Another Evolution Thread

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

No. The probability of it being heads the first time was 50%. Probability does not work in retrospect, unless you believe in fate. If you do, then there isn't much point arguing about evolution.

Exactly, you can't go back and say the probability of humans arising from evolution is nearly impossible and therefor incorrect.

The probability of flipping a coin heads every time is highly improbable but still possible.

My point is that it happened and the probability is really pointless.

Mookie Baylock

Ahnimus wrote:

Exactly, you can't go back and say the probability of humans arising from evolution is nearly impossible and therefor incorrect.

The probability of flipping a coin heads every time is highly improbable but still possible.

My point is that it happened and the probability is really pointless.

I think the probability of it is pretty high myself. Consider that there are literally trillions of trillions of planets out there, then the odds that at least one (probably millions) planet developed intelligent life is huge, even if they are one in 100 billion, there is huge potential for intelligent life on lots of planets in the universe.

My point is, that in our eyes, we see ourselves as very unique, so consider ourselves to be divinely created, when in reality, we are probably just a grain of sand on a beach.

Anyway, that sounds really cheezy, but it makes sense to me.

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

Exactly, you can't go back and say the probability of humans arising from evolution is nearly impossible and therefor incorrect.

The probability of flipping a coin heads every time is highly improbable but still possible.

My point is that it happened and the probability is really pointless.

Ok, but by the same token you can't say that the fact we're here is evidence of our evolution. Its just evidence that we're here. Its as much evidence of our evolution as it is evidence that we were created by the flying spaghetti monster.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Speaking of which, isn't there a possibility that evolution can work in hand with fate? Certainly it would include a different perspective, and one beyond the bounds of science, but you're not saying it's impossible, are you?

It is an interesting debate, but that's the beauty of evolution is that it can be debated.

Certainly fate and evolution can interoperate. There is not really much chance to evolution, it's par with flipping a coin. When a person flips a coin there is no chance, only perceived chance. The mathematical complexity of flipping a coin dictates how it will land, speed, spin velocity, wind resistance, gravity, etc.. all attribute to the way the coin lands, but it's all fate in the sense that there is no chance, only perceived chance. The same applies to evolution, there is no chance of an animal species developing undesirable traits like humans do. Because we've taken ourselves out of the evolutionary loop in a sense. A whale born with a mutant gene causing a brain tumor will not survive to procreate and pass on the gene, so the chance of all whales eventually having brain tumors is zero.

I'm not sure if brain tumors are linked to genetic traits, but colon cancer and Rett's syndrome are two examples of hereditary gene mutations.

Mookie Baylock

Scubascott wrote:

Ok, but by the same token you can't say that the fact we're here is evidence of our evolution. Its just evidence that we're here. Its as much evidence of our evolution as it is evidence that we were created by the flying spaghetti monster.

If you believe in evolution (which is really irrifutible at this point) then, yes, our existence is evidence of evolution, just like the fact that the moon orbits the earth is evidence of gravity.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Ok, but by the same token you can't say that the fact we're here is evidence of our evolution. Its just evidence that we're here. Its as much evidence of our evolution as it is evidence that we were created by the flying spaghetti monster.

I agree with you. Interesting church by the way.

Ahnimus

Mookie Baylock wrote:

If you believe in evolution (which is really irrifutible at this point) then, yes, our existence is evidence of evolution, just like the fact that the moon orbits the earth is evidence of gravity.

Funny you say that, I was browsing some pro-ID sites earlier and one had a contest to see if someone can prove the earth revolves around the sun.

That's pretty easy to prove though. Just go into outerspace and make an observation.

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

If your idea of fate is that every event in the universe is predetermined, then evolution doesn't matter. If you take away the element of chance there is no evolution as we currently understand it, just the progression of a series of events that was always going to happen anyway.

Consider that our universe is one great encompassing whole (comprised of many, many parts) outside our limited awareness. Imagine that our limited human awareness causes us to currently perceive this fascinating whole in a linear, logical way in our efforts to understand it. Our limits perceive the whole in increments seen through time and in dimensions of space. In this whole, or in this everything-that-exists or potentially-exists, the context of time and evolution happens on one hand, and the context of "everything-existing-at-once" still exists perfectly at the same time. The problem only comes in when we are highly attached to a certain perspective, such as how things play out in time, rather than being able to equally see it from backwards in time, forwards in time, or from an encompassing overview. The existence of the overview context does not take away the amazing nature of evolution playing out in our view in time. Anymore than reading a book takes away from the fact that each letter, word, sentence and paragraph are strung together in a linear fashion. They are all the same thing from different persepectives.

Just because one is moved by a beautiful piece of artwork does not mean it cannot also be analyzed brush stroke by brush stroke. Because the beautiful concerto is comprised of various instruments working together, does not minimize the validity of hearing such a tapestry woven together in symphony.

Also, what we see as "chance" now, might be proven to be something else very complicated in the future. Science is a method of understanding our surroundings. It falls far short of being our surroundings.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It is an interesting debate, but that's the beauty of evolution is that it can be debated.

