Evolution: Not a Fact, a Changing Theory.

[dr froyd]

The whole theory of evolution is based on induction, not hard data.

you have to distinguish between two things though

evolution in general, and the evolutionary origin of humans

if i say that if you have DNA, mutations of that DNA, and a selection process for filtering that DNA, then that will result in evolution - that's pure deduction. And we know all those premises hold for all organisms.

if i say humans evolved from bacteria or whatever, that's a theory that can only have confirmatory empirical evidence and cannot be falsified by experiment, so you're not entirely wrong. You can always say that everything we see in humans is consistent with evolution but it happened by a miracle instead. If you believe then you believe, i suppose..

 

[Old Things]

We should therefore expect it to take approx. 10,000,000,000,000,000 trials, which is one thousand times (not one million like I said earlier) what he considered enough to expect the result.

I think that's a huge assumption you are making. And if you are right, then how do you suppose we have a common ancestor with chimps when there is less than a fraction of generations that these bacteria would need? I don't think you really understand my argument, no offense. Suppose it takes a gazillion million generations for bacteria to repair themselves. Why on earth do we think that chimps and humans have a common ancestor when there has not been even close to the number of generations necessary for that change? In fact, it's been like maybe 2,000 generations from our common ancestor to humans... So I find this problematic for your view... Do you understand this or not? What makes mammals, which are much more complex than bacteria, able to evolve WAY WAY faster than bacteria in terms of how many generations it takes?

Christ was a blink ago in the eye of evolution.
Christ = 2000 years ago
Origin of life = 3,800,000,000 years ago

What's more, the reproductive rate isn't constant. So at some point our predecessors were bacteria going through many generations a day. Human reproduction is particularly slow but modern humans have only existed for approx. 300,000 years. Again, not very long at all. The expected amount of change in this time is... not very much at all, especially given our control over our environment (selective pressure).

You are right that reproduction rates would not be constant... I fail to see how that solves the problem. We are not even talking about bacteria turning into a human but an ancestor of chimps and humans turning into humans... And the amount of time that we have is far far too short for that.

 

[Old Things]

The whole theory of evolution is based on induction, not hard data.

you have to distinguish between two things though

evolution in general, and the evolutionary origin of humans

if i say that if you have DNA, mutations of that DNA, and a selection process for filtering that DNA, then that will result in evolution - that's pure deduction. And we know all those premises hold for all organisms.

if i say humans evolved from bacteria or whatever, that's a theory that can only have confirmatory empirical evidence and cannot be falsified by experiment, so you're not entirely wrong. You can always say that everything we see in humans is consistent with evolution but it happened by a miracle instead. If you believe then you believe, i suppose..

Please at least attempt to engage with the arguments in the OP...

This is why the experiments with mice are so important... Because you literally can't evolve a mouse to something else without the mouse being dead. Like I said in the OP, you either have a mouse or something dead... They've never been able to make anything except a mouse from mice, and we've had 95 years of genetic manufacturing to figure it out. But it's never happened.

 

[dr froyd]

lmao thats true.. we've never been able to make a dog from a mouse

we have made dog from wolf though

 

[Old Things]

lmao thats true.. we've never been able to make a dog from a mouse

we have made dog from wolf though

A wolf turning into a dog is something everyone can agree with. That's not evidence for your view because everyone believes that can happen.

But how do you get a hoof to turn into a hand? It can't be done!

 

[Hadoblado]

We should therefore expect it to take approx. 10,000,000,000,000,000 trials, which is one thousand times (not one million like I said earlier) what he considered enough to expect the result.

I think that's a huge assumption you are making. And if you are right, then how do you suppose we have a common ancestor with chimps when there is less than a fraction of generations that these bacteria would need? I don't think you really understand my argument, no offense. Suppose it takes a gazillion million generations for bacteria to repair themselves. Why on earth do we think that chimps and humans have a common ancestor when there has not been even close to the number of generations necessary for that change? In fact, it's been like maybe 2,000 generations from our common ancestor to humans... So I find this problematic for your view... Do you understand this or not? What makes mammals, which are much more complex than bacteria, able to evolve WAY WAY faster than bacteria in terms of how many generations it takes?

