Human Evolution

[jkwilliams]

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

I've never understood what that's supposed to mean. Transitions between what? Species are arbitrary distinctions made by humans to categorize different animals, so the idea that there ought to be transitions in taxonomy is, well, puzzling.

[ERayR]

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Your a bright fellow, I'm sure if you think awhile it will come to you.

[ERayR]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

1) macro-evolution can seem convincing but it is still built on the faith that the interpretation of the data is correct.  However when one gets outside of scientific theory and begins to observe the world around them one can see that filtering all information through the lens of macro-evolution is like watching a parade through a drinking straw.

 

2) As I have stated ID is nothing more than macro-evolution with makeup to make it palatable to creationists.

 

3) I am as skeptical of young earth creationism and ID as I am with macro-evolution.

 

4) And so macro-evolution wins because its adherents manage to control what information they allow to affect their theory.  Become a "generalist" and see what is in the world besides bones and macro-evolutionist theory.

 

[ERayR]

I've never understood what that's supposed to mean. Transitions between what? Species are arbitrary distinctions made by humans to categorize different animals, so the idea that there ought to be transitions in taxonomy is, well, puzzling.

 

An example:  With all the micro-evolutionary changes made to animals or fruit flies or moths or . .  They still remain animals or fruit flies or moths or . . .  The more they change the more they stay the same.

[Freedom]

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

The reason for this is because you are blatantly ignoring everything you are been told and you are refusing to examine any of the links we have provided for you.

[cinepro]

An example:  With all the micro-evolutionary changes made to animals or fruit flies or moths or . .  They still remain animals or fruit flies or moths or . . .  The more they change the more they stay the same.

 

You mean like how legged land mammals may have evolved into whales?

 

http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/evolution-of-whales-adapted-from.html

[jkwilliams]

Isn't "macro-evolution" just "micro-evolution" with a larger time scale? I don't understand the point of distinguishing between them, as they are the same process.

[ERayR]

The reason for this is because you are blatantly ignoring everything you are been told and you are refusing to examine any of the links we have provided for you.

 

You know nothing.  You are not sitting in my hip pocket, you have no idea what I have examined.  Just because I don't see it the way you do does not mean I have not examined them.  I am not blatantly ignoring anything I just don't agree with some of the conclusions.

[ERayR]

Isn't "macro-evolution" just "micro-evolution" with a larger time scale? I don't understand the point of distinguishing between them, as they are the same process.

 

So macro-evolutionist would have you believe.  However there is no observed direct link.  The distinction was made by Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko in 1927.

 

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[ERayR]

You mean like how legged land mammals may have evolved into whales?

 

http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/03/evolution-of-whales-adapted-from.html

 

The operative words here are May Have.

[mfbukowski]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

John!

 

Really good to see you- it's been a long time!

[mfbukowski]

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 really like to emphasize the "hope" part of " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

 

Evolution doesn't give me hope in my life, but faith does.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Well there are a lot of things wrong with this direction.

 

First of all I never said anything about animals.

 

But your comment still reflects the same error, I think, in that you are still seeing "communication" as something else "out there" independent of human thought.

 

Certainly a growl or a whimper can be considered "communication" in one sense I suppose- but the point is that it would be considered such by a human mind.

 

If you don't believe me, I think you should have a long discussion with your dog about information theory and see what he has to say about it.

 

I had an interesting experience a few nights ago on my usual long walk- I met a couple of dogs who were unleashed and they decided I was invading their territory and they decided that I needed to be taught a lesson, or perhaps they were interested in a midnight snack- I don't know.  They really didn't say.

 

But they did decide to try to take a chunk out of at least one of my legs, an abstract idea I found to be ....  disagreeable.

 

So I grabbed the stick I carry just for such encounters, and hunkered down and growled like a grizzly bear with all my might while swinging the stick wildly.

 

I suppose I was "communicating" with them, but I don't think they exactly had an "abstract idea of danger" as you suggest.  I bet the word didn't even cross their minds, though I could be wrong.

 

At any rate, they decided to call off the attack, especially when their owner decided to come to my rescue and they got the abstract idea that carrying it on would not be in their best interest.  Clearly they must have been Republicans.

 

I don't think that was what I would call "communication" and I don't think they would either.  I think the IDEA of "communication" is a human invention.

 

But again, if you disagree I suggest you discuss it with some other species and see what theories they have on the subject.

[mfbukowski]

I've never understood what that's supposed to mean. Transitions between what? Species are arbitrary distinctions made by humans to categorize different animals, so the idea that there ought to be transitions in taxonomy is, well, puzzling.

Yep, I have definitely missed talking to you! 

[ERayR]

I've never understood what that's supposed to mean. Transitions between what? Species are arbitrary distinctions made by humans to categorize different animals, so the idea that there ought to be transitions in taxonomy is, well, puzzling.