Certainly fate and evolution can interoperate. There is not really much chance to evolution, it's par with flipping a coin. When a person flips a coin there is no chance, only perceived chance. The mathematical complexity of flipping a coin dictates how it will land, speed, spin velocity, wind resistance, gravity, etc.. all attribute to the way the coin lands, but it's all fate in the sense that there is no chance, only perceived chance. The same applies to evolution, there is no chance of an animal species developing undesirable traits like humans do. Because we've taken ourselves out of the evolutionary loop in a sense. A whale born with a mutant gene causing a brain tumor will not survive to procreate and pass on the gene, so the chance of all whales eventually having brain tumors is zero.

I'm not sure if brain tumors are linked to genetic traits, but colon cancer and Rett's syndrome are two examples of hereditary gene mutations.

I would like to say I appreciate how your minds works, Ahnimus.

Scubascott

Mookie Baylock wrote:

If you believe in evolution (which is really irrifutible at this point) then, yes, our existence is evidence of evolution,.

Exactly my point. IF you believe in evolution. (which I do by the way). If you believe in creation, then our existence may be interpreted as evidence of our creation. All I'm trying to do is get Ahnimus to use logical arguments, not crazy restrospective probability arguments that make no sense and circular "we're here because we evolved therefore our existence is evidence of evolution" arguments.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I would like to say I appreciate how your minds works, Ahnimus.

Thank you very much Angelica, I think the same way about you.

I was scowering the internet the past few hours to find some theory, any theory on how a single-celled organism could have evolved. Was it a complex mixture of chemicals and/or gases? What is the origin of the single-celled organism. Evolution does a great job of explaining the origins of multi-celled organisms from single-celled organisms, but what explains single-celled organisms?

That may be the ID theorists new niche, but the problem is it's still a metaphysical theory and science is the study of the observable.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Exactly my point. IF you believe in evolution. (which I do by the way). If you believe in creation, then our existence may be interpreted as evidence of our creation. All I'm trying to do is get Ahnimus to use logical arguments, not crazy restrospective probability arguments that make no sense and circular "we're here because we evolved therefore our existence is evidence of evolution" arguments.

I appreciate it, but I think you missed the point of my arguement.

I was arguing that probability doesn't mean "God exists"

Certainly it doesn't mean "Evolution is true"

It means basically squat.

Although, we know the mechanics of flipping a coin, you could write a computer simulation that properly and accurately calculates the outcome of a coin toss based on the objective influences. The same is true for Evolution, check out the new Sim game called "Spores" which is due out around March '07. It's an evolution simulator, it starts off with single-celled organisms, with each generation the player makes genetic mutations to their cell and over time they become evolved beings, eventually they become sentient as well. It's really a multi-tiered game, looks really interesting. Perhaps it's not an exact scientific representation of Evolution theory, but it does represent the working mechanics of Evolution. If we knew exactly how evolution works, we might realize that our existance was inevitable.

know1

I believe in creationism, evolution AND intelligent design.

How's that for an open mind?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Thank you very much Angelica, I think the same way about you.

I was scowering the internet the past few hours to find some theory, any theory on how a single-celled organism could have evolved. Was it a complex mixture of chemicals and/or gases? What is the origin of the single-celled organism. Evolution does a great job of explaining the origins of multi-celled organisms from single-celled organisms, but what explains single-celled organisms?

That may be the ID theorists new niche, but the problem is it's still a metaphysical theory and science is the study of the observable.

You are welcome Ahnimus. And thank you to you!

Darn it all! Where's baraka when we need her! She's pretty good at thinking outside the box, within the parameters of what science strictly knows and does not.

angelica

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Depends on what you mean by fate. Do you mean fate as in random luck or fate as in divine intervention?

I'm meaning fate as in things being predestined, while also playing out in time.

sonicreducer

god put dinosaurs on earth to test our faith

angelica

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Depends on what you mean by fate. Do you mean fate as in random luck or fate as in divine intervention?

And wait...by saying "depends", are you saying one or the other is impossible?

hippiemom

sonicreducer wrote:

god put dinosaurs on earth to test our faith

So god is fucking with our heads?!!

cornnifer

Ahnimus wrote:

It is an interesting debate, but that's the beauty of evolution is that it can be debated.

.

Ahhh, but 100%, undeniable, irrefutable, scientifically proven fact is pretty much BEYOND debate, so...


with that, i'm staying out of this one.




(Nice to se ya Scub).

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

Ahhh, but 100%, undeniable, irrefutable, scientifically proven fact is pretty much BEYOND debate, so...


with that, i'm staying out of this one.

(Nice to se ya Scub).

Well if you are debating the facts, then no they are beyond debate. Evolution is a theory tying those facts together, so it is debatable. When creationists attack Evolution they are really attacking the underlying facts that Evolution is based on.

Such as, Humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Well we have fossil records linking us to ape-like creatures, and our genome makes the same correlations. So both our skeletal structure and our genomics factually point to our acenstory as ape-like creatures. Evolution explains how that happened, not that it did happen.