There are clear assumptions I'm making. I think they're reasonable and this is where my expectation would be set. There may be factors I'm unaware of, but he hasn't made me aware of them. It felt as if this was the obvious assumed expectation, and he didn't give an alternative for what our expectation should be or reasoning. Just the vibe that after a big number of trials we should expect results.

I'm not addressing your argument about chimps in the quote.

Christ was a blink ago in the eye of evolution.
Christ = 2000 years ago
Origin of life = 3,800,000,000 years ago

What's more, the reproductive rate isn't constant. So at some point our predecessors were bacteria going through many generations a day. Human reproduction is particularly slow but modern humans have only existed for approx. 300,000 years. Again, not very long at all. The expected amount of change in this time is... not very much at all, especially given our control over our environment (selective pressure).

You are right that reproduction rates would not be constant... I fail to see how that solves the problem. We are not even talking about bacteria turning into a human but an ancestor of chimps and humans turning into humans... And the amount of time that we have is far far too short for that.

We're speaking with extremely low resolution here. If you have an argument, state it. You say it's not enough time. Tell me how much time there has been, and how much you think is required (and why). You were talking about Christ and I don't understand why because that's not the relevant evolutionary window.

Until then, this is just vibes exchanged by two people about stuff they don't have any background in.

 

[fluffy]

Not sure where hands first came from but some mammal climbed into a tree and the ones who grabbed better reproduced more.

Climbing is a good way to avoid predators and get at food.

Selection pressure is not about long impossible jumps but working with what you have at first. Grabbing is what most mammals could do before they existed in trees.

Edit.

Actually I don't know if they were in trees or not.

 

[Old Things]

I'm not addressing your argument about chimps in the quote.

Why not? It's a perfectly valid argument I am making.

We're speaking with extremely low resolution here. If you have an argument, state it. You say it's not enough time. Tell me how much time there has been, and how much you think is required (and why). You were talking about Christ and I don't understand why because that's not the relevant evolutionary window.

I don't think it is possible to get from horse to dog, so it doesn't matter how many years we put into the equations because it's not going to work.

 

[Hadoblado]

Read the post again. I'm not stating an intention, I'm stating a fact. You quoted me and started talking about me not understanding your argument, but the quote you posted had no mention of your argument as it wasn't addressing it. It's just a miscommunication.

I don't think it is possible to get from horse to dog, so it doesn't matter how many years we put into the equations because it's not going to work.

Let's start from what I think we agree on. This:

Is the same species as this:

Which was achieved through selective pressure over the course of between 20,000 and 40,000 years.

These two animals are the same species for so long as they can breed with each other. Over time, genetics drift and we expect this to become more and more difficult until it becomes impossible.

Now, I'm just focusing on the chimps and humans common ancestor for now. Given dogs can look this different after lets say 30,000 years, is it that crazy that given 6,000,000-8,000,000 million years chimps and humans are entirely different species? Two hundred times as long? To me this seems entirely reasonable.

 

[Old Things]

Now, I'm just focusing on the chimps and humans common ancestor for now. Given dogs can look this different after lets say 30,000 years, is it that crazy that given 6,000,000-8,000,000 million years chimps and humans are entirely different species? Two hundred times as long? To me this seems entirely reasonable.

The difference is, Hado, with dogs, you already have all the parts to make a new kind of dog. This is worlds different from getting a hoof to turn into a hand. As soon as you start to change the genetic makeup of the hoof to try to get it more like a hand, things utterly fall apart, and you end up with something that is dead.

Look at the two dogs... They both have the same exact skeletal structure. They both function in the same way. They both probably have a very similar sense of smell. Their eyes work the same way. The differences between these creatures are superficial rather than substantive.

When we talk about changes from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, we have never observed any kind of change like that. We've never been able to grow a new bone, change a creature's vision, or change the sperm and egg of a species.

I'm going to challenge you to come up with a single observation that science has made in the time of humanity about a species gaining information in its genome. If you can't come up with any example of that, then you are going to have to tell me how you believe that new information can be produced by evolution.

 

[fluffy]

Some humans can see in ultraviolet or the inferred spectrum. They have a fourth cone in the retna for this where as the average human has 3.

We could breed humans that sees in the dark like a cat as some humans already do. This happens in the story by hg Wells "the time machine".

