Locke
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2014, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 04:35 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Locke
(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  
(14-08-2014 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I presume you mean, with an intelligence capable of building machinery?
If us humans have taken up this adaptive space and hence will kill any threats to our dominance, then all it would take is an asteroid collision and then a few million years and it may be some other lineage's time.

Us humans, we are evolving all the time, we are effectively 7 billion seperate entities. All of us a deviation from each other. The destinction of a species is quite loose. It makes no sense to say that the human race is distinct and special from other animals but collectively the same as each other. We are branching all the time. It just so happens at the moment that we appear to be all sexually compatible.

The sun has been pumping energy into our biosphere for a long time. This energy has resulted in complexity increase among all living organisms on the planet. Even on a cellular level, the smallest organisms are different now than they once were, and key species are extinct. It doesn't really have anything to do with us exercising dominance over other rising sentient races.
I'm sorry, but nobody's going to wake up tomorrow and not be able to mate with other humans.. it just isn't that unstable; we're interdependent, and we can't evolve in one lifetime to any significant degree.

@goodwithoutgod: Thank you for the extremely long recap from Evid3nc3's youtube video.
We weren't discussing validity of Scripture, I was simply correcting a misunderstanding on what the Bible teaches.. which you seem to be confused about as well, in a number of places. I felt it deserved clarification because Stevil misunderstood what it was saying and assumed I believed something I do not, then asked some pointed questions based on that assumption.
I'm well aware of what a select few authors argue about the Old Testament, but you're very adamant about it, so I wish you the best! Thumbsup

Awesome! I find avoiding facts helps one learn about the world around us as well.... Facepalm I didn't use any website, and have never heard of this youtube channel you are referring too. I typed that up using my speech recognition software and a few of my notes and I also referenced a few books. They aren't atheist books by the way. It seems contrary to popular belief, religious scholars fully acknowledge the pseudepigrapha and anonymous writers of the bible. perhaps you can take some classes on the subject and learn this as well. I used this thing called knowledge, and that knowledge was derived from a degree in religious studies from saint leo university and 30 years of studying the lie, but good luck with your endeavors.

This was my main reference, and portions were word for word, i didn't ad lib.

Boadt, L. (1984) reading the old testament: an introduction. New York. Paulist press - (great tool you can use to learn about how the bible was formed, as per religious scholars, again, this is not an atheist book, uhoh.)

These were the rest of my references:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

----------------------------------------

You will find quite a few religious scholars and biblical experts here, it is what we do, waving aside facts will do you no good here, we can and will substantiate our posits....can you? Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 04:45 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Locke
(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  
(14-08-2014 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I presume you mean, with an intelligence capable of building machinery?
If us humans have taken up this adaptive space and hence will kill any threats to our dominance, then all it would take is an asteroid collision and then a few million years and it may be some other lineage's time.

Us humans, we are evolving all the time, we are effectively 7 billion seperate entities. All of us a deviation from each other. The destinction of a species is quite loose. It makes no sense to say that the human race is distinct and special from other animals but collectively the same as each other. We are branching all the time. It just so happens at the moment that we appear to be all sexually compatible.

The sun has been pumping energy into our biosphere for a long time. This energy has resulted in complexity increase among all living organisms on the planet. Even on a cellular level, the smallest organisms are different now than they once were, and key species are extinct. It doesn't really have anything to do with us exercising dominance over other rising sentient races.
I'm sorry, but nobody's going to wake up tomorrow and not be able to mate with other humans.. it just isn't that unstable; we're interdependent, and we can't evolve in one lifetime to any significant degree.

@goodwithoutgod: Thank you for the extremely long recap from Evid3nc3's youtube video.
We weren't discussing validity of Scripture, I was simply correcting a misunderstanding on what the Bible teaches.. which you seem to be confused about as well, in a number of places. I felt it deserved clarification because Stevil misunderstood what it was saying and assumed I believed something I do not, then asked some pointed questions based on that assumption.
I'm well aware of what a select few authors argue about the Old Testament, but you're very adamant about it, so I wish you the best! Thumbsup

oooh, let me help you out with evolution as well since you bring that up..

