that evolution operates through mutations occuring randomly, accidentally in combination with natural selection. You can blithely say that evolution was God's tool, but mainstream science's evolution is at war with the Biblical view of creation. Mainstream science has concluded that our very existence is a freak of nature, an accident. Adam and Eve as an allegory just doesn't work.

This is why Thomas Nagel's book, which posits some kind of purposeful direction to evolution (though he does not go so far as to posit God), is so controversial.

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?237-quot-Why-the-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception-of-Nature-is-Almost-Certainly-False”&p=3232&viewfull=1#post3232

You can make anything up you want, but if you want to address God and evolution in a principled way you need find a place for God in the actual scheme that science has described for us. Otherwise what you make up is just fantasy.

[SeattleUte]

LA, can you argue gravity's existence from a position of certainty? Mainstream science says there is really no difference between evolution and gravity. We know evolution exists as certainly as we know about the law of gravity. If you say it might not exist, even for humans, you lose all crediblity. We've seen a profound example of it nearly withiin actual human history -- the evoltuion of wolves into dogs. This is a sine qua non of an educated person.

[Scratch]

I don't think intelligent people say it all could have happened like Genesis.

I certainly have lots of uncertainties about how it actually all started, although it seems almost undeniable that evolution had a major, if not complete, role in it. That said, I don't think intelligent people could say that it couldn't have happened like Genesis.

[SeattleUte]

It seems almost undeniable that evolution had a major, if not complete, role in it.


That said, I don't think intelligent people could say that it couldn't have happened like Genesis.

I don't understand how these two ideas can coexist.

[LA Ute]

LA, can you argue gravity's existence from a position of certainty? Mainstream science says there is really no difference between evolution and gravity. We know evolution exists as certainly as we know about the law of gravity. If you say it might not exist, even for humans, you lose all crediblity. We've seen a profound example of it nearly withiin actual human history -- the evoltuion of wolves into dogs. This is a sine qua non of an educated person.

We are now descending into the endless argument concerned mentioned earlier today. I've had enough. But I hope someday you'll prove to me that the resurrection didn't happen either. You have great faith in your doubts, my friend, more faith than many religious people I know.

[Scratch]

I don't understand how these two ideas can coexist.

It's pretty easy. I don't understand how someone couldn't recognize the possibility, however unlikely or improbable they think it is, that there could be a higher power that could have the capability of setting up humanity according to the Genesis story. That's kind of what you get with God; belief in Him and His attributes means that He could have set up things however He wanted. He could have done the whole A&E thing concurrent with everything else that I think you believe was going on at the time, or as the end result of that whole process, or, no matter how nuts I think it is, He could have done it Carl Everett style, with all of the scientific evidence created just to screw with you.

[SeattleUte]

It's pretty easy. I don't understand how someone couldn't recognize the possibility, however unlikely or improbable they think it is, that there could be a higher power that could have the capability of setting up humanity according to the Genesis story. That's kind of what you get with God; belief in Him and His attributes means that He could have set up things however He wanted. He could have done the whole A&E thing concurrent with everything else that I think you believe was going on at the time, or as the end result of that whole process, or, no matter how nuts I think it is, He could have done it Carl Everett style, with all of the scientific evidence created just to screw with you.

Fair enough.

[SeattleUte]

We are now descending into the endless argument concerned mentioned earlier today. I've had enough. But I hope someday you'll prove to me that the resurrection didn't happen either. You have great faith in your doubts, my friend, more faith than many religious people I know.

You'll notice that my post didn't have a religious element. But what I'm objecting to is your suggestion that "belief" in evolution is somehow akin to "belief" in creationism or the resurrection. It's not the same. At some point the empirical evidence becomes so overwhelming that a theory becomes a recognized fact of life, and science uses that understanding as a basis for finding new truths.

Evolution, like gravity, has achieved that status in the mainstream scientific community. And it's not at all like your certainty that the resurrection occurred. No disrespect to youth faith intended, but it's not the same thing. We aren't debating the nature of the godhead. So, this isn't about my doubts. It's about my knowledge based on objective evidence that evolution occurred. By the way, you're the one who started this thread in the religion forum.

[SeattleUte]

It's pretty easy. I don't understand how someone couldn't recognize the possibility, however unlikely or improbable they think it is, that there could be a higher power that could have the capability of setting up humanity according to the Genesis story. That's kind of what you get with God; belief in Him and His attributes means that He could have set up things however He wanted. He could have done the whole A&E thing concurrent with everything else that I think you believe was going on at the time, or as the end result of that whole process, or, no matter how nuts I think it is, He could have done it Carl Everett style, with all of the scientific evidence created just to screw with you.

Let's not forget that science must mean more than a head fake by God. It certainly has dear consequences to us humans actually here on earth, coping with the problem of evil and suffering, etc. By way of example, we can thank science that in our country infant mortality is almost eradicated. We can thank science that this winter's flu epidemic didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people. Some here have compared the Civil War to the WWII Eastern Front, but actually the majority of deaths occurred from illness. Many lives could have been saved with more science; for one thing, surgeons would not have repeatedly used the same uncleaned and unsterilzed saw to ampututate over and over again. No wonder more and more people look for truth in science not religion.

However, there would be no science had Spinoza and those he influenced such as David Hume not liberated us from regarding the Bible as the source of all truth. Angels and resurrection had to be recognized as our myths akin to the Iliad before science became possible. That was the chronology.

[LA Ute]

I don't think intelligent people say it all could have happened like Genesis.

I think there is a lot of allegory in all of the OT, including the creation story. But arguments like yours here slip into ad hominem territory and don't deserve to be taken seriously. Knock it off. Come on, the science here is interesting and fun. The creation debate is boring.

[Switzerland]

can you argue gravity's existence from a position of certainty? Mainstream science says there is really no difference between evolution and gravity. We know evolution exists as certainly as we know about the law of gravity. If you say it might not exist, even for humans, you lose all crediblity.
Nor can you see gravity, but all things denote that it exists; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, and its motion, and also the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is gravity.

[SavaUte]

Evolution is a science supported by evidence, but it is (for the most part) not an experimental science. You can't do controlled experiments in evolution for obvious reasons. So Neanderthal/bunny hypotheses end up being accepted simply because they are the current best explanation.

Gravitational experiments, on the other hand, are ongoing in research labs throughout the world. Theories on gravity are supported by evidence but also by repeated, controlled experiments.

Its interesting the infallable science chosen is gravity, since we had that wrong for so long in our Newtonian thinking. We didn't actually understand(ish) gravity until Einstein, and we only think we understand it now, but there is a reason its still called the theory of relativity.

Science changes constantly. How long ago was it that we thought you could stand on those machines that jiggle your gut with a strap and lose belly fat? 50 years? Now we're positive we know how how the universe was created and how life has evolved? OK

I'm probably not going to reply to whoever replies to me, because I don't like arguing on the internet. Sorry

[LA Ute]

I moved the thread from the Institute of Religion to here, where it seems a better fit.

[UtahDan]

I moved the thread from the Institute of Religion to here, where it seems a better fit.

Good idea.

[SeattleUte]

Science was around before Spinoza and would have been just fine without him.