 

The label of dogs and cats are arbitrary distinctions?

[Stone holm]

The label of dogs and cats are arbitrary distinctions?

No they are taxonomic distinctions based on differences in their evolutionary pathways.

[ERayR]

No they are taxonomic distinctions based on differences in their evolutionary pathways.

 

 

Just trying to get clarification on post #  426

[danielwoods]

Well there are a lot of things wrong with this direction.

 

First of all I never said anything about animals.

 

But your comment still reflects the same error, I think, in that you are still seeing "communication" as something else "out there" independent of human thought.

 

Certainly a growl or a whimper can be considered "communication" in one sense I suppose- but the point is that it would be considered such by a human mind.

 

If you don't believe me, I think you should have a long discussion with your dog about information theory and see what he has to say about it.

 

I had an interesting experience a few nights ago on my usual long walk- I met a couple of dogs who were unleashed and they decided I was invading their territory and they decided that I needed to be taught a lesson, or perhaps they were interested in a midnight snack- I don't know.  They really didn't say.

 

But they did decide to try to take a chunk out of at least one of my legs, an abstract idea I found to be ....  disagreeable.

 

So I grabbed the stick I carry just for such encounters, and hunkered down and growled like a grizzly bear with all my might while swinging the stick wildly.

 

I suppose I was "communicating" with them, but I don't think they exactly had an "abstract idea of danger" as you suggest.  I bet the word didn't even cross their minds, though I could be wrong.

 

At any rate, they decided to call off the attack, especially when their owner decided to come to my rescue and they got the abstract idea that carrying it on would not be in their best interest.  Clearly they must have been Republicans.

 

I don't think that was what I would call "communication" and I don't think they would either.  I think the IDEA of "communication" is a human invention.

 

But again, if you disagree I suggest you discuss it with some other species and see what theories they have on the subject.

 

Not a good direction? I'm sorry about that. I'm certain we disagree on this point, I simply want to get to the bottom of it, and how it relates to DNA. 

 

You claim that a growl or whimper can be considered "communication" in one sense, but only such by a human mind. 

 

I would agree in the sense that most animals don't understand the principles of communication, and thus they don't point to growling and whimpering as examples in their "classes". Because those are human constructs. 

 

However, I would contend, that all animals do communicate with each other. That communication isn't just a construct that occurs in our minds, but in theirs as well, on all different levels. For example, birds will take flight without ever seeing the danger. If they feel that it was communicated to them that there was danger present. Even Apes and Dolphins have limited abilities when it comes to communication, or so I have read. I guess what this leads to why would you claim that communication only occurs in the human mind? Or is that what you're claiming? 

Edited September 28, 2013 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

However, I would contend, that all animals do communicate with each other. That communication isn't just a construct that occurs in our minds, but in theirs as well, on all different levels. For example, birds will take flight without ever seeing the danger. If they feel that it was communicated to them that there was danger present. Even Apes and Dolphins have limited abilities when it comes to communication, or so I have read. I guess what this leads to why would you claim that communication only occurs in the human mind? Or is that what you're claiming? 

No, not in the way you mean it.

 

In fact one of my favorite philosophical essays is "What is it like to be a bat" by Thomas Nagel, where he discusses precisely these kinds of issues.

 

We say that whales "communicate" over incredible distances with their "songs".  I gave the example of the dogs - who clearly understood that they were about to have their heads bashed in if they continued their behavior.

 

But this is not about whether or not animals "communicate"- in the sense you are using the word- that is a matter of definitions.

 

The point is that WE can never get "outside" of human thought

 

Whatever you call it when two whales sing to each other, it is YOU thinking about WHALES.  It is not the way whales "think" if you want to use those terms.

 

The point is that you superimpose human conceptions over what is "really happening" in all cases- and you- and all of us cannot do otherwise.

 

This is true to the point that for all practical purposes, for us who are human, there IS no other way of seeing the world than what our human thought processes- all of them-- allow us to think.

 

We will never think the way a whale does, or a dog or a bat or any other creature.  Clearly all we can say is that "there is something going on" there "in their minds" but even saying that or calling it "communication" is a human idea- a human creation.

 

It says more about the way we think and characterize things than it does about anything else.  After all, we humans are the creators of our little universes-  and we Mormons worship the Ideal Human, the Man of Holiness who created the big one.

[danielwoods]

No, not in the way you mean it.

 

In fact one of my favorite philosophical essays is "What is it like to be a bat" by Thomas Nagel, where he discusses precisely these kinds of issues.

 

We say that whales "communicate" over incredible distances with their "songs".  I gave the example of the dogs - who clearly understood that they were about to have their heads bashed in if they continued their behavior.

 

But this is not about whether or not animals "communicate"- in the sense you are using the word- that is a matter of definitions.

