86 replies to this topic

[octopuppy]

In discussions related to religion, the topic of evolution often arises, and theists sometimes state that they do not "believe in" evolution. It is curious how often the topic arises considering it does nothing to support a religious position (even if evolution were a load of made up nonsense it would not imply the existence of God or gods). But so much disinformation is spread by religions to discredit evolution that a worrying number of people seem content to be ignorant of it. I despair every time someone claims not to have been "descended from monkeys". Humans are not descended from monkeys, though we have a common ancestor. Comments like that betray a deep level of ignorance, and a desire to view humans as being essentially different to other animals, motivated by pride and flying in the face of all evidence.

There is no excuse for ignorance. Education is only a threat to your beliefs if your beliefs are wrong, in which case you'd be better off without them. So I'd like to offer a starting point to get people thinking about evolution. I doubt that I can do justice to the topic, but anything's better than nothing.

Is evolution mere hypothesis, or is it proven? The answer to that depends on how much evidence you want to consider something proven. Consider the force of gravity. Do we have complete proof that it exists? Every time I drop an object it falls to the floor, but what does that prove?

It could be, for example, that objects are moved by random forces, which have given the impression of the existence of gravity by an incredibly unlikely chance. Being random, they may not necessarily continue to do so, so don't be surprised if things start flying around the room. However, the huge improbability of this makes it a poor explanation.

Or it could be that whenever I drop an object, God pulls it to the floor because He wants to. In which case, similarly, there is no reason to assume that he should continue to do so. He may change his mind at any moment. Likewise, this is a highly unlikely explanation because if God was merely exercising free will to move objects around it is unlikely that this would manifest itself in a behaviour so consistent as to appear to be a universal force with clear mathematically defined magnitude and direction. The other problem with that hypothesis is that it requires the existence of a god, which makes it a very complicated hypothesis indeed, and raises all sorts of awkward questions about how such a god could come to exist, why such a god would be doing what he is doing, the mechanisms by which he operates and so on.

So, the existence of gravity is not the only explanation for what we observe, but it is astronomically more likely than either of the above ones.

Evolution is supported in the same way, in that our observations are completely consistent with the theory. It's a tall order to give reasons why evolution is consistent with observation. The problem is knowing where to begin (and the other problem is knowing when to stop as this could be a very long post). We could start with the fact that our DNA structure is incredibly similar to that of all animals on this planet, as are larger structures like cells. Our skeletal formation, bodily functions and internal organs are incredibly similar to that of all mammals, allowing for deformation. Either that's one heck of a coincidence, or there's a suggestion of a common origin there. Based on this much alone, to suggest that human beings are not animals (since we have more developed brains) makes no more sense than a claim that a peacock cannot be a bird because it has such elaborate tail feathers.

And then there is the grouping of species at various levels which have differing degrees of commonality. All birds, for example, share common traits that differ from all mammals. But both share sets of common traits with, for example, all vertebrates. This is a clear indication of lineage, but we can look a lot deeper. We can trace lineage at the level of individual genes, and throughout the entire spectrum of living species the family tree is consistent.

Like the force of gravity, we can infer the process of evolution from the consistency of its results. But, unlike gravity, we can also observe and even interact with the underlying mechanisms that cause the process.

The process of mutation and genetic inheritance is undeniable. Humans have manipulated it successfully over millennia with selective breeding of plants and animals (including human beings). Nowadays we understand the mechanisms that cause this, in minute detail. We have also studied natural selection in the wild and how species adapt to change, and even branch off into new species. Evolution is happening, right now, all around us. That much is fact, proven to the greatest extent that anything can be. Unless our whole experience of life is some kind of fake illusion, or the whole thing is a big conspiracy, evolution happens.

Ah, but how do we know that evolution happened in the past as well? Nobody has yet envisaged a reasonable explanation of how we could have come to this point otherwise. Then there is the aforementioned commonality of physical traits and genes that caused them, the huge, well-established genetic map of species, which corresponds both geographically and chronologically with an extensive fossil record, which in itself gives us an amazingly complete picture, enabling us to trace our ancestry back millions of years. It all ties in together. There is a huge amount of data and it all fits.

Darwin understood evolution from observing the process and its effects on a medium scale. In Darwin's time, the theory was accepted by the scientific community despite flying in the face of religious belief (no small feat in those days). It was elegant, simple, and self-evident. Almost a hundred and fifty years later nobody has been able to pick a hole in it, and not for lack of trying. In that time we have come to understand so much more, far more information has been unearthed about present species, fossils, and the mechanisms of genetics (which are now understood on a molecular level). A vast amount of new information has come to light. And it all still fits.

But does that prove that we came to be this way by means of evolution? Of course not! God could have planted all the fossil evidence, arranged every living thing so as to look like it evolved, and even put all the processes in place so that evolution would have gotten us to this point, were it not for the fact that God actually put us here instead. He may be trying to fool us, just as he may be pulling objects to the floor to make us think gravity exists. The complete consistency of the data may all be just a big trick. But it's not very likely, is it?

Here I'll appeal for help from other braindenners, to provide links to websites or books for those who wish to find out how evolution works.