Yes, the ancient Greeks had it. Spinoza started the Enlightement, which event culminated in the American Revolution, Darwin, computers, the end of slavery, modernity itself, etc. Spinoza was born ten years before Newton was born, and is credited as the father of the Enlightenment. His preocupation was Biblical exegesis. His Jewish faith excomunicated him or cast him out of the religion. Previously, I posted this quotation from a famous scientist about the debt owed by science to Enlightenment philosophers who critiqued religion:


[W]hen natural theology—the scientific attempt to discern God’s attributes from His biological handiwork—gave way to Darwinism., [i]t was the philosopher David Hume who began to dismantle important aspects of natural theology. In a devastating set of arguments, Hume identified grievous problems with the argument from design (which claims, roughly, that a designer must exist because organisms show intricate design). Hume was not, however, able to offer an alternative account for the apparent design in organisms. Darwin worked in Hume’s wake and finally provided the required missing theory, natural selection.

--H. Allen Orr, University of Rochester (published in the New York Review of Books).


Yes, had it not been for Spinoza it may have been someon else. But somebody had to challenge the Bible's creation myth in order to liberate the minds of scientists.

[DanielLaRusso]

Does anyone else remember a story on ESPN.com a few years back about Florida recruits catching rabbits? No? Well here you go:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=adelson/070416


I don't have a strong opinion on this, but Mormonism makes a clear distinction between humans and other animals, so such an exception make sense theologically (if not scientifically).


Evolution is a science supported by evidence, but it is (for the most part) not an experimental science. You can't do controlled experiments in evolution for obvious reasons. So Neanderthal/bunny hypotheses end up being accepted simply because they are the current best explanation.

Gravitational experiments, on the other hand, are ongoing in research labs throughout the world. Theories on gravity are supported by evidence but also by repeated, controlled experiments.


This is, of course, the best possible outcome from an entertainment point of view. The comedy value of everyone realizing that we were wrong - that the earth is 6000 years old and flat - would be off the charts. I'm afraid it's not meant to be, but I wish very much that it would all somehow end in that realization.


Science was around before Spinoza and would have been just fine without him.

Multiquote is in the bottom right corner of a message, just click it on all the messages you want to quote. I know you didn't ask, but I sensed you needed the assistance. :p

[LA Ute]

Climate change may have driven evolution, scientists believe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9766200/Climate-change-may-have-driven-evolution-scientists-believe.html)
The early landscape shifted between woodland to grassland half a dozen times over 200,000 years, meaning man had to adapt to survive.


Experts from Penn State university say that this may have set the tone for the rapid evolution which then took place.



Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Clayton Magill said: "The landscape early humans were inhabiting transitioned rapidly back and forth between a closed woodland and an open grassland about five to six times during a period of 200,000 years.



"These changes happened very abruptly, with each transition occurring over hundreds to just a few thousand years."



The findings appear to contradict previous theories which suggest evolutionary changes were gradual, and in response to either long and steady climate change or one drastic change.

[LA Ute]

"Humans May be the First Generation of Advanced Life in the Milky Way" (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/12/humans-may-be-the-first-generation-of-advanced-life-in-the-milky-way-todays-most-popular-.html)


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef017c34c7463f970b-500wi (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef017c34c7463f970b-pi)


“Columbus forced everyone to rethink, redesign and rebuild their world view.That’s what we’re doing here," says Dimitar Sasselov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitar_Sasselov), professor of astrophysics and director of Harvard University (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.3744444444,-71.1169444444&spn=0.01,0.01&q=42.3744444444,-71.1169444444%20%28Harvard%20University%29&t=h)’s Origins of Life Initiative. "To put it in 15th-century terms, we’ve reached the Canary Islands. Getting to where we ultimately want to go is a slow process that involves astronomers, aeronautical engineers, biochemists, anthropologists and businessmen."




“It’s feasible that we’ll meet other sentient life forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_life_forms) and conduct commerce with them,” Sasselov said. “We don’t now have the technology to physically travel outside our solar system for such an exchange to take place, but we are like Columbus centuries ago, learning fast how to get somewhere few think possible.”

...

Though it may be hard to think of it this way, at roughly 14 billion years old, the universe is quite young, he said. The heavy elements that make up planets like Earth were not available in the early universe; instead, they are formed by the stars. Enough of these materials were available to begin forming rocky planets like Earth just 7 billion or 8 billion years ago. When one considers that it took nearly 4 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, it would perhaps not be surprising if intelligence is still rare....

[Scratch]

Let's not forget that science must mean more than a head fake by God. It certainly has dear consequences to us humans actually here on earth, coping with the problem of evil and suffering, etc. By way of example, we can thank science that in our country infant mortality is almost eradicated. We can thank science that this winter's flu epidemic didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people. Some here have compared the Civil War to the WWII Eastern Front, but actually the majority of deaths occurred from illness. Many lives could have been saved with more science; for one thing, surgeons would not have repeatedly used the same uncleaned and unsterilzed saw to ampututate over and over again. No wonder more and more people look for truth in science not religion.

However, there would be no science had Spinoza and those he influenced such as David Hume not liberated us from regarding the Bible as the source of all truth. Angels and resurrection had to be recognized as our myths akin to the Iliad before science became possible. That was the chronology.

I'm not quite sure what your point here is. No one here has said that we as a people shouldn't be aggressively seeking scientific advances, even where the scientific theories may appear to conflict with long-held religious beliefs. I also think that your statement that but for Hume, Spinoza, and their ilk scientific advancement would have ground to a halt is a red herring, but again I don't think there's anyone here who's opposed to what they accomplished.

[concerned]

Multiquote is in the bottom right corner of a message, just click it on all the messages you want to quote. I know you didn't ask, but I sensed you needed the assistance. :p


appropo of nothing except your avatar, I saw an article the other day that said that Ralph Macheo is now the same age as Pat Morita in the first Karate Kid.

[LA Ute]

Study: If aliens exist, they probably want to destroy us (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0110/Study-If-aliens-exist-they-probably-want-to-destroy-us)
When considering the prospect of alien life, humankind should prepare for the worst, according to a new study: Either we're alone, or any aliens out there are acquisitive and resource-hungry, just like us.


These two unpalatable options are pretty much the only possibilities, according to the new study. That's because evolution is predictable, and alien biospheres should thus produce intelligent creatures (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth-response-to-alien-contact-am-100401.html) much like us, with technological prowess and an ever-increasing need for resources.

But the fact that we haven't run across E.T. yet argues strongly for the latter possibility — that we are alone in the universe's howling void, the study suggests.

[concerned]

Study: If aliens exist, they probably want to destroy us (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0110/Study-If-aliens-exist-they-probably-want-to-destroy-us)



You would think that the universe is so vast, and expanding so rapidly, and the length of time needed to evolve into advanced life forms so long, that the odds of humans ever being able to reach out to other advanced life forms is infinitismal. For all practical purposes, we are alone.

[UtahDan]

You would think that the universe is so vast, and expanding so rapidly, and the length of time needed to evolve into advanced life forms so long, that the odds of humans ever being able to reach out to other advanced life forms is infitismal. For all practical purposes, we are alone.