 

[Old Things]

Some humans can see in ultraviolet or the inferred spectrum. They have a fourth cone in the retna for this where as the average human has 3.

I'd be interested in seeing a source on this.

We could breed humans that sees in the dark like a cat as some humans already do. This happens in the story by hg Wells "the time machine".

Seems to be a rather bold assumption. I'm not convinced that just because something exists in the animal kingdom it can potentially apply to all life forms.

 

[Hadoblado]

I am addressing this:

This 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 number is kinda stupifying. Why? Because there is no way that the ancestors of chimps and us have had that many generations. Not even close. Not in the ballpark. If we consider a generation of about 20 years for a human, then there have only been about 100 generations since Christ. Numbers like this are not feasible when talking about evolution and the amount of "change" we see in the time we have seen.

You respond with this:

Now, I'm just focusing on the chimps and humans common ancestor for now. Given dogs can look this different after lets say 30,000 years, is it that crazy that given 6,000,000-8,000,000 million years chimps and humans are entirely different species? Two hundred times as long? To me this seems entirely reasonable.

The difference is, Hado, with dogs, you already have all the parts to make a new kind of dog. This is worlds different from getting a hoof to turn into a hand. As soon as you start to change the genetic makeup of the hoof to try to get it more like a hand, things utterly fall apart, and you end up with something that is dead.

Look at the two dogs... They both have the same exact skeletal structure. They both function in the same way. They both probably have a very similar sense of smell. Their eyes work the same way. The differences between these creatures are superficial rather than substantive.

When we talk about changes from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, we have never observed any kind of change like that. We've never been able to grow a new bone, change a creature's vision, or change the sperm and egg of a species.

I'm going to challenge you to come up with a single observation that science has made in the time of humanity about a species gaining information in its genome. If you can't come up with any example of that, then you are going to have to tell me how you believe that new information can be produced by evolution.

I'm not talking about hooves and you weren't either. You are switching out the argument before conceding anything.

The human and the chimp have the same skeletal structure. They both function the same way etc.. What reason do you have not to believe a common ancestor possible?

 

[dr froyd]

We should therefore expect it to take approx. 10,000,000,000,000,000 trials, which is one thousand times (not one million like I said earlier) what he considered enough to expect the result.

i got curious about that experiment. It was designed such that getting back full function required a 2-step evolution. That's very improbable to begin with, but they discovered that when competing with a simpler energy-saving path it simply favored the simpler solution. Funnily enough the guy mentions this himself in video

that's natural - adaptation doesn't always mean adding new functions (a common misconception)

and if one uses that as an argument for creationism, one only needs to take a look around; 99.99% of all life on earth is super simple (but highly adapted)

 

[scorpiomover]

@scorpiomover

Evolution could have created some of the humans but not all of them which were created by God?

Not according to the analogy of baking a cake provided by @Cognisant.

At best we could say that G-d made humans via evolution, and then also created Adam and Eve directly. But then you've got to ask: if G-d already made humans via evolution, why bother with creating Adam and Eve directly, when they would be redundant?

 

[scorpiomover]

So whether humans are created directly by G-d or via evolution, should not make any difference. We're still the same people we always were.

I think you kinda skipped a step here. How do you get from our parents being adopted (in evolution) to God creating beings made in the image of God (creatures producing after their own kind) being the same thing?

They're both humans, right? So if one is made "in the image of G-d", so is the other. The only difference is how they were made, not their end properties. So what's the diff?

 

[Old Things]

I'm not talking about hooves and you weren't either. You are switching out the argument before conceding anything.

I changed the argument because if evolution is true, then it is 100% possible for a hoof to turn into a hand given enough time. I don't think that is possible, though. When we talk about massive differences between species, my illustration works to get to the heart of my problem with evolution.

The human and the chimp have the same skeletal structure. They both function the same way etc.. What reason do you have not to believe a common ancestor possible?

This is why I wanted you to comment on the chimps part of my argument some time ago. Because the DNA between chimps and humans is not at all alike. I don't think we have the same skeletal structure. They don't function the same way. Chimps are not bipeds--they are some sort of hybrid between walking on all fours and walking on two feet. They are not the same just a little different.