Here is a recent paper I wrote on the subject just last week:


Why evolution is true SCI-115SC-DL04
Eric ###########
3 August 2014


Abstract
This paper will provide a critique and personal reflection on the textbook "Why Evolution Is True". The author will reflect on the themes presented in the chapters of the book and provide personal introspective analysis of the content within. It will describe the author’s personal epistemological approach to the concept of evolution. It will include the author’s perspective based on philosophy, theology and sociological aspects of the subject as well as demonstrate the authors scientific understanding of evolution. The author will lastly offer a critical evaluation of the ideas presented in these chapters.
Keywords: evolution, sonic hedgehog gene, homologies, vestigial structures, fossil record, dating methods, transitional fossils



What is evolution?
This fascinating book by Dr. Jerry Coyne is an extremely important look at the evolution debate ongoing today in this nation. The book begins by discussing one of the many top court cases that determined that the scientific facts of evolution should be taught in public schools. It is important that as a society, and as intelligent educated moral human beings, we continue to fight the continuous attempts by members of various Christian faiths, who strive to force the courts to allow them to interject some form of intelligent design into the public school system. This is truly a tragedy and an outright attack on the minds of our youth, potentially undermining the future success of this country and its ability to compete globally in math and science fields.

It is literally impossible to endeavor to grow intellectually on science-based subjects, like evolution, if one has a personal belief that the earth was created by an omnipresent, life creating super genie 6 to 10,000 years ago. This view of the real world around us stunts the believer’s ability to acknowledge, accept and learn to evaluate empirical evidence using reason, logic and scientific falsification processes.

To summarize the theory of evolution, one only has to understand that life on earth has evolved gradually over a long period of time from an ancient, primitive self-replicating molecule which evolved over time, creating many diverse living organisms.

Most likely the most controversial part of the evolutionary theory is natural selection. This is due to design in nature by a natural mechanical process that does not require supernatural, creation stories to explain its existence. This is controversial because those that subscribe to fabricated fairytales and invalid delusional supernatural transcendental belief systems do not like when you muddy the water with facts, reason, logic and empirical evidence. These people posit intelligent design as the answer, which is a religious argument lacking empirical support and offers no tenable hypothesis.

Written in the rocks
The amazing world of fossils, how they have intrigued us for so many years. How do we have fossils? It requires that the remains of a living organism, plant or animal, die in a body of water, since the bottom and be covered by sediment to prevent their decay. When you consider these very specific requirements is very easy to understand why the fossil record for the last 17 million years is spotty and incomplete. Scientists hypothesize that less than 1% of all species have fossil evidence for us to analyze. Thankfully, we had more than enough fossils show us how evolution proceeded, and to show how major species split off from one another over time.

To the educated, intellectual and rational person, the fact that the fossil record does not give any evidence in support of intelligent design or creationism, which posits that all species appeared suddenly and remain unchanged is of no surprise. To me the biggest blow to creationism, besides the fact that the whole idea is fabricated and can be traced back to its inception, is a simple fact that scientifically we can disprove it in so many ways. The biggest being the fossil record does not reflect or support in any way all life appearing at one time on the earth. This of course is the least of creationist supporters worries as every angle of their belief system can be dismantled piece by piece.

For me the single biggest piece of evidence is transitional fossils such as Tiklaalik, or Archaeopteryx, which show major transitions from fish to amphibian and reptile to bird. This is of course very inconvenient to those who clutch a delusion in order to comprehend the real world around us. Delusion; A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Which pretty much defines religion.

Remnants: vestiges, embryos, and bad design
This chapter discussed the result of adaptation in a species which produces a feature that has either lost its usefulness, or its purpose has been adopted for new uses is a vestigial. For example; wings of an ostrich, the human appendix which was very important to our ancestors who primarily ate vegetation but is of no use to us, and the human coccyx. These are all vestigial traits which only makes sense to consider evolution as the cause. Another oddity is atavisms; an anomaly which appears to be the reoccurrence of an ancient ancestral trait. A human baby born with a tail, or a horse born with extra toes. They differ from vestigial traits because they rarely occur, rather than be present in every individual.