I think there may be something to this. Even if we had the technology to go to places which look promising for life, it would be like looking at each of the sands on the beach one by one. That may one day happen, but it is a practical impediment. It may be an impediment to another advanced species having found us.

[LA Ute]

You would think that the universe is so vast, and expanding so rapidly, and the length of time needed to evolve into advanced life forms so long, that the odds of humans ever being able to reach out to other advanced life forms is infitismal. For all practical purposes, we are alone.

Well, if that study is right, our being along is a good thing.

317

[SeattleUte]

I'm not quite sure what your point here is. No one here has said that we as a people shouldn't be aggressively seeking scientific advances, even where the scientific theories may appear to conflict with long-held religious beliefs. I also think that your statement that but for Hume, Spinoza, and their ilk scientific advancement would have ground to a halt is a red herring, but again I don't think there's anyone here who's opposed to what they accomplished.

I have made a couple of points. First, in response to your post that anything is possible, even a magical God, I simply noted that we should not be too quick to dismiss that science is our reliable guide or means to truth. But I recognize I lack the spirit.

Second, I was responding to the suggestion that science and religion have sung from the same sheet of music, and that religion has not impeded the advent of science or the scientific revolution.

Secular dogmas as well are at war with science. Did anyone this morning hear on NPR the liberal diatribes against genetically engineered food (in this instance specifically "golden rice")? Supposedly geneticall engineered foods are all about enriching multi-national corporations. The evidence shows that genetically engineered foods have saved more lives than any other scientific advances, including the polio vaccine, whatever.

[SeattleUte]

Lowell Bennion taught that there are four means to truth: science, religion/spirituality, philosophy, and art. There are strengths/weaknesses to using each as a "reliable guide." Sometimes all four are on the same page, sometimes not.

I can't argue with that. I think it depends on what kind of truth you're after, and it's case specific. Your studies of the histories and the humanities may even enlighten you as to the importance of stories to societies --this may be mystery and magic enough -- and put their historicity in context.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You would think that the universe is so vast, and expanding so rapidly, and the length of time needed to evolve into advanced life forms so long, that the odds of humans ever being able to reach out to other advanced life forms is infitismal. For all practical purposes, we are alone.

If you look at the extremely small window of time wherein we humans have made an appreciable dent in our local environment which could be viewed from a distance, there is essentially less than a needle in a haystack chance that any intelligent life could ever discover us. And then there is an infinitesimally smaller chance they could contact us after discovering us. As far as we know there is no intelligent life within at least a few tens of thousands to a few hundred thousand light years away, and perhaps even farther.

There may well be life within a few million light years of earth by the time our 'noise' reaches them, but at that point what will life on earth be like?

Modern humans have only been around for the last 150k to 400k years. In the far more recent past (20k to 50k years) we coexisted with several 'cousin' species - homo neanderthalensis and homo denisovans, and until 10k years ago we coexisted with homo floresiensis (the 'Hobbit People' because they were about 3' tall, were discovered in 2003).

Some intelligent being on a planet located at the center of the Milky Way galaxy looking at Earth today through a telescope would see at least 4 species of 'humans' populating the planet. All would share a common ancestor, perhaps use simple tools, have evidence of some ritualistic religion (or at least have burial rituals), and would possess a capacity for logic and reason that would set them ahead of all other animals on the planet.

A sentient being from the nearest adjacent (non-dwarf) galaxy observing us today, however, would see an australopithecus hominid who had only (relatively) recently diverged from the chimpanzees and gorillas. He would witness the rise of the homo genus around 2 million years from now, and would see our currently 'modern' world a few million years later.

[LA Ute]

Lowell Bennion taught that there are four means to truth: science, religion/spirituality, philosophy, and art. There are strengths/weaknesses to using each as a "reliable guide." Sometimes all four are on the same page, sometimes not.

Good man. I was named after him.

[wuapinmon]

More grist for the mill:

Is extinction really such a bad thing? (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2013/03/extinction.html)

On an individual level, it's awful.

As for the Garden of Eden, a really smart person once told me that we humans exist in narratives, and in order for the temple ceremony to convey spiritual insights, it needed a narrative to imbue it with purpose and meaning beyond perfunctory ordinances. Imagine if we had to get baptized "cause."

As for evolution, it is undeniable, not a theory. The door handles in the French Quarter on the old buildings are uncomfortably low by modern standards. While that might be a result of proper nutrition fulfilling genetics, bacterial resistance to antibiotics provides me with all of the proof that I'll ever need that creatures evolve. Whether there is a God (like I hope there is), or there isn't, doesn't matter to me with regard to evolution. If there isn't one, duh. If there is, maybe Adam was the first creature to evolve the capacity to reason and understand transgression.

Also, in the myth, Adam and Eve at a banana, not an apple.

[Hadrian]

Also, in the myth, Adam and Eve at a banana, not an apple.
A banana you say? You mean, like the atheist's nightmare?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[SeattleUte]

Hadrian, I love your campus construction updates. I love that stuff. universities measure the size of their phalluses by how many cranes are in the sky.

[wuapinmon]

A banana you say? You mean, like the atheist's nightmare?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

No, not at all like that. The banana is no one's nightmare for the only time a banana can cause sadness is by its absence. Its presence is sublime, sweet, enriching, never meretricious--in short, indescribably amazing. One never knows how awful life or fruit salad is until there's no banana in it. Everyone loves bananas, save Jimmy hats and assholes who say they bruise too easily.

[OrangeUte]

A banana you say? You mean, like the atheist's nightmare?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

that is awesome! This feels desperate.

[OrangeUte]

No, not at all like that. The banana is no one's nightmare for the only time a banana can cause sadness is by its absence. Its presence is sublime, sweet, enriching, never meretricious--in short, indescribably amazing. One never knows how awful life or fruit salad is until there's no banana in it. Everyone loves bananas, save Jimmy hats and assholes who say they bruise too easily.

Hadrian didn't know the danger of talking about bananas when you are around, wuap.

[wuapinmon]

Hadrian didn't know the danger of talking about bananas when you are around, wuap.

Danger? I believe you mean educative and aesthetic pleasure.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7REikkqqssg/T1L6_BztqcI/AAAAAAAAAS8/KU0vLKbsxyE/s1600/All+Monkeys+Love+Bananas.jpg

[Jarid in Cedar]

Its interesting the infallable science chosen is gravity, since we had that wrong for so long in our Newtonian thinking. We didn't actually understand(ish) gravity until Einstein, and we only think we understand it now, but there is a reason its still called the theory of relativity.

Science changes constantly. How long ago was it that we thought you could stand on those machines that jiggle your gut with a strap and lose belly fat? 50 years? Now we're positive we know how how the universe was created and how life has evolved? OK

I'm probably not going to reply to whoever replies to me, because I don't like arguing on the internet. Sorry


Sorry, but I am pretty sure science didn't believe this. With this logic, I can see why you don't like arguing on the internet. Plus your statement about Newtonian thinking and Einstein's work gives the impression that Einstein totally invalidated Newton's work, which is incorrect. Einstein built upon, modified, and improved on the works of Newton.