 

The point is that WE can never get "outside" of human thought

 

Whatever you call it when two whales sing to each other, it is YOU thinking about WHALES.  It is not the way whales "think" if you want to use those terms.

 

The point is that you superimpose human conceptions over what is "really happening" in all cases- and you- and all of us cannot do otherwise.

 

This is true to the point that for all practical purposes, for us who are human, there IS no other way of seeing the world than what our human thought processes- all of them-- allow us to think.

 

We will never think the way a whale does, or a dog or a bat or any other creature.  Clearly all we can say is that "there is something going on" there "in their minds" but even saying that or calling it "communication" is a human idea- a human creation.

 

It says more about the way we think and characterize things than it does about anything else.  After all, we humans are the creators of our little universes-  and we Mormons worship the Ideal Human, the Man of Holiness who created the big one.

 

Right. And saying that "something is going on" there or calling it communication and that being a human idea I don't disagree with. Communication has very specific definitions. Encoding and decoding and feedback and correction. All of which occur in the DNA/RNA sequencing process. You disagree? 

[mfbukowski]

Right. And saying that "something is going on" there or calling it communication and that being a human idea I don't disagree with. Communication has very specific definitions. Encoding and decoding and feedback and correction. All of which occur in the DNA/RNA sequencing process. You disagree? 

Again, you seem to be missing the point.  Just as we can call these behaviors "communication" if you want to, we can call something we see under a microscope and through other humanly defined tests, DNA and we can define these as a "sequence" if you want to.

 

But those definitions and "sequences" are produced by human thought.  We are so far afiled now that I am not sure even where you want to go with this, of course you are trying to pin me down for an "aha" that is not going to come.

 

I am trying to get you to see things differently and you are trying to win a debate.

 

The central point is that finding a "plan" is in the eye of the beholder and science has deliberately defined itself to not find plans.

[Brian 2.0]

I think if a snail could live forever it could eventually find it's way from LA to NYC.  I believe that because I've seen a snail move from my yard across the driveway and deduce that with enough time he could do it.  My neighbor says I'm an idiot because no one has ever witnessesed a snail crawl outside LA county, much less out of california and all the way to NYC.  He mocks me that I'm waving the "magical wand of time" when i say it would take much longer than our lifetimes for the snail to do it.

 

My belief in macroevolution isn't that much different than that scenario.  We see micro-evolution, we see macro-evolution (but not between "kinds" --whatever that classification means).  But by logic and reason, I see how billions of these witnessed "microevolutions" over billions of years could easily result in true "one kind to another kind" of evolution.

 

ETA:  I actually think there is more evidences for macroevolution than this snail metaphor because it isn't simply extrapolating "microevoltuion" with more time, we also have the predicitons based upon the theory of evolution that have been validated with modern findings.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[danielwoods]

Again, you seem to be missing the point.  Just as we can call these behaviors "communication" if you want to, we can call something we see under a microscope and through other humanly defined tests, DNA and we can define these as a "sequence" if you want to.

 

But those definitions and "sequences" are produced by human thought.  We are so far afiled now that I am not sure even where you want to go with this, of course you are trying to pin me down for an "aha" that is not going to come.

 

I am trying to get you to see things differently and you are trying to win a debate.

 

The central point is that finding a "plan" is in the eye of the beholder and science has deliberately defined itself to not find plans.

 

Seeing science as defining itself to not find plans is also in the eye of the beholder. 

[danielwoods]

I think if a snail could live forever it could eventually find it's way from LA to NYC.  I believe that because I've seen a snail move from my yard across the driveway and deduce that with enough time he could do it.  My neighbor says I'm an idiot because no one has ever witnessesed a snail crawl outside LA county, much less out of california and all the way to NYC.  He mocks me that I'm waving the "magical wand of time" when i say it would take much longer than our lifetimes for the snail to do it.

 

My belief in macroevolution isn't that much different than that scenario.  We see micro-evolution, we see macro-evolution (but not between "kinds" --whatever that classification means).  But by logic and reason, I see how billions of these witnessed "microevolutions" over billions of years could easily result in true "one kind to another kind" of evolution.

 

ETA:  I actually think there is more evidences for macroevolution than this snail metaphor because it isn't simply extrapolating "microevoltuion" with more time, we also have the predicitons based upon the theory of evolution that have been validated with modern findings.

 

 

It's more similar to saying that the snail's offspring eventually becomes a rabbit as it traverses along it's way. 

 

Extrapolating that a snail could travel long distances because it has been observed to travel small ones is a valid extrapolation. 

 

Extrapolating that a snail (or more specifically it's offspring) would become something other than a snail isn't a valid extrapolation. Why? Because it not only hasn't ever been observed (not even once), it violates what we do observe (that changes that occur are always limited). 

[Tiki]

The fact that Adam lived almost a thousand years, and current man lives to approximately 100, says a lot about Evolution.