Here's one which seems to do a good job of taking it from first principles.

[grey cells]

Great topic, Octopuppy! I was just thinking about the relationship of humans with our fellow animals. Of course, we cannot deny evolution on the grounds that there is no solid proof of man evolving from other animals. I understand that a chimpanzee's genetic structure is strikingly similar to that of man, with just one genetic trait varying. And more recently it was found that a rat's genetic structure resembles that of man. Now these can't just be coincidences, if there is any such thing called coincidence. It would be a major folly on our part if we ignored or dismissed the process of evolution.

As regards the evolution of man from monkey(the term monkey is rather vague though in my opinion), there is an indication of a tail present in man which has over the centuries been hidden quite well. This small article is an interesting one, if not enlightening because this gives us something to think about.

Micheal Crichton , who recently died, the famous author of Jurassic park has expressed some interesting, theoretical points on evolution in his books: Congo, The Lost world, The Andromeda Strain(based on an infectious organism from outer space actually) among many others. I love reading his books, he gives equal importance to fiction and facts, interesting to read and gives us a lot to think about. We need to crack the mysteries like evolution open, before we venture to voice out theories about open space and it's inhabitants.

[unreality]

Great post Octopuppy I think if there is a god, it's much more likely that they were involved in the original creation of the universe(s) and don't really care about individual universes, galaxies, solar systems, planets or life forms on those planets. It's pretty funny how mythological gods (including Christianity) are often portrayed with human emotions. Does that mean they have a human-like brain with a functioning hypothalamus? My point is that, if there is a god, they probably all treat all atoms the same, in a grand philosophical way. Like we are just groups of atoms working together in amazing, awesome ways, so maybe the god takes interest in life forms, maybe not. Certainly not just Earth, if so. Did the god know life forms would arise, or did it happen by accident and surprise the god? Can a god be surprised? Who knows. It depends on what the god actually is, where it came from, etc. And it certainly wouldn't be a god represented by any current religion, twisted by millenia, although they may feel its presence... the truth is, we cannot deny the possibility that some universal god has strangely vested its interest in our tiny planet Earth and is pretending that the earth is much older than it actually is. But more likely, if there was a god, all the natural forces & processes of the universe were put together in the beginning by the god and everything since then has been unfolding. Nothing was done specifically for us, it's just our arrogance that makes us think we are more special than everything else, more special than other intelligent animals and even ones that could be considered semi-intelligent or just plan autonomous. So, unless some god is indirectly and in some bizarre manner creating a giant conspiracy, as Octopuppy said, evolution is really undeniable. It's a natural process

[Impervious]

The idea of man being the next step in evolution from monkeys is not something I like to think about. But I don't knock those who feel strongly in its favor. Do forms of evolution exist? Absolutely. Look at nature, natural selection. the animals bred with the best genetic makeup that gives them the attributes to survive in their environment, are the ones that survive and breed with one another. Eventually the environment will change, requiring new attributes that will eventually become dominant in a species over time. I think mental evolution also exists. Those in the world that we consider to be a genius (eg: Albert Einstein) are among the few that I believe to have begun to use more than the average percentage of their bran. I've also had a theory that those with psychological issues are potentially a result of that extra unused percentage being tapped into but the individual not being able to fully comprehend it. I know there are several flaws in that theory, however once I get my PhD in psychology, I intend to further research this theory.

[unreality]

Awesome! You should report your findings to us

[andromeda]

Evolution is happening, right now, all around us.

This seams to be the thing that most creationists and people that don't believe in evolution overlook. Evolution is a process that never ends as long as there is life. Problem is that changes occur extremely slowly and nowadays in small life forms - insects mostly. Take fruit flies for example. A lot of their species are diversing into subspecies as I'm typing this. They might seam small and insignificant but when scientists are analyzing their DNA and especially their proteins they are witnessing evolution right before their eyes and I think that's fascinating.

I agree with everything said above except this

Nowadays we understand the mechanisms that cause this, in minute detail.

That was my last exam and trust me when I tell you that there are still a lot of things to understand and explain.

But everyone who says that he/she doesn't believe in evolution I say - There's nothing to believe in IT'S A FACT - GO WITH IT!

Edited by andromeda, 10 December 2008 - 07:15 PM.

[octopuppy]

That was my last exam and trust me when I tell you that there are still a lot of things to understand and explain.

I don't doubt it, I didn't wish to imply that there are no gaps in our current knowledge, merely that our knowledge of genetics is very detailed. There will always be questions to answer. Well, let's hope so anyway, science would be pretty boring otherwise.

I think mental evolution also exists. Those in the world that we consider to be a genius (eg: Albert Einstein) are among the few that I believe to have begun to use more than the average percentage of their bran. I've also had a theory that those with psychological issues are potentially a result of that extra unused percentage being tapped into but the individual not being able to fully comprehend it. I know there are several flaws in that theory, however once I get my PhD in psychology, I intend to further research this theory.