Discussion of gravity and evolution lands right in the wheelhouse of one of the most misunderstood/misused concepts in science. That is the concepts of scientific laws and scientific theory. Most people work under the assumption that theories are tested and tested and eventually "grow" into a law. This is just incorrect.

A Law is an observable fact. Gravity is a law. It is a law because the same result happens every single time. E.G. the ball falls to the floor every single time at the exact same speed/acceleration, etc.

Theory is an attempt to explain a law or an observable fact. Despite rigorous testing, theories are not "proven". Even when an experiment that supports the theory, all you can really say is that based on the parameters and design of the study, the theory appears valid. But you have to always concede that there may be a better explanation that has not been considered that would explain the observable law/facts.

Evolution is an observable law. It is observable in the fossil record, genetics, and phenotypic expression of those genes. The real questions are asked about the mechanics.

When dealing with the natural world, science and religion are really asking two different questions about the same observations. Science asks "how" while religion is asking the question "why". Apply this to the discussion of the origin of Homo sapien. Much confusion and conflict occurs when people try to use one modality to ask the question that the other is best suited to answer.

[SeattleUte]

Sorry, but I am pretty sure science didn't believe this. With this logic, I can see why you don't like arguing on the internet. Plus your statement about Newtonian thinking and Einstein's work gives the impression that Einstein totally invalidated Newton's work, which is incorrect. Einstein built upon, modified, and improved on the works of Newton.

Discussion of gravity and evolution lands right in the wheelhouse of one of the most misunderstood/misused concepts in science. That is the concepts of scientific laws and scientific theory. Most people work under the assumption that theories are tested and tested and eventually "grow" into a law. This is just incorrect.

A Law is an observable fact. Gravity is a law. It is a law because the same result happens every single time. E.G. the ball falls to the floor every single time at the exact same speed/acceleration, etc.

Theory is an attempt to explain a law or an observable fact. Despite rigorous testing, theories are not "proven". Even when an experiment that supports the theory, all you can really say is that based on the parameters and design of the study, the theory appears valid. But you have to always concede that there may be a better explanation that has not been considered that would explain the observable law/facts.

Evolution is an observable law. It is observable in the fossil record, genetics, and phenotypic expression of those genes. The real questions are asked about the mechanics.

When dealing with the natural world, science and religion are really asking two different questions about the same observations. Science asks "how" while religion is asking the question "why". Apply this to the discussion of the origin of Homo sapien. Much confusion and conflict occurs when people try to use one modality to ask the question that the other is best suited to answer.

I think evolution might have fairly been characterized as a theory when Darwin wrote the origin of species.

I'm always surprised to see the criticism that science changes. That is what makes it science. Otherwise it would be religion or dogma. Regardless, I don't foresee science veering toward biblical creationism.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I think evolution might have fairly been characterized as a theory when Darwin wrote the origin of species.

I'm always surprised to see the criticism that science changes. That is what makes it science. Otherwise it would be religion or dogma. Regardless, I don't foresee science veering toward biblical creationism.

Science has its own dogmas, particularly in medical science. But they are eventually overwhelmed by evidence and data. Change and progress are good things.

[LA Ute]

Ancient High Arctic camel is ancestor of modern breed, offers climate change clues (http://www.newser.com/article/da4r4k502/ancient-high-arctic-camel-is-ancestor-of-modern-breed-offers-climate-change-clues.html)
Ancient, mummified camel bones dug from the tundra confirm that the animals now synonymous with the arid sands of Arabia actually developed in subfreezing forests in what is now Canada's High Arctic, a scientist said Tuesday.

About 3.5 million years ago, Strathcona Fiord on Ellesmere Island's west-central coast would have looked more like a northern forest than an Arctic landscape, said paleobotanist Natalia Rybczynski of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa.


"Larch-dominated, lots of wetlands, peat," said Rybczynski, lead author of a study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications. Nearby fossil sites have yielded evidence of ancient bears, horses, deer, badgers and frogs. The average yearly temperature would have been about 0 Celsius (32 Fahrenheit).


"If you were standing in it and watching the camel, it would have the feel of a boreal-type forest."

I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for everyone's contributions.

[LA Ute]

As one who recognizes that evolution is a fact, I'm curious about the impact human intelligence has on that process. This report about a potential advance in "brain plasticity" is interesting in that regard. Homo sapiens, unlike other animals, can consciously alter his chances for survival and improvement. (He can also consciously sabotage them.) I'm wondering what thoughts anyone has on this?

Researchers find molecular switch to make old brains young again (http://www.gizmag.com/molecular-swicth-old-brain-young/26565/)


It’s no secret that juvenile brains are more malleable and able to learn new things faster than adult ones – just ask any adult who has tried to learn a new language. That malleability also enables younger brains to recover more quickly from trauma. Researchers at Yale University have now found a way to effectively turn back the clock and make an old brain young again.

As we enter adulthood, our brains become more stable and rigid when compared to that of an adolescent. This is partially due to the triggering of a single gene that slows the rapid change in synaptic connections between neurons, thereby suppressing the high levels of plasticity of an adolescent brain. By monitoring the synapses of living mice for a period of months, the Yale researchers were able to identify the Nogo Receptor 1 gene as the key genetic switch responsible for brain maturation.

They found that mice without this gene retained juvenile levels of brain plasticity throughout adulthood and by blocking the function of this gene in old mice, the researchers were able to reset the old brain to adolescent levels of plasticity. This allowed adult mice lacking the Nogo Receptor to recover from brain injury as quickly as adolescent mice, and also saw them master new, complex motor tasks faster than adult mice with the receptor.

[SeattleUte]

I think this thread should be merged with the evolution thread.

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?237-quot-Why-the-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception-of-Nature-is-Almost-Certainly-False”

[Jarid in Cedar]

I think this thread should be merged with the evolution thread.

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?237-quot-Why-the-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception-of-Nature-is-Almost-Certainly-False”

Agreed and done.

[NorthwestUteFan]

One thing that fascinated me is witnessing the decrease in complexity of animals and plants as we march backward through the geological time scale. The relative complexity and diversity of individuals through the last several hundred million years is astonishing. But as we approach a few billion years in the past we see the descent from large, highly complex organisms, to smaller complex organisms, to simple vertebrates, to invertebrates, to complex multicellular, to simple multicellulars, and finally to simple single-celled organisms. Step-wise the evolution appears fairly linear but by time scale it is almost exponential.

The time step from single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms took approximately ONE BILLION years. The level of complexity to jump from a single-cellular to a multi-cellular organism isn't particularly large, but it required a huge revolution in DNA coding.

[LA Ute]

Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life (http://m.extremetech.com/extremetech/#!/entry/astrobiologists-discover-fossils-in-meteorite-fragments-confirming-extraterrestrial-life,513e00b294f4be71693d857c)


Researchers in the United Kingdom have found algae-like fossils in meteorite fragments that landed in Sri Lanka last year. This is the strongest evidence yet of cometary panspermia — that life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here, billions of years ago — and, perhaps more importantly, that there’s life elsewhere in the universe.
I understand that similar reports in the past have been inconclusive, so we'll see.

[SeattleUte]

Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life (http://m.extremetech.com/extremetech/#!/entry/astrobiologists-discover-fossils-in-meteorite-fragments-confirming-extraterrestrial-life,513e00b294f4be71693d857c)


I understand that similar reports in the past have been inconclusive, so we'll see.