I found these examples personally fascinating, how interesting that even today we can see the rare appearance of ancient traits and human and animal species. If we were created, by some anthropocentric, Abrahamic based version of a God for example, why would we have these ancestral traits which reflect our mutation as a species from another species over a very long period of time. If we were created from a handful of dirt, or so the fairytale goes, why would we have the remnants of a tail inside of our body, and a fishlike circulatory system? Why would we have gill arch structures in our embryonic structure during our early development stages? To me, yet again, this indicates that we are exactly what evolutionary scientist have proclaimed, a successful mutation of Homo sapiens species over a very long period of time. It is fascinating to understand that as one species evolves into another, the new specie has inherited the genetic developmental programming of its ancestor, and this is proven over and over in this book.

The ample evidence of bad design refutes, yet again, the ridiculous posit of an intelligent designer. If we were created, we would not have so many imperfections. These imperfections of the Mark of evolution and are exactly what we would expect to happen. The Laryngeal nerve of mammals is a good example of this. Another nail in the coffin for the fairytale, fabricated, anthropocentric concept of a creator.

The geography of life
As I went through this chapter and reflected on the vast amount of biogeographic evidence for evolution, I felt sorry for those who cling to the creationism concept. It must require a consistent amount of self-discipline, or self-delusion, to completely ignore the plethora of superior evidence that strongly contradicts their belief system. If I hold up a rock and say that it is 4.5 billion years old, and validate that posit with ample scientific evidence by the utilization of various proven dating methods, and a creationist says it is 6,000 years old and holds up a fictional book as evidence to the contrary, this is not a countering argument worthy of discussion. I guess that is why it is called blind faith.

Whenever a creationist has been asked to offer a credible explanation on why different types of animals have similar forms and distinctly different places, their only answer is the GODDIDIT excuse. Unfortunately for creationists, convergent evolution explains this very well. Species that live in similar habitats will have experienced the same environmental stressors, and thus evolve with similar genetic adaptations. When we perform archaeological digs in one area we should find direct descendents of earlier species that lived in this area, to no surprise this is what we find. Yet again, another nail in the coffin of creationism.

Creationism would have to propose that there had occurred an endless number of successive creations and extinctions worldwide, and each set of newly created species were made to look like older ones that lived in the same area. This is about as plausible as the ridiculous no was arc story which was based on the epic of Gilgamesh myth. Perhaps it is time we discard the chicken bones, tea leaves and fairytales and accept the real, tangible, empirical evidence at hand.

The engine of evolution
Evolution by selection is really a combination of lawfulness and randomness. First you have a random process, the occurrence of mutations that generate genetic change, and then a lawful process… natural selection, that orders this mutation, keeping the good in this guarding the bad by survival of the fittest theory. I found it intriguing when I read that adaptation increases the fitness of the individual and not the species. As the theory of evolution predicts, we never see adaptations which benefit the species at the expense of the individual. That would be something we would expect if living organisms were designed and created by magical sky genie.

Humans are a long lived and slow reproducing species with generation times of about 20 years or more. It is therefore difficult to observe inter-generational genetic change. Consider that only two reproductive generations have passed since the discovery of the structure of DNA. Much of the genetic variation that we see in human populations today developed within the past 50,000 years, after the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa and into other parts of the world.
If you truly wish to see selection in action, then you should look at species that have short generation times and that are adapting to a new environment. One of the most derisive creationists concepts is what I call the God of the gaps argument. Basically wherever there is a gap in the theory of evolution’s trail of evidence, they posit God as the cause. There is no reason to position intelligent design as the answer to questions or gaps, simply because science has not yet found the answer. Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error.

Science has a built in corrective mechanism; hypothesis testing. Proponents of intelligent design, a ridiculous pseudoscience, do not bother to clutter their perspectives with inconvenient facts, they simply claim to know the truth, based on a fictional disproven fairytale of a book called the Bible. When you pushed them into a corner with reason, logic and evidence, they simply wave it aside and pointed a Bible. This is not countering evidence, this is delusional belief in a transcendental reality which has no place in the discussion of science.

How sex drives evolution
Although I am fairly fluent in most concepts dealing with evolution and scientific principles, I did not know how big a part sex had in evolution. It makes total sense, and now that I know about it through this course I accept it explicitly, but it is fascinating to consider the major impact that sex drive, a mate selection had on the evolution of the world today.

To me the impact and major contributing factor of sex and evolution is the simplest concept. Pretty much in all species, the female picks their mate, or the strongest male dominates all the females for reproduction. Thus ensuring those strong genes and genetic traits are passed on to their offspring. It all comes down to males must compete for females. Female choice of a mate has driven the evolution of many sexual dimorphisms.