 

[Old Things]

So whether humans are created directly by G-d or via evolution, should not make any difference. We're still the same people we always were.

I think you kinda skipped a step here. How do you get from our parents being adopted (in evolution) to God creating beings made in the image of God (creatures producing after their own kind) being the same thing?

They're both humans, right? So if one is made "in the image of G-d", so is the other. The only difference is how they were made, not their end properties. So what's the diff?

Where do you go in the Bible to say that Neanderthals are made in the image of God?

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not talking about hooves and you weren't either. You are switching out the argument before conceding anything.

I changed the argument because if evolution is true, then it is 100% possible for a hoof to turn into a hand given enough time. I don't think that is possible, though. When we talk about massive differences between species, my illustration works to get to the heart of my problem with evolution.

The human and the chimp have the same skeletal structure. They both function the same way etc.. What reason do you have not to believe a common ancestor possible?

This is why I wanted you to comment on the chimps part of my argument some time ago. Because the DNA between chimps and humans is not at all alike. I don't think we have the same skeletal structure. They don't function the same way. Chimps are not bipeds--they are some sort of hybrid between walking on all fours and walking on two feet. They are not the same just a little different.

Okay. Just FYI I've enjoyed this discussion and have seen it as a genuine exploration rather than a debate. But I think this is where it ends because if you can't see chimps/humans as plausible, then obviously there's no curiosity for more complicated evolutionary adaptations like the divergence between paws/hooves/fins/hands.

 

[scorpiomover]

Where do you go in the Bible to say that Neanderthals are made in the image of God?

If some humans are descended from Neanderthals, we still don't know which humans have Neanderthal ancestors and which don't.

 

[Old Things]

I'm not talking about hooves and you weren't either. You are switching out the argument before conceding anything.

I changed the argument because if evolution is true, then it is 100% possible for a hoof to turn into a hand given enough time. I don't think that is possible, though. When we talk about massive differences between species, my illustration works to get to the heart of my problem with evolution.

The human and the chimp have the same skeletal structure. They both function the same way etc.. What reason do you have not to believe a common ancestor possible?

This is why I wanted you to comment on the chimps part of my argument some time ago. Because the DNA between chimps and humans is not at all alike. I don't think we have the same skeletal structure. They don't function the same way. Chimps are not bipeds--they are some sort of hybrid between walking on all fours and walking on two feet. They are not the same just a little different.

Okay. Just FYI I've enjoyed this discussion and have seen it as a genuine exploration rather than a debate. But I think this is where it ends because if you can't see chimps/humans as plausible, then obviously there's no curiosity for more complicated evolutionary adaptations like the divergence between paws/hooves/fins/hands.

IDK, I just don't see the similarities between chimps and humans. Humans make rocket ships that fly into outer space. Chimps use sticks to kill opossums. Hardly the same thing IMO.

 

[Old Things]

Where do you go in the Bible to say that Neanderthals are made in the image of God?

If some humans are descended from Neanderthals, we still don't know which humans have Neanderthal ancestors and which don't.

That's a big "if." But if I grant you that some humans have DNA from Neanderthals, what do you do with that? Is the person still made in the image of God? Is being made in the image of God something you can gain or lose?

 

[Cognisant]

At best we could say that G-d made humans via evolution, and then also created Adam and Eve directly. But then you've got to ask: if G-d already made humans via evolution, why bother with creating Adam and Eve directly, when they would be redundant?

From what I've heard/understand the descendants of Adam and Eve were like elves among humans, they lived a lot longer, they had special knowledge, they were generally masters of whatever they decided to do. So Adam and Eve are like pureblood elves (hand crafted by God) same for Cain and Abel, then as more normal human is mixed in with subsequent generations they became less special.

By this point practically all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve.

By "normal humans" I am referring to the species that existed on Earth before Adam and Eve, a species that is now, in a sense, extinct. As are the "elves".

 

[scorpiomover]

From what I've heard/understand the descendants of Adam and Eve were like elves among humans, they lived a lot longer, they had special knowledge, they were generally masters of whatever they decided to do.

That sounds like the stories of most stories that involved Divine revelation and help from G-d. Most religions seem to say that sort of thing. Even the stories of the ancient Greeks have stories of people like Hercules and Achilles, who were given powers by the Greek deities, and the Oracles who were given special information from the Greek deities.