I always dread your posts in this thread.

[LA Ute]

I always dread your posts in this thread.

Fear not. My only agenda is to post interesting stuff.

[LA Ute]

Did a comet kill the dinosaurs? (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/did-comet-kill-dinosaurs) New data seems to suggest that one did.


Some 66 million years ago, a giant space object of some kind slammed into Earth right around the Yucatan peninsula. The resultant explosion sent debris high into the atmosphere; the dust resettled to earth newly enriched with the elements iridium and osmium--elements that are much more abundant in space than on Earth--and formed a thin layer in the rock strata now called the K-Pg boundary. A side effect of this violent impact was the extinction of most of the megafauna--dinosaurs, etc--living during that time. The impact site itself was discovered in 1978 by a geologist working for an oil company, but it wasn't until 1990 that the now-named Chicxulub crater was associated with the proposed impact that caused the mass extinctions. Since 1990, scientists have debated the nature of the rock that hit Earth--asteroid or comet? The scientists know generally how big the explosion would have had to be in order to create the fallout found in drill samples. Based on the size of the explosion and the amount of iridium and osmium deposited at the K-Pg boundary, the most common theory is that the impactor was carbonaceous asteroid about 13 kilometers across. But scientists from Dartmouth College argue that the real culprit was a comet.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Yes, a massive object from space killed off the dinosaurs.

IMO, the most fascinating thing about that is the actual extinction took around 75,000 years to complete. We tend to think of some massive event that killed off most of the life forms on earth within a few years leading to the rise of the mammals, but in truth it was a long transition.

[LA Ute]

Yes, a massive object from space killed off the dinosaurs.

IMO, the most fascinating thing about that is the actual extinction took around 75,000 years to complete. We tend to think of some massive event that killed off most of the life forms on earth within a few years leading to the rise of the mammals, but in truth it was a long transition.

I think the article's point was that the object was a comet, not an asteroid. It was also new information (to me) that the object from space actually brought minerals to the earth in greater abundance than they were already here.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I think that article is very interesting. Scientists have long thought about the Doomsday Asteroid event but it is only very recently that the Event has become the most widely accepted theory (within the last decade).

I just wanted to mention that the length of time required for the mass extinction was a shock to me.

[LA Ute]

I just wanted to mention that the length of time required for the mass extinction was a shock to me.

I agree. I didn't know that, so thanks for posting the info, even though it makes human extinction event movies like "Deep Impact" less believable. ;)

[Ma'ake]

This is really a science article, with theological implications for religions that believe God was a human being.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skeleton-provides-evidence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm

Population geneticists have found 1-4% of European and Asian DNA is Neanderthal. This specimen has mitochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal female, with human jaw bone characteristics.

So, was God also part Neanderthal? Jesus, too?

My hunch is that humans have frequently made God in their own image, but claim the theology asserts the reverse. This is another issue where theology appears set up to take a beating .

[UtahDan]

This is really a science article, with theological implications for religions that believe God was a human being.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skeleton-provides-evidence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm

Population geneticists have found 1-4% of European and Asian DNA is Neanderthal. This specimen has mitochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal female, with human jaw bone characteristics.

So, was God also part Neanderthal? Jesus, too?

My hunch is that humans have frequently made God in their own image, but claim the theology asserts the reverse. This is another issue where theology appears set up to take a beating .

Those bodies may not have had spirits like we have because the evolutionary process that culminated in full modern humans (which is what God is) was not complete yet. Or perhaps humans had not been created and placed on the earth yet and this individual represents a group of animal life that, while very sophisticated, never had spirits like we have. Or maybe you are right that on the planet where God first came to be that his body was the result of the genetics of part human and part Neanderthal and that process was simply replicated on this planet to create humans. Or maybe "in his image" is something you are taking to literally.

[woot]

Hey gang. I guess I signed up at the beginning and then never came back. Probably because I care not for Utah sports. This is a neat thread though. A couple things after skimming:

Scientific ideas, hypotheses, and theories basically never get promoted to laws. Theories don't, because theories and laws are simply different kinds of things (law of gravity vs theory of gravitation). How it generally goes is that if the first person to introduce an idea has already demonstrated the validity of his or her characterization of a very simple phenomenon (e.g. things tend to fall toward the earth at 9.8m/s/s unless acted upon by another force), he or she will propose it as a law. If accepted by the community, it is thereafter known as the law of whatever. One idea in my field is called "Wolff's law" which is the basic idea that bone is deposited in the body only as it is needed, or in other words, that skeletal tissue responds to loading. This is generally true, but also kinda vague. It's nevertheless referred to as a law.

Evolution isn't generally considered to be a law, but I think it could be if it actually mattered. It could go like this: "Relative allele frequencies in a given population change over time." Not terribly interesting, but it's never been found to not be the case. Perhaps more to the point, a law of natural selection could go like this: "Given the following conditions, natural selection will occur: Variation within a population, heritability of said variation, limited resources." Because there's variation within every population, and because a large amount of that variation is indeed heritable through a mechanism Darwin didn't know about (genetics), and because resources are almost always limited, natural selection is basically always occurring. This has been demonstrated experimentally in populations with quick generation times (bacteria, fruit flies), and perhaps as importantly, it just makes sense (try to think of conditions under which it wouldn't just naturally happen. Good luck).

So, while evolution and natural selection are still definitely theories in the sense that they are just way too complicated to ever boil down into basic equations and will therefore be studied in perpetuity, I propose that they are also laws, or at least the equivalent of laws given that being a law, as explained above, isn't actually as much of a thing as people think it is.

The other topic I saw mentioned is the neandertal/bunny thing. The phenomenon of comical explanations for why neandertals went extinct has become somewhat of a joke in my field. For instance, a study just came out a couple weeks ago saying that they went extinct because their eyes were too big. The most obvious thing to note is that all non-African populations (and I think probably all humans in general, but those data are forthcoming), are descendents of neandertals. So, they aren't necessarily extinct to begin with, depending on how you look at it. The other issue is simply that no single silly explanation like that will ever actually explain it. Neandertals were very smart folk who lived over a very large geographical area, invented new types of tools, buried their dead, etc. They didn't go extinct because they couldn't catch bunnies, for the love.

Given the differential populations sizes between neandertals and their non-neandertal contemporaries (non-neandertal upper paleolithic anatomically modern Homo sapiens, if you like), their extinction could reasonably explained by simple genetic dilution as the the two interbred. I don't necessarily believe that, but damn, enough with the whiz-bang "a volcano did it!" studies.

Ok the end. I'm sure there are others here who know a lot about this stuff so I don't mean to swoop in and set everyone straight or whatever.

Go blue.

[woot]

Oh and I might as well also note, since my research deals directly with human and ape anatomy, that if humans didn't evolve from apes, god is playing a really funny joke. Apes used to be a lot more common than they are today. There were dozens of different genera during the Miocene (23-5million years ago). Then the climate changed and who knows what else happened, and monkeys became a lot more successful and apes became a lot less successful (in the sense of overall numbers). What's interesting is that many of the fossil apes we've found are actually more anatomically similar to humans in some ways. I think what happened is that extant apes evolved to become very specialized for doing what they do (being crazy acrobats in the trees while, in some cases, also being very proficient on the ground), but that most of this process didn't occur until after the split with humans, which is why human anatomy is often more similar to that of fossil apes than extant ape anatomy is.

