Human Evolution

[ERayR]

Because, according to the biblical definition you rely on, it is not based on faith. It is based on knowledge. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things no seen. Evolution is seen so based on this definition the theory of evolution does not require faith. We can observe evolution, both at the micro and macro level. We can even duplicate it in a laboratory. If you want to take a very broad definition of faith, then it would apply to everything. We have faith that cutting our hand open will hurt, that brushing our teeth will prevent cavities, that drinking water will keep us alive. The problem is, these actions are not based on evidence not seen. We have absolute proof that these actions will produce the expected result because the data can be seen.  

 

We can and do observe micro-evolution.  We do not nor have we observed macro-evolution.  The transition between the two is indeed faith based. 

 

You really have absolute proof of macro-evolution?  Idon't think so.  What you have is proof on the micro level and have extrapolated that to the macro level.  An act of faith if you will.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are the arctic and antarctic fish still fish? Are the monkeys still monkeys? I have never argued against micro-evolution so unless the fish are somehow not fish and your monkeys are somehow not monkeys they are irrelevant.

Okay. So you are fine with speciation. Fine with evolution developing new traits like anti-freeze and trichromatic vision. Interesting.

[ERayR]

Okay. So you are fine with speciation. Fine with evolution developing new traits like anti-freeze and trichromatic vision. Interesting.

 

Having been an animal breeder micro evolution I used micro-evolution as a tool to change, improve and shape the animals we produced but no matter what we did we still had cattle, pigs etc.

[mfbukowski]

Kind of like evolution.

'Zactly!

[thesometimesaint]

Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true (Heb. 11:1; Alma 32:21),

 

Science is the knowledge for things seen, and that are true.

[thesometimesaint]

We can and do observe micro-evolution.  We do not nor have we observed macro-evolution.  The transition between the two is indeed faith based. 

 

You really have absolute proof of macro-evolution?  Idon't think so.  What you have is proof on the micro level and have extrapolated that to the macro level.  An act of faith if you will.

 

Macroevolution is just speciation.

[thesometimesaint]

Having been an animal breeder micro evolution I used micro-evolution as a tool to change, improve and shape the animals we produced but no matter what we did we still had cattle, pigs etc.

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Freedom]

We can and do observe micro-evolution.  We do not nor have we observed macro-evolution.  The transition between the two is indeed faith based. 

 

You really have absolute proof of macro-evolution?  Idon't think so.  What you have is proof on the micro level and have extrapolated that to the macro level.  An act of faith if you will.

We do have absolute proof of macro-evolution. It can be observed with micro-organisms and with mosquitos. It has been discovered among birds as well where after a 5 generation separation, the offspring of one line were not able to reproduce with the offspring of another line.

[thesometimesaint]

We do have absolute proof of macro-evolution. It can be observed with micro-organisms and with mosquitos. It has been discovered among birds as well where after a 5 generation separation, the offspring of one line were not able to reproduce with the offspring of another line.

 

But no crocaducks.

[mfbukowski]

The use of language or codes as symbols always represent information behind the symbols. 

I really have to give you credit because you have hit the exact center of the target in pinpointing the problem.  I have been trained in this stuff, but few who have not been even see the problem.

 

Unfortunately, though, you are not seeing the answer to the problem you have described so well. 

 

Language does not "represent" information - it IS information.  Information IS language, and language is a human invention, a human way of seeing the world.

 

We have learned how to take objects and "call" them something- to make definitions we can carry around with us in our brains and use those abstract definitions to build things and put things together.  You take the idea of a rock and the idea of a shelter and then wonder if you could rocks to make a shelter.  But without the idea/word "rock" and the idea/word "shelter" you would never come up with the abstract notion (invented in your brain/mind/spirit/whatever) of a "house" made of "rocks".

 

You cannot get "outside" of information/language to even THINK about language/information as though information\language does not exist.

 

We think in language- you can't get outside human thought to look at human thought.  We are trapped inside of human thought.

