The Evolution Thread

[SeattleUte]

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

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.

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.ph...ull=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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

Stone tools helped shape human hands

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 into what they are today – judging by a fossil that belongs to the oldest known anatomically modern hand....

[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

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.ph...ertainly-False”

[Jarid in Cedar]

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

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.ph...ertainly-False”

Agreed and done.

[LA Ute]

All Europeans are related if you go back just 1,000 years, scientists say

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18107175-all-europeans-are-related-if-you-go-back-just-1000-years-scientists-say?lite

[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...aurs_like.html

[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


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

[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.