This is complicated so I don't know if I'm explaining it well, but the basic idea is the humans absolutely, positively evolved from apes. Genetic evidence 100% confirms this as well, obviously. So yeah, I guess if god wanted to play a funny joke and just make it extremely obvious to us humans that we evolved from apes when we really didn't, science has no way of knowing. But it seems more sound, both scientifically and theologically, to just go ahead and update your beliefs.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Woot, I am glad you are posting, even though it is against your sports alliances to be on this site.

I appreciate your perspective on many topics

[woot]

Maybe if I go back and check, I'll be wrong, but I don't think anyone on here has expressed any disbelief or even skepticism of this. There seems to be a general consensus in general on this thread that genetics is pretty cool, for a science.

It sounds like you are a scientist of some kind. I'm glad y'all can laugh at the bunny thing. It's a running joke in my family to try to come up with funny Darwinian explanations for human behaviors: "So and so does ________ because our caveman ancestors had to _________."

I seem to recall somebody remaining skeptical of it in this thread, but if that's not the case then all the better.

[Applejack]

I seem to recall somebody remaining skeptical of it in this thread, but if that's not the case then all the better.

Woot, in addition to our scintillating evolution threads, you should stick around on this site for the sports. It never made any sense to me that you were a Michigan/BYU fan. There is much less cognitive dissonance for a former mormon to be a Ute fan. Thus, I invite you to ditch the independent Cougars as your second favorite team and replace them with the plucky Utes. That way, you can stay in touch with your roots while still embracing science! Win-win.

[LA Ute]

Woot, I am glad you are posting, even though it is against your sports alliances to be on this site.

I appreciate your perspective on many topics

I agree. Woot and I probably won't agree on much but he has good information to offer and I learn a lot from his posts.

[LA Ute]

I seem to recall somebody remaining skeptical of it in this thread, but if that's not the case then all the better.

I did. I don't personally believe we evolved from apes but I acknowledge that we might have and am willing to accept that as a fact. Just not yet. I guess you could say I am remaining open-minded on the subject. ;)

[LA Ute]

5-year old girl discovers previously unknown pterosaur

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/03/five-year-old-girl-discovers-fossil-of-previously-unknown-pterosaur/

[SeattleUte]

woot, glad you're here. Of course mainstream science is beyond debaating whether organisms evolve. Indeed, apparently "man's best friend" is there staring us in the face every day as irrefutable evidence. I'd be interested in your views on "evolution" of wolves into dogs, because even though I've seen this characterized as evolution in respectable publications, it seems to me to be very akin to breeding. Dogs and wolves mate and generate offshpring. I am aware that breedng was a fact of nature that inspired Darwin. I'd be interested in your views on whether wolves to dogs wsa breeding or evolution in the strictest sense.

[SeattleUte]

woot, I'd also be interested in your view of whether a generalization can be made that evolution at some level tends toward more complexity. I know that evolution is a lot about extinctions and there are many evolutionary dead ends.

[woot]

woot, glad you're here. Of course minstream science is beyond debaating whether organisms evolve. Indeed, apparently "man's best friend" is there staring us in the face every day as irrefutable evidence. I'd be interested in your views on "evolution" of wolves into dogs, because even though I've seen this characterized as evolution in respectable publications, it seems to me to be very akin to breeding. Dogs and wolves mate and generate offshpring. I am aware that breedng was a fact of nature that inspired Darwin. I'd be interested in your views on whether wolves to dogs wsa breeding or evolution in the strictest sense.

Its a really interesting problem. I looked into it a couple years ago and came away thinking that much of dog domestication probably occurred incidentally, as the tamest wolves were more welcome among the humans, and therefore were more successful. More recent research has suggested that one of the major events in dog evolution was their ability to process carbohydrates, basically so they could live more effectively off human scraps. We know from the Russian fox domestication experiments that breeding for tameness is all it takes to end up with a cuddly, floppy-eared, curly-tailed, neotenous pet, so tameness being incidentally favored by selection while the ability to thrive on a more carb-rich diet would have been enough to do most of the job. Deliberate artificial selection wouldn't have been necessary. It's interesting to note that when a feral dog makes a kill today, it'll often go straight for the stomach contents, since there are probably carbs in there. Cats (and wolves) tend to just ignore carbs entirely.

As for whether to call this process evolution, I say sure. Just as artificial selection has famously changed the banana from a seed-filled abomination into its current masterpiece, some combination of natural and artificial selection changed wolves into dogs. In either case, there was genetic change, and therefore there was evolution. When I teach evolution I sometimes like to begin with the example of artificial selection, since it's pretty intuitive that if a farmer breeds the plants with the biggest flowers or tastiest fruit, it will cause the next generation to have bigger flowers or tastier fruit. This exact kind of thing generally occurs naturally rather than according to a human's desired outcome, but either way, it's selection, which is evolution.

Oh dear I'm rambling. I'm up late grading papers. Terrible, terrible papers. Hopefully some of that was on topic. I can't be arsed to read it back.

[woot]

woot, I'd also be interested in your view of whether a generalization can be made that evolution at some level tends toward more complexity. I know that evolution is a lot about extinctions and there are many evolutionary dead ends.

Another good question, and one without an easy answer. Other than the obvious simple beginnings and the increasing complexity thereafter, there isn't necessarily any advantage in being more complex. Or perhaps I should say that the great many advantages of complexity are matched by the great many disadvantages. The most successful organisms on the planet today, both in terms of speciosity and biomass, are bacteria. So I don't know. If you were to chart it from the beginning there's certainly an upward trend in complexity, but if you were to chart just the last 100 million years I'm not sure there would be.

One of the most important features of humans is that we are really flexible, and can fill all sorts of niches. This is often not a very good strategy, since such an organism will generally be out-competed by specialists in every niche they try to fill. Because our flexibility is associated with our intelligence, it seems we were able to get by. There's a good body of evidence that we almost didn't make it though, which would make sense when considering that hominins gave up their long canines and proficiency in the trees well before the invention of decent weapons or the ability to throw overhand with any velocity or control. I can't imagine how those folks didn't get slaughtered. I mean, I'm sure they did, but yeah. Richard Wrangham has speculated that the control of fire may have been essential for protection at night after no longer sleeping in trees, and that cooking may have been discovered thereafter. Not a testable hypothesis, but since the publication of that idea evidence for fire was discovered dating back to a million years ago, which he had predicted and various other researchers had doubted. Anyway, while our jack of all trades routine probably imperiled us at various times, it also likely has made our extinction less likely in the long run, since the greatest instigator of extinction (other than mass extinction events) is when niche specialists have their niche disappear due to environmental change.

Ugh rambling again.