 

You can't get outside human thought to see if it "corresponds" or "represents" anything out there at all- because thinking a human thought requires human thought.

 

So to say that "information" somehow exists out there somewhere independent of human thought misses the whole point.

 

It is humans who think these things, humans who think and therefore actually CREATE "information" by making abstract ideas about DNA and even language itself.  We are the creators of information and plans and ideas.

 

Incidentally this is an idea which I did not make up- it is well established in western philosophy and I learned it long before I was Mormon and in fact became a Mormon because Mormonism teaches a principle which is perfectly compatible with that idea, and that is that God is a Human who thinks as we do and indeed has created this entire universe for us, essentially out of thoughts/information in his Mind.  We participate in that in a small way by thinking our own thoughts and essentially, creating our own little teeny "worlds" in our own minds.

 

But I don't expect you to accept that because Protestantism is firmly locked into the Cartesian idea of duality- that there is the "real" and our "representation" of it in our minds- that we go around with little pictures in our minds which magically "correspond" to "reality" and so language somehow can "represent" information.

 

Language doesn't represent- it IS human communication.  You cannot say anything without language- of course.  That means you cannot really get "outside" of information to talk about it either.

 

So the bottom line here for evolution is that there can be no "plan" for the universe independent of a mind to see and make the plan.  So intelligent design is not scientific because science specifically forbids such a notion.  "Information" does not exist without a mind to see and therefore create it.

 

It is not my fault that that is the way science itself has evolved, but it is a fact of life.

 

So Meyer is wrong.  HE is the one seeing and creating the "plan" and the "information".  And it is wrong to think that somehow "information" exists without human thought.

 

Seeing information in the universe is really just looking in the mirror and seeing things as humans see them.  It's a good thing God is an exalted Human and what we are seeing is His Plan through our own eyes.

 

But that's lousy science, at least as it is presently constituted.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Macroevolution is just speciation.

And what is speciation?

[thesometimesaint]

Where members of an offshoot can no longer reproduce viable offspring with the parent population.

[jkwilliams]

My question was and still is:  Why is it so difficult for believers of macro-evolution to admit to an element of faith in their conclusions.

I don't have a problem with that, but from what I see, evolutionary theory fits the evidence better than any alternative, especially since I haven't seen many alternatives. There's a world of difference between having faith that what the evidence appears to show is correct and having faith in something that is in no way demonstrable.

 

Just for the record:  You want me to present a cogent alternate theory on a message board in 10 minutes or less that refutes macro-evolution in all its minute details when it has taken over 100 years and literally thousands of volumes of print to develop macro-evolution to the point it is.

I haven't asked that at all, so I'm not sure what you're getting that from. Either there is an identifiable theory of intelligent design, or there isn't. If there is a viable theory, it must be verifiable. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anything like that from the ID folks.

 

As for ID models don't fool yourself there are several models out there, some better than others.

That's what I was asking for: a simple theory or model that can be tested. If you're aware of several, maybe you could point me to them.

 

Just for the record I don't believe in any of them.  All I have seen are only attempts to make Macro-evolution palatable to creationists.

 

As a good friend of mine once said:  How do we know all this isn't just one big cosmic college experiment.

We don't, of course. All we can do is go by what the evidence shows, and for now, what it shows is that life forms have evolved over a long period of time.

[katherine the great]

Macroevolution is just speciation.

Uh...not exactly.  Speciation is only the beginning of macroevolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Uh...not exactly.  Speciation is only the beginning of macroevolution.

 

Please explain.

[katherine the great]

Please note I did not mention God.  My question was and still is:  Why is it so difficult for believers of macro-evolution to admit to an element of faith in their conclusions. 

Agreement with the theory of evolution is based on inductive and deductive reasoning--not faith.  My belief in God is based on faith because I I don't see Him, I "feel" Him.  I don't "feel" evolution.  I see the evidence and use my brain to connect the dots.

[katherine the great]

Please explain.