When we look at the impact of sex, for example why are there only two sexes and not three or four? This is a common countering argument from those who work so hard to discredit evolution. As usual it is due to their lack of knowledge and biology that leaves them down the road to misinformation. Natural selection would favor a state in which one sex makes a lot of small reproductive material (sperm or pollen), and the other makes fewer larger reproductive material such as eggs. This results in males competing for females, the males should be promiscuous and the females coy in their decision and choice of a mate.

The origin of species
Darwin’s book changed the world and many ways, and inspired intelligent, educated thinking scholars to continue his work since then. Darwin identified how and why a single species changes over time by natural selection, but he never explained how one species divides into two. If we didn’t have speciation, we would only have a single, evolved descendent of that very first species. Darwin was a brilliant man, and I often wonder what was going through his mind as he started down this path of discovery.

While I was fairly familiar with the theory of evolution, speciation and the substantial supporting fossil record, I really had no idea how in depth, brilliant and solid the evidence really is. When you consider how different species not only look different, but had developed genetic barriers that prevent them from interbreeding with other species, even though they all can be traced back to the same common species. It amazes me that someone can wave aside the absolute all inspiring tonnage of evidence that supports evolution, speciation and transitional mutations, all because they have a disproven, fictional book written by groups of superstitious, religious fanatics 2000 years ago based on the oral retelling of a myth passed down from one family to another.

What about us
This was probably my favorite chapter as it talked about human genetic heritage. The fact that DNA evidence proves that we are evolved apes that descended from other apes, and that are closes current ape relative is the chimpanzee, who can be traced back to an older species that the split off from our own several million years ago in Africa. I find it interesting that with the current religiosity numbers that reflect that in the United States 35% of the population is nonreligious, and the 65% remaining (though thankfully dwindling in numbers more each year) believe in some form of religion, mostly Christian, and understand DNA evidence when it comes to criminal investigations and trials. However, wave that aside, when it is inconvenient that DNA evidence proves that we are descended from apes.

I always find it funny how you can pick and choose what you want to belief from the same source. Even within their holy book, “that Scripture is merely a parable”, “that Scripture is fact”, and how do you figure out which is which? Either DNA evidence is a solid, provable prima facie, or not. I submit to you that DNA evidence is a solid, provable prima facie, and thus proves we are descended from apes.

Evolution redux
This chapter really brings it home, some of the more enlightened creationist understand and even accept portions of evolution, and they were even state they find evidence for evolution very convincing, but they still don’t believe it. Someday books like this would not have to be written from a position of defending facts because the majority of the population clings to superstitious belief in a delusion. It is time to put aside the chicken bones, tea leaves, tarot cards and fairytales, and exchange them for empirical evidence, reason, logic and substantiated scientific truth. The fact that, religious belief (declining globally at an ever increasing rate) still holds a majority, does not give it validity due to the argument of popularity.



References
Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd.


--------------------------------------------

Let me know if you need any help comprehending the subject matter or the content of the paper, I am here to help. Yes

"I was simply correcting a misunderstanding on what the Bible teaches", yes and there lies the rub, what is fact and what is fiction, what is parable and what is pseudepigrapha, and the creationists always exit the fray with, "I interpret it differently", well of course you do......

By the way, this is in no way "taking a jab at you" this is refuting your references to various scriptures as argument from authority being invalid due to the prevalent question of who wrote it, why and when. You may not wish to debate, which is fine, but if you make posts quoting that fictional book, it will get counter evidence, as I have presented thus far. Enjoy your stay.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: Locke
(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  The sun has been pumping energy into our biosphere for a long time. This energy has resulted in complexity increase among all living organisms on the planet.
Without external energy we would eventually reach an equilibrium and be without useful energy. Due to decay, gravity and expanding space we would eventually dissipate into maximum entropy state (basically "empty" DeSitter space).
The Sun as an energy source is an enabler for things to happen. But the Sun doesn't create complexity.
Even evolution doesn't necessarily result in more complexity. If a simpler structure is more fit than a more complex one then that is the path that is taken.
Over billions of years we have had more opportunity to develop more complex structures than primitive life. The complexity has been a result of many things, Sun energy, environments on Earth compatible with replicating organic structures, changing environments causing organic structures to adapt, competition etc.