[LA Ute]

Stone tools helped shape human hands (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829124.200-stone-tools-helped-shape-human-hands.html)
AROUND 1.7 million years ago, our ancestors' tools went from basic rocks banged together to chipped hand axes. The strength and dexterity needed to make and use the latter quickly shaped our hands (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519684.500-birth-of-a-toolmaker.html) into what they are today – judging by a fossil that belongs to the oldest known anatomically modern hand....

[jrj84105]

One of the most important features of humans is that we are really flexible, and can fill all sorts of niches. This is often not a very good strategy, since such an organism will generally be out-competed by specialists in every niche they try to fill. Because our flexibility is associated with our intelligence, it seems we were able to get by. There's a good body of evidence that we almost didn't make it though....

Great posts. Going back to another point you made, primitive apes were a lot more diverse and human/chimp like forms much more the norm. Overall, apes have been a pretty unsuccessful branch on the evolutionary tree with hardly more than a handful of extant species, and us as humans, barely skirting by for all but the most recent part of our history. It's so amazingly improbable that we are where we are today.

[woot]

Great posts. Going back to another point you made, primitive apes were a lot more diverse and human/chimp like forms much more the norm. Overall, apes have been a pretty unsuccessful branch on the evolutionary tree with hardly more than a handful of extant species, and us as humans, barely skirting by for all but the most recent part of our history. It's so amazingly improbable that we are where we are today.

Agreed. Paleoanthropology is fun that way. Much like astronomy, I reckon. It's all very unlikely.

[LA Ute]

Not really about evolution but interesting.


What Happened to My Brontosaurus?


The scaly, dimwitted monsters of our childhood have been killed off by fluffy, feathered, sprightly dinosaurs.


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/04/my_beautiful_brontosaurus_paleontologists_are_rein venting_dinosaurs_like.html

[LA Ute]

All Europeans are related if you go back just 1,000 years, scientists sayhttp://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18107175-all-europeans-are-related-if-you-go-back-just-1000-years-scientists-say?lite

[LA Ute]

Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction (http://boingboing.net/2013/05/14/scatter-adapt-and-remember.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)


Annalee Newitz, founding editor of IO9 (http://io9.com) and former EFF staffer, has a new book out today called Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385535910/downandoutint-20), and it's terrific.

Scatter's premise is that the human race will face extinction-grade crises in the future, and that we can learn how to survive them by examining the strategies of species that successfully weathered previous extinction events, and cultures and tribes of humans that have managed to survive their own near-annihilation.

What follows from this is a whirlwind tour of geology, evolutionary biology, cultural anthropology and human history, as Newitz catalogs the terrifying disasters, catastrophes and genocides of geology and antiquity. From there, the book transitions into a sprightly whistle-stop tour of sustainable cities, synthetic biology, computer science, geoengineering, climate science, new materials science, urban theory, genomics, geopolitics, everything up to and including the Singularity, as Newitz lays out the technologies in our arsenal for adapting ourselves to upcoming disasters, and adapting our planet (and ultimately our solar system) to our long-term survival.

This has both the grand sweep and the fast pace of a classic OMNI theme issue, but one that's far more thoroughly grounded in real science, caveated where necessary. It's a refreshingly grand sweep for a popular science book, and if it only skims over some of its subjects, that's OK, because in the age of the Net, one need only signpost the subjects the reader might dive into on her own once she realizes their awesome potential.

This is a delight of a book, balanced on the knife-edge of disaster and delirious hope. It neither predicts our species' apotheosis nor its doom, but suggests paths to reach the former while avoiding the latter.

[LA Ute]

Comprehensive analysis of impact spherules supports theory of cosmic impact 12,800 years ago (http://phys.org/news/2013-05-comprehensive-analysis-impact-spherules-theory.html)

Just interesting stuff.


About 12,800 years ago when the Earth was warming and emerging from the last ice age, a dramatic and anomalous event occurred that abruptly reversed climatic conditions back to near-glacial state. According to James Kennett, UC Santa Barbara emeritus professor in earth sciences, this climate switch fundamentally –– and remarkably –– occurred in only one year, heralding the onset of the Younger Dryas cool episode. The cause of this cooling has been much debated, especially because it closely coincided with the abrupt extinction of the majority of the large animals then inhabiting the Americas, as well as the disappearance of the prehistoric Clovis culture, known for its big game hunting. . . . Now, in one of the most comprehensive related investigations ever, the group has documented a wide distribution of microspherules widely distributed in a layer over 50 million square kilometers on four continents, including North America, including Arlington Canyon on Santa Rosa Island in the Channel Islands. This layer –– the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) layer –– also contains peak abundances of other exotic materials, including nanodiamonds and other unusual forms of carbon such as fullerenes, as well as melt-glass and iridium. This new evidence in support of the cosmic impact theory appeared recently in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

[LA Ute]

The Brain Science Behind Our Obsession With Tools

"According to researchers at Princeton, your obsession with tools may be the product of millions of years of evolution."

And I always thought it was just a guy thing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/health/nueroscience/the-brain-science-behind-our-obsession-with-tools-15549633?click=pm_latest

[jrj84105]

I think people get that tiny feet on boa constrictors don't really fit with creative intent, but people fail to recognize that our human genome is so peppered with vestigial remnants that one would have to think any "designer" involved as being brilliant but to some extent winging it. It's not like an electric car comes with a partial gas tank and a feedbag, but that's essentially how our bodies are put together. If God guided evolution, it was Intelligent Improvisation not Intelligent Design, the difference being that improvization implies either something short of omniscience or something short of omnipotence. If there was a preconceived notion of the desired attributes of man's physical being, it would be much easier to create through means other than natural selection, and the end result could be much more tidy.

If God directly guided the evolution of any single species on earth, it was the humped bladderwort.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12132.html
Synopsis
http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/compact-carnivorous-plant-genome-points-complexity-little-non-coding-dna

The efficiency and economy of its genome is borderline divine.

[Utah]

I side with Stephen Hawking when it comes to these useless debates:

"There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

This debate is useless and irrelevant. IF God exists, he follows the laws of science. Not what we say the laws are, but what they actually are. If God/Jesus happened, then Jesus did not walk through walls by magic. He did it using the laws of science. He did not snap his fingers and hocus pocus water into wine. He did it through the laws of science (btw, we are close to being able to do the whole feed thousands with a few fish with 3-D printers). He didn't wave his magic wand and travel in/at the speed of light...he did it by following the laws of science.

That is why this debate is useless. Believe or not, but SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE/DISPROVE GOD. Anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. There is no arguing that.

[LA Ute]

I side with Stephen Hawking when it comes to these useless debates:

"There is a probably apocryphal story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon, how God fitted into this system, he replied, 'Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.' I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene."

This debate is useless and irrelevant. IF God exists, he follows the laws of science. Not what we say the laws are, but what they actually are. If God/Jesus happened, then Jesus did not walk through walls by magic. He did it using the laws of science. He did not snap his fingers and hocus pocus water into wine. He did it through the laws of science (btw, we are close to being able to do the whole feed thousands with a few fish with 3-D printers). He didn't wave his magic wand and travel in/at the speed of light...he did it by following the laws of science.

That is why this debate is useless. Believe or not, but SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE/DISPROVE GOD. Anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. There is no arguing that.

I didn't start this thread as a place to debate, just a place to post interesting stuff about evolution. I find the debate boring, much like gun control debates.