Macroevolution encompasses new species further divergence into new genera, families, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm fine with that.

[katherine the great]

I'm fine with that.

Hahaha!  You should be!  

[thesometimesaint]

[cinepro]

Agreement with the theory of evolution is based on inductive and deductive reasoning--not faith.  My belief in God is based on faith because I I don't see Him, I "feel" Him.  I don't "feel" evolution.  I see the evidence and use my brain to connect the dots.

 

I suspect that any time two dots are connected, some people would consider that "faith"...

[katherine the great]

I suspect that any time two dots are connected, some people would consider that "faith"...

I suppose.

[thesometimesaint]

Some people do. Given that the human brain always goes to completion. It is in the nature of science to make inferences from those dotes, and then test those inferences. To use a non science example. In impressionistic art it is only when you step back and look at the whole picture do the smudges and smears make sense.

[danielwoods]

I really have to give you credit because you have hit the exact center of the target in pinpointing the problem.  I have been trained in this stuff, but few who have not been even see the problem.

 

Unfortunately, though, you are not seeing the answer to the problem you have described so well. 

 

Language does not "represent" information - it IS information.  Information IS language, and language is a human invention, a human way of seeing the world.

 

We have learned how to take objects and "call" them something- to make definitions we can carry around with us in our brains and use those abstract definitions to build things and put things together.  You take the idea of a rock and the idea of a shelter and then wonder if you could rocks to make a shelter.  But without the idea/word "rock" and the idea/word "shelter" you would never come up with the abstract notion (invented in your brain/mind/spirit/whatever) of a "house" made of "rocks".

 

You cannot get "outside" of information/language to even THINK about language/information as though information\language does not exist.

 

We think in language- you can't get outside human thought to look at human thought.  We are trapped inside of human thought.

 

You can't get outside human thought to see if it "corresponds" or "represents" anything out there at all- because thinking a human thought requires human thought.

 

So to say that "information" somehow exists out there somewhere independent of human thought misses the whole point.

 

It is humans who think these things, humans who think and therefore actually CREATE "information" by making abstract ideas about DNA and even language itself.  We are the creators of information and plans and ideas.

 

Incidentally this is an idea which I did not make up- it is well established in western philosophy and I learned it long before I was Mormon and in fact became a Mormon because Mormonism teaches a principle which is perfectly compatible with that idea, and that is that God is a Human who thinks as we do and indeed has created this entire universe for us, essentially out of thoughts/information in his Mind.  We participate in that in a small way by thinking our own thoughts and essentially, creating our own little teeny "worlds" in our own minds.

 

But I don't expect you to accept that because Protestantism is firmly locked into the Cartesian idea of duality- that there is the "real" and our "representation" of it in our minds- that we go around with little pictures in our minds which magically "correspond" to "reality" and so language somehow can "represent" information.

 

Language doesn't represent- it IS human communication.  You cannot say anything without language- of course.  That means you cannot really get "outside" of information to talk about it either.

 

So the bottom line here for evolution is that there can be no "plan" for the universe independent of a mind to see and make the plan.  So intelligent design is not scientific because science specifically forbids such a notion.  "Information" does not exist without a mind to see and therefore create it.

 

It is not my fault that that is the way science itself has evolved, but it is a fact of life.

 

So Meyer is wrong.  HE is the one seeing and creating the "plan" and the "information".  And it is wrong to think that somehow "information" exists without human thought.

 

Seeing information in the universe is really just looking in the mirror and seeing things as humans see them.  It's a good thing God is an exalted Human and what we are seeing is His Plan through our own eyes.

 

But that's lousy science, at least as it is presently constituted.

 

 

So, when two animals communicate with each other (to convey an abstract idea such as "danger"), they are either human, or we just think they are communicating but really they aren't, because only humans communicate?

Edited September 27, 2013 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

Macroevolution is just speciation.

 

Your faith in that is greater than mine.  I have not seen the transitions.