(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  Even on a cellular level, the smallest organisms are different now than they once were, and key species are extinct. It doesn't really have anything to do with us exercising dominance over other rising sentient races.
Yes it does.
There is no physical barrier, given a few millions of years to having another species develop an intelligent ability to analyse the universe and use their knowledge to build machines.
We had Neanderthals whom may have been on that path, but they went extinct, possibly because we competed with them.
I would imagine that if another animal developed intelligence and wanted to own land and other natural resources then us humans would act to physically dominate them and remove them as a competing threat.

(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  I'm sorry, but nobody's going to wake up tomorrow and not be able to mate with other humans.. it just isn't that unstable; we're interdependent, and we can't evolve in one lifetime to any significant degree.
Of course.
Each parent gives birth to the same species. It might be possible for grandchildren to be of a seperate species due to hyridisation. This is possibly how come humans have 46 chromosomes but our ancestors had 48.
But also in many cases the change is gradual over time and seperation, just look at ring species, or seperate islands like in the Galapogos.
Us humans have many races, which are seperate isolated groups of humans and how they have adapted over time to their environments. Given more time and continued isolation there could conceivably be speciation. But there is not necessary a clear distinction between species. There is no clear line between homosapien and homoerectus. It is a continuous path, those close by are compatible those far apart may not be.

But the point is that there is no perfect human genome for which we can all be assessed against. We are all variations. And one day if we do notice a speciation we could trace it all back genetically. Retrospectively we could say that Human A species seperated from Human B species x million years ago, that over several million years they became so distinct that the become non compatible (procreation wise) But right now we are all compatible (it seems) and we don't know which lineages might become so distinct as to evolve into seperate species.

To say that there is a god whom created man in his image and thus has a vested interest in the ongoing behaviours of human-kind, seems to me to be missing the concept of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2014, 05:17 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2014 05:23 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Locke
(14-08-2014 05:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  The sun has been pumping energy into our biosphere for a long time. This energy has resulted in complexity increase among all living organisms on the planet.
Without external energy we would eventually reach an equilibrium and be without useful energy. Due to decay, gravity and expanding space we would eventually dissipate into maximum entropy state (basically "empty" DeSitter space).
The Sun as an energy source is an enabler for things to happen. But the Sun doesn't create complexity.
Even evolution doesn't necessarily result in more complexity. If a simpler structure is more fit than a more complex one then that is the path that is taken.
Over billions of years we have had more opportunity to develop more complex structures than primitive life. The complexity has been a result of many things, Sun energy, environments on Earth compatible with replicating organic structures, changing environments causing organic structures to adapt, competition etc.

(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  Even on a cellular level, the smallest organisms are different now than they once were, and key species are extinct. It doesn't really have anything to do with us exercising dominance over other rising sentient races.
Yes it does.
There is no physical barrier, given a few millions of years to having another species develop an intelligent ability to analyse the universe and use their knowledge to build machines.
We had Neanderthals whom may have been on that path, but they went extinct, possibly because we competed with them.
I would imagine that if another animal developed intelligence and wanted to own land and other natural resources then us humans would act to physically dominate them and remove them as a competing threat.

(14-08-2014 04:07 PM)Locke Wrote:  I'm sorry, but nobody's going to wake up tomorrow and not be able to mate with other humans.. it just isn't that unstable; we're interdependent, and we can't evolve in one lifetime to any significant degree.
Of course.
Each parent gives birth to the same species. It might be possible for grandchildren to be of a seperate species due to hyridisation. This is possibly how come humans have 46 chromosomes but our ancestors had 48.
But also in many cases the change is gradual over time and seperation, just look at ring species, or seperate islands like in the Galapogos.
Us humans have many races, which are seperate isolated groups of humans and how they have adapted over time to their environments. Given more time and continued isolation there could conceivably be speciation. But there is not necessary a clear distinction between species. There is no clear line between homosapien and homoerectus. It is a continuous path, those close by are compatible those far apart may not be.

But the point is that there is no perfect human genome for which we can all be assessed against. We are all variations. And one day if we do notice a speciation we could trace it all back genetically. Retrospectively we could say that Human A species seperated from Human B species x million years ago, that over several million years they became so distinct that the become non compatible (procreation wise) But right now we are all compatible (it seems) and we don't know which lineages might become so distinct as to evolve into seperate species.