I thought this was interesting:

Turning point in evolution of human diet found in University of Utah-led studies (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/56382052-223/ago-million-grasses-human.html.csp)


"Nutrition » Humans started eating fewer leaves and switched to grasses about 3.5 million years ago...."

[LA Ute]

Light skin in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor who lived between India and the Middle East, claims study (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2535288/Light-skin-colour-Europeans-stems-ONE-ancestor-lived-India-Middle-East-10-000-years-ago.html#ixzz2pks14AUw)

[jrj84105]

Placed here because I can't find either a population genetics or a general science thread:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/409.full

Cliff notes version: population genetics is a wonderful, twisted, mess.

This was a pretty cool find because it sort of refutes a common misperception (common among the general public anyway). A lot of people think that Native Americans were run of the mill Eastern Asians who crossed the land bridge and then, once geographically isolated, diverged into a genetically distinct group. What this and other findings show is that the progenitors of the Native Americans were actually genetically distinct from the main East Asian population prior to migrating to the new world. This finding in particular shows that this group of "proto-Native Americans" moved more extensively across Siberia, to the East across the land bridge where they remained for thousands of years, but also to some degree to the West reaching at least the Lake Baikul region. Even though these "proto-Native Americans" didn't last long in the region, they at least had the opportunity to be there for long enough to produce at least one offspring with a person of characteristically Western European heritage. That this Western European person made it that far East was also smewhat of a surprise. It suggests that at least some individuals during that time period were travelling pretty far from their better established homelands.

[LA Ute]

Boffins identify ancient Earth asteroid strike that dwarfed dinosaur killer: (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/10/boffins_identify_ancient_earth_asteroid_strike_tha t_dwarfed_later_dinosaur_killer/) Massive space rock impact may have set the continents sliding. “The impacting body, which could have been an asteroid or a comet, was between 37 and 58 kilometers (23 to 36 miles) wide and hit the Earth at 20 kilometers per second (12 miles per second). The impact would have caused a crater around 500 kilometers (about 300 miles) across and the resulting tsunamis would have been thousands of meters high.”

[LA Ute]

1103

[LA Ute]

Neanderthal Woman's Genome Reveals Unknown Human Lineage (http://www.livescience.com/42056-neanderthal-woman-genome-sequenced.html)

[LA Ute]

This is a great read:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/?all

It is like a crime novel. The Army Corps of Engineers is the unlikely villain.

[jrj84105]

Neanderthal Woman's Genome Reveals Unknown Human Lineage (http://www.livescience.com/42056-neanderthal-woman-genome-sequenced.html)




Wow. 50X depth is really good sequencing data.

as for the Kennewick man, I wonder why the Corps of Engineers is not allowing acquisition of additional material for DNA extraction. After losing the case, what is their rationale?

[LA Ute]

Wow. 50X depth is really good sequencing data.

as for the Kennewick man, I wonder why the Corps of Engineers is not allowing acquisition of additional material for DNA extraction. After losing the case, what is their rationale?

My Occam's Razor explanation is that they are just being jerks. The DOJ can be that way about some things.

OTOH, maybe Kennewick Man was really an alien from another planet whose space ship crashed in Kennewick, and the Air Force accidentally left him behind when they moved the rest of his shipmates to Area 51....

Nah. They're just being jerks.

[LA Ute]

Interesting thoughts here:

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/faith-their-fathers_1070552.html?page=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Interesting thoughts here:

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/faith-their-fathers_1070552.html?page=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is interesting, though the observations are not surprising. (It's not really what I would expect you to post.)

[LA Ute]

This is interesting, though the observations are not surprising. (It's not really what I would expect you to post.)

I'm full of surprises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A 130,000 Year-Old Mastodon Threatens to Upend Human History

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/130000-year-old-mastodon-threatens-upend-human-history/

[LA Ute]

Mud DNA means we can detect ancient humans even without fossils (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129259-mud-dna-means-we-can-detect-ancient-humans-even-without-fossils/)



We have an astonishing new way to study our early human ancestors: looking for their DNA in ancient sediments in places such as caves.A team of researchers has found the DNA of Neanderthals and Denisovans in some of the sites where they are known to have lived.

“I think we show convincingly that these sequences are authentic,” says lead author Viviane Slon of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

The approach can now be used to find out whether early humans were present even when no bones have been found – and what kind of humans they were. It might also help resolve the debate about when the Americas were first inhabited by people (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129042-first-americans-may-have-been-neanderthals-130000-years-ago/), for instance....

[LA Ute]

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm

Interesting article.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm

Interesting article.

No surprise here, but they’ve taken significant liberty on their title wording.


Summary and Conclusion

Science greedily seizes simplicity among complexities. Speciation occurs via alter- native pathways distinct in terms of the number of genes involved and the abruptness of transitions [148]. Nuclear variance in modern humans varies by loci in part due to unequal selection [149] and the linkage of neutral sites to those that undergo differential selection. Complexity is the norm when dealing with variance of the nuclear ensemble [150-154]. It is remarkable that despite the diversity of speciation mechanisms and path- ways the mitochondrial sequence variance in almost all extant animal species should be constrained within narrow parameters.

Mostly synonymous and apparently neutral variation in mitochondria within spe- cies shows a similar quantitative pattern across the entire animal kingdom. The pattern is that that most—over 90% in the best characterized groups—of the approximately five million barcode sequences cluster into groups with between 0.0% and 0.5% variance as measured by APD, with an average APD of 0.2%.

Modern humans are a low-average animal species in terms of the APD. The molecu- lar clock as a heuristic marks 1% sequence divergence per million years which is consis- tent with evidence for a clonal stage of human mitochondria between 100,000- 200,000 years ago and the 0.1% APD found in the modern human population [34, 155, 156]. A conjunction of factors could bring about the same result. However, one should not as a first impulse seek a complex and multifaceted explanation for one of the clearest, most data rich and general facts in all of evolution. The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.

Nonhuman animals, as well as bacteria and yeast, are often considered “model sys- tems” whose results can be extrapolated to humans. The direction of inference is re- versible. Fossil evidence for mammalian evolution in Africa implies that most species started with small founding populations and later expanded [157] and sequence analysis has been interpreted to suggest that the last ice age created widespread conditions for a subsequent expansion [158]. The characteristics of contemporary mitochondrial vari- ance may represent a rare snapshot of animal life evolving during a special period. Al- ternatively, the similarity in variance within species could be a sign or a consequence of coevolution [159].

Mitochondria drive many important processes of life [160-162]. There is irony but also grandeur in this view that, precisely because they have no phenotype, synonymous codon variations in mitochondria reveal the structure of species and the mechanism of speciation. This vista of evolution is best seen from the passenger seat.


https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Why human speech is special:

Evolutionary changes in both the vocal tract and the brain were necessary for humans’ remarkable gift of gab.

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-human-speech-is-special--64351

[LA Ute]

Really interesting. Non-ideological, scientific I’m its outlook.

The marvel of the human dad

Among our close animal relatives, only humans have involved and empathic fathers. Why did evolution favour the devoted dad?

https://aeon.co/essays/the-devotion-of-the-human-dad-separates-us-from-other-apes