The mechanisms are a bit slippery when talking about humans. Natural selection appears to be no longer doing business as usual among the humans of the developed world. What determines the likelihood that a person will survive to adulthood and reproduce successfully? Anything in particular? If those with higher intelligence have no particular advantage then their genes are not going to be more prevalent in the next generation. Mental evolution certainly does exist, but I have my doubts about whether it currently amounts to anything in the human species. Though it could be that since humans now have a wider choice of mating partners we may ultimately see a diversification of human traits, the intelligent mating with the intelligent, and so on. Maybe we are moving towards a form of speciation. The other complicating factor is the meteoric rise in technology. How long will it be before humans start actively tampering with their own genes? I'd give it ten years, twenty at the most. After that, all bets are off.

[Lost in space]

I don't think I can add to the evolution discussion too much until I've read some more so I will watch the thread for hopefully interesting data and links - not the flying spaghetti ones though pls.

Can an atheist play devils advocate - not that I class myself as neither... At the end of the day theist can say that God 'designed' evolution - making/providing reasoning as proof of his existence - just as gravity is not tangible or directly visible (could be the sir pushing it down As opposed to a logic explanation thereby giving science the reasoning/logical explanation and just as much to God theory. We go back to creationist theory all the time. I hope will be little of the P.M. ME and I'll prove to YOU that God did it.

Lets hope the data stays consistent as there is much more evidence to uncover. I sometimes wonder if we make the pieces fit first then it's harder for others to discredit - like so many other first theories [the world is flat] Don't get me wrong I don't see it any other way or expect it too. So am I playing devils advocate? No. Just saying we have not excluded design/creation with an awesomely clever evolutionary DNA. I wonder if 'HE' got it right first time.

Nice one octoppupy as usual. you always lengthen your topic intros, but nicely done - More links coming I guess

edit- we may develop so far that we enter devolution ??(after discovering that out interference is our biggest challenge)Retro apes

Edited by Lost in space, 10 December 2008 - 08:02 PM.

[Izzy]

Very nicely summed up Octopuppy! Since everything has pretty much already been said, I'm just going to clarify one thing. Octopuppy was demonstrating how God may have just planted all the evidence and led us to believe we are evolving, well, this is known as Intelligent Design, and is *the most* annoying theistic argument ever. Complete bollocks. Watch out for it, 'cos it comes up a fair amount in debates, and knowing some of the weaknesses in it (such as how unlikely it is that God(s) placed everything a peculiar way so we could be deceived into thinking we're such clever beings for "figuring it all out") really helps.

As regards the evolution of man from monkey(the term monkey is rather vague though in my opinion), there is an indication of a tail present in man which has over the centuries been hidden quite well. This small article is an interesting one, if not enlightening because this gives us something to think about.

This is unrelated, but about 2 years ago one of my best friends came up with a selective breeding plan that would create humans with tails, or rather, give humans back their tails. I'm not so sure on the details, but I can ask him about it if anyone's interested.

I think mental evolution also exists. Those in the world that we consider to be a genius (eg: Albert Einstein) are among the few that I believe to have begun to use more than the average percentage of their bran. I've also had a theory that those with psychological issues are potentially a result of that extra unused percentage being tapped into but the individual not being able to fully comprehend it. I know there are several flaws in that theory, however once I get my PhD in psychology, I intend to further research this theory.

Mental and physical, in my opinion. Earlier this year, Eli (he's registered on here but never comes on )and I were going for a walk, and created our Theory Hypothesis of Superhuman Evolution. This wasn't referring to the way humans are already evolving on their own, but rather how we could make them evolve. It has to do with being capable of using more of our mind and muscles during life-threatening situations. In spite of adrenaline having quite a bit to do this with, I think the more often you are exposed to situations that challenge you physically and mentally, the easier they will be to overcome. We thought that if perhaps we had a hundred or so infants, who were completely contributed to science, we could perform a few trials ("experiment on" seems like such a bad term to use in this case >_>) on them and look at the results. If our hypothesis is correct, that the infants grow and are capable of using much more of their brain and muscle than generations before them, a superhuman race is in the breeding, and the geniuses of today will not even compare to the dumb people of tomorrow. That's one rather large step for mankind methinks, albeit an important one.

Edited by Izzy, 10 December 2008 - 09:46 PM.

[bociniki]

Let me just state right off the bat that I don't believe in Evolution. I know of several holes picked in this theory, and there are many more that I have either forgotten or never heard. Lets look at the origins of life on earth. Lets not go before the point of matter since there is really nothing that we can know from then. But after the earth was, then we can have some more definite guesses. I am not to clear on the most excepted theory in evolution about how life began, but aside from the unbelievable improbability of even the simplest chromosomes being formed from random molecules floating around and all the organelles needed for this cell to live, how could it survive and reproduce? Possibly asexually, but even if it did that, how, after there are many asexual organisms, could they some how become organisms that reproduce sexually. There are so many organs, cell parts, and other building blocks that serve no purpose if they are even the tiniest bit different. Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew? There are many, many, many more unanswered questions and downright impossibilities in this theory.
Although you have already been warned against Intelligent design, I believe that there is some merit in the theory. Here is a fairly in depth article about it. I know that it is long, but if you believe that Intelligent design is stupid, this might change your opinion.