So Adam and Eve are like pureblood elves (hand crafted by God) same for Cain and Abel, then as more normal human is mixed in with subsequent generations they became less special.

By this point practically all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve.

By "normal humans" I am referring to the species that existed on Earth before Adam and Eve, a species that is now, in a sense, extinct.

We can't really say that, as some humans still follow their ancient religions and claim ancestry from their ancestors, and so there's still room for that.

As are the "elves".

Remember that in LOTR, the idea is that in Middle-Earth, there used to be Elves, and there used to be Numenoreans that were descendants of mixed-race marriages between Elves and Men, but that was all forgotten now.

In terms of our Earth, that story would only make sense to people who are entirely non-religious, as if there are no people who follow religions, and there haven't been people who followed religions or the traditions of the ancient Greeks such as the Olympic Games, for thousands of years.

We can't really say either of those are true. We're more like the peoples of Middle-Earth in the Second Age, back when they were still battling against the forces of Sauron and the Orcs.

 

[scorpiomover]

Where do you go in the Bible to say that Neanderthals are made in the image of God?

If some humans are descended from Neanderthals, we still don't know which humans have Neanderthal ancestors and which don't.

That's a big "if." But if I grant you that some humans have DNA from Neanderthals, what do you do with that? Is the person still made in the image of God? Is being made in the image of God something you can gain or lose?

I don't really know. But at this point, due to the fact that people can convert to most religions, except for a few like Jainism, and that converts are supposed to be equal to those born into their religion, I would say that these days, being made in the image of G-d is a quality that all humans have the potential to possess, but that some humans live up to that potential by living a life "in the image of G-d", by following G-d's laws, and some do not, even if they claim to.

E.G. some religious leaders seem to have a face that shines. Even some people who aren't religious have a face that shines.

I don't mean people who are physically attractive, as I have seen that shine in severely disabled children who could not even move their limbs, and many very physically attractive people have a darkness that shows in their face.

IMHO, people who have a face that shines, tend to be really nice people, who are nice to everyone, no matter what, and don't seem to have a bad bone in their entire body.

Everyone has the potential to be a really good person, and so everyone has the potential to be "in the image of G-d". Some people live that way in reality, and so they live "in the image of G-d" and ARE "in the image of G-d".

 

[Old Things]

Where do you go in the Bible to say that Neanderthals are made in the image of God?

If some humans are descended from Neanderthals, we still don't know which humans have Neanderthal ancestors and which don't.

That's a big "if." But if I grant you that some humans have DNA from Neanderthals, what do you do with that? Is the person still made in the image of God? Is being made in the image of God something you can gain or lose?

I don't really know. But at this point, due to the fact that people can convert to most religions, except for a few like Jainism, and that converts are supposed to be equal to those born into their religion, I would say that these days, being made in the image of G-d is a quality that all humans have the potential to possess, but that some humans live up to that potential by living a life "in the image of G-d", by following G-d's laws, and some do not, even if they claim to.

E.G. some religious leaders seem to have a face that shines. Even some people who aren't religious have a face that shines.

I don't mean people who are physically attractive, as I have seen that shine in severely disabled children who could not even move their limbs, and many very physically attractive people have a darkness that shows in their face.

IMHO, people who have a face that shines, tend to be really nice people, who are nice to everyone, no matter what, and don't seem to have a bad bone in their entire body.

Everyone has the potential to be a really good person, and so everyone has the potential to be "in the image of G-d". Some people live that way in reality, and so they live "in the image of G-d" and ARE "in the image of G-d".

It's interesting that you apply the idea that Moses face shown like the sun to be possible for most (all?) humans. It's interesting because in my mind, Moses was very much unique. There is much said about Moses that separates him from many others, such as that God talked to him "face to face" and that there would be a Prophet that came after him in the same likeness. Of course, we disagree about who that Prophet is as I believe He has already come, and the Jews are looking forward to the Messiah. I think this stems from how Christians and Jews interpret the Torah... At least I know Reformed Jews view the Torah more as stories that represent humanity rather than the letter of the law. Feel free to correct me on anything I have said.