To say that there is a god whom created man in his image and thus has a vested interest in the ongoing behaviours of human-kind, seems to me to be missing the concept of evolution.

Good points, and one of the easiest ways to dispute the delusion of creation is the fact that humans can be traced back to fish, via the evolutionary trail, and due to the existence of Gill arches and fishlike circulatory systems that we have in our early embryonic stages. Vestigial features like the tailbone within our body which indicates at some point we had a tail, is yet another feature that shows how and where we evolved from.

Through our evolution, humans had developed maladaptive traits and features that are not necessarily a good design by default. A good example of this could be the left recurrent laryngeal nerve in humans, which while horribly designed due to its pathway that travels down through the chest, is evidence of our evolution from a fishlike ancestor. Features like how we can easily develop hernias in the groin, which happens when a fish like body evolves into a mammal. Our gonads must move from high up in the inner chest area during our embryonic stage like our fish ancestors, and it moves all the way down through a hole in the body wall and ends up outside the body in the scrotum sac. This again indicates our direct lineage to a fishlike organism, which evolved into a mammal through time and evolution.

Culture has many definitions, however it can be best defined as shared, learned social behavior, or a non-biological means of adaptation that extends beyond the body. Humans as a species are so dependent on culture and technology that cultural adaptation has replaced biological adaptation. Over the last 12,000 years, humans have increasingly used culture and technology – built upon agriculture and animal domestication – to control and modify the natural environment. Therefore, I posit that culture has an important role in identifying whether evolution is still influencing the biology of our species.

Adaptation, in the simplest sense, is a mechanism that allows organisms to mediate the stresses of their environment to ensure survival and reproduction. As humans, we have developed an extensive dependence on culture and technology that has allowed us to successfully populate the most extreme environments in the world. There is ample evidence that humans have physiological characteristics that allow them to adapt efficiently to different or changing environments (Wells and Stock 2007). Considering this evidence, our species has a much greater range of both technological and physiological mechanisms for buffering the effects of environmental stress, leading one to argue that genetic evolution is no longer influencing our species.

It would be easy, therefore to conclude that humans have stopped evolving. But we need to consider other contributing factors. Humans are a long lived and slow reproducing species with generation times of about 20 years or more. It is therefore difficult to observe inter-generational genetic change. Consider that only two reproductive generations have passed since the discovery of the structure of DNA. Much of the genetic variation that we see in human populations today developed within the past 50,000 years, after the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa. Much of this variation could have been caused by genetic drift resulting from random genetic differences in small populations of Hunter gatherers who migrated various parts of the world through time.

When it comes to a theist trying to argue "perfect design" which indicates the sky genie creator, it is easy to destroy that with facts. Life is anything but perfect..

The idea of perfect design is an illusion. Every species is imperfect in many ways. Kiwis have useless wings, whales have a vestigial pelvis, and our appendix is a nefarious organ”.… “If organisms were built from scratch by a designer – one who used biological building blocks of nerves, muscles, bone, and so on – they would not have created such imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it is precisely what we expect from evolution.” (Coyne 2009 p81)

“One of nature’s worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curious thing is that is much longer than it needs to be. Rather than taking a direct route the brain to larynx, a distance of about a foot in humans, the nerve runs down into our chest, loops around the aorta and a ligament derived from an artery, and travels back up to connect to larynx.” (Coyne 2009 p82)

Another good example of “bad engineering”would be the human eye. Rather than regurgitate a very lengthy explanation of how imperfect the design of the human eye is, I instead will provide a link to a video (Ref B) made by a world renowned specialist, Richard Dawkins, as well as a link to a written breakdown by Doctor Pitman. (Pitman 2008)

A different angle showing evolution or in this case almost a de-evolution, would be the cave fish that has eye stalks, nerve endings, but no eyeball. (Jeffery 2012)


References:

Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Retrieved from http://youtu.be/Nwew5gHoh3E

Pitman, S. (2008) Retrieved from http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

Jeffery, W. To See or Not to See: Evolution of Eye Degeneration in Mexican Blind Cavefish. Retrieved from http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/531.long



Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: