The Theory of Evolution

[Fearless-Guy]

can you explain why humans began to draw on caves, use language, logic  etc without prompt. I can understand why a giraffe would have a long neck, but the creativity prevalent in humans i cannot explain with evolution

[Mizchif]

If you don't believe in evolution then you believe the world happened and was formed in the way it was formed "Because some guy said so"

 

If you want to follow that up with an intelligent argument afterwards I'm going to treat you like you just said "The world happened and was formed in the way it was formed because some guy said so"

[Fighting Weight]

 

Microevolution - yes

 

Macroevolution - no

 

 

Ant there are numerous observed examples of speciation (one species becoming a totally distinct species) otherwise referred to as macroevolution, which is merely microevolution over a longer timescale.

 

Why do you not believe in Macroevolution?

 

Well I'm not talking about speciation. I'm talking about one kind over time turning into another kind. 

 

edit: a plant will always be a plant

 

That's microevolution

 

No, it isn't. define what the word 'kind' means if not species? Plants do not turn into mammals, this is not evolution, no matter how much a plant will evolve, it will remain a plant

 

Speciation = one species evolving overtime, and becoming a separate, distinct species

 

Plants are still plants just as wolves and dogs are still Canidae just as Humans are still apes (this is not debatable, we are by definition, apes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

 

Watch the video above, it goes into quite a bit of detail on PHYLOGENIC TREE'S and TAXONOMY, two very important concepts in understanding the grouping of differen't genus within the evolutionary framework

[Fighting Weight]

can you explain why humans began to draw on caves, use language, logic  etc without prompt. I can understand why a giraffe would have a long neck, but the creativity prevalent in humans i cannot explain with evolution

 

I would say that this is not at all a question that concerns evolution (or one that needs to concern evolution) similar to the theory of abiogenisis

 

Though I think that abilities and traits that are characterised by higher brain function (i.e. creativity, reason, memory) can be attributed to the evolution of the brain, seeing as none of the less advanced forms of life are capable of such feats

[Nidge Weasle]

 

 

TBH

[Badman]

Science and evolution is the new religion

 

Its human fickle, just go with what is more believable at the time

 

Its not conceivable for these particular types of people to believe which cant be proven, in essence what the notion of what faith basically is

 

Me, I am not so naive. To actually think we originally came from a single celled organism is preposterous

 

I just accept that there are things out there that just cant be explained and have the faith that there is a greater purpose in life for us other than a series of random co-incidences which resulted in the creation of life

[Fighting Weight]

Science and evolution is the new religion

 

Its human fickle, just go with what is more believable at the time

 

Its not conceivable for these particular types of people to believe which cant be proven, in essence what the notion of what faith basically is

 

Me, I am not so naive. To actually think we originally came from a single celled organism is preposterous

 

I just accept that there are things out there that just cant be explained and have the faith that there is a greater purpose in life for us other than a series of random co-incidences which resulted in the creation of life

 

Come on Francis, first of all, a religion is based on faith, science, or the scientific method is based around

 

A question

Hypothesis

Prediction

Testing

Analysis

Replication

Peer review

 

There is an INCREDIBLY thorough, rigorous and self-correcting process that has to be undertaken in order to present a theory, and the nature of science means that when theories are incompatible or flawed, they are upgraded, replaced, thrown out - it is essentially the search for truth from observable phenomena, there is absolutely nothing religious about it, at all. It's the opposite of religious (or faith), which are things that essentially require NO evidence, and science is something that absolutely requires evidence.

 

The scientific method was how the computer you are using was built, how your clothes were manufactured, how the paracetamol you take was created and tested, how your food was grown (ironically, most of which is done through evolution through artificial selection)

 

It's fairly insulting to suggest 'me, I'm not so naive' in a post laced with exactly that, and I am not sure what kind of world you want it to be where you rely on things that purely can't be proven

 

Evolution can, and has been proven, and is also provable, so it doesn't belong in that topic of things anyway

[Fighting Weight]

I'll pose the original questions in the start of the thread to you - which elements of evolution do you personally disagree with, and why?

[Greens]

 there is a greater purpose in life for us other than a series of random co-incidences which resulted in the creation of life

 

Why is there a greater purpose for us? This is a very arrogant and ego driven human thought. We are, in the grand scheme and vastness of the universe, absolutely unimportant. 

[Badman]

Matthew, I dont mean to insult you bro. I probably am quite stupid and naive 

 

Think outside the box, you constrain yourself by looking at this from a humans perspective try to think like a God

 

A question

Hypothesis

Prediction

Testing

Analysis

Replication

Peer review

 

 

These are all units of measurement so to speak. Same as how we use a clock to measure the time and use numbers to count. However these are still human interventions and concepts and as such are bound by the same limitations as the way they were conceived...i.e. They only hold truth if everybody abides by it and accepts it. but does this mean its the truth in the greater universe?

 

How can you say that for sure? Especially if its not 100% viable (notice how I didnt say 100% true as that contradicts the point I am trying to make)

 

viable being to the point that nothing can discredit it. Only then can one say it is what it is and it can never be another way. (even then its debatable as there could be philosophical ideas and that takes it to a whole other tangent)

 

For example, we all know that 1 + 1 = 2. But what if its not? what if 1 + 1 = 3 and we as humans just haven't realised it yet because we haven't yet found that other better way to explain things. Chances are we probably will change our thinking on a whole load of things in future to what we think now. Historically this always happens, the same way we once thought the earth was flat (for example) we just dont have the pleasure of hindsight to see how stupid some of our theories are until we disprove them in the future  

 

In science the methods they use is undoubtedly very thorough, rigorous and self-correcting (as you say) I cant deny that. The very principal of what science is demands this. However this still doesn't prove that science is fact. It still faces the same limitations as what I mentioned above which is its still a HUMAN driven process its 100% man made

 

In the greater scheme of things humans are very fickle and naive. They rely a lot on the notion that seeing is believing and proof is fact. Its all to do with the insecurities of human nature itself. the fact that we demand to know everything and the arrogance to think we are smart enough to explain life when we cant even cure the common cold!

 

Me personally I just accept that I will probably never know the truth and just try to live a humble life.

 

As Socrates once said "I know that I know nothing"

[Badman]

 there is a greater purpose in life for us other than a series of random co-incidences which resulted in the creation of life

 

Why is there a greater purpose for us? This is a very arrogant and ego driven human thought. We are, in the grand scheme and vastness of the universe, absolutely unimportant. 

 

Desperate though more like, 

 

I would much prefer to be alive because there's a greater meaning rather than being an accident 

 

Wouldn't say arrogant or egotistical because even if its just to be alive to serve a simple function you could still be a very humble person i.e. do good and help others etc

 

besides, having a purpose is far more interesting wouldn't you agree?  

[Greens]

We might all prefer to be here for a greater meaning or purpose but preference doesn't account for anything, none of us are here through choice. 

 

I don't mean arrogant in a personal sense but rather as a whole. We place great importance on ourselves when really it is all trivial, we mean no more to the universe than any other species. All you can do is enjoy your life for what it is and try to make the most of it. But anyway this is another topic.

[Fearless-Guy]

can you explain why humans began to draw on caves, use language, logic  etc without prompt. I can understand why a giraffe would have a long neck, but the creativity prevalent in humans i cannot explain with evolution

 

I would say that this is not at all a question that concerns evolution (or one that needs to concern evolution) similar to the theory of abiogenisis

 

Though I think that abilities and traits that are characterised by higher brain function (i.e. creativity, reason, memory) can be attributed to the evolution of the brain, seeing as none of the less advanced forms of life are capable of such feats

 

Was it not you who put anthropology in the opening post? Language and art are some of the universal facets of human culture, therefore are they not relevant to human evolution?

 

So you admit these characteristics are unique to humans, but could you honestly say the cause was natural evolution. To me, they have nothing to do with natural selection, or the survival instinct? Which would lead me to think there was some outside intervention.

What species of human did these abilities develop within?

[Fighting Weight]

Matthew, I dont mean to insult you bro. I probably am quite stupid and naive 

 

Think outside the box, you constrain yourself by looking at this from a humans perspective try to think like a God

 

These are all units of measurement so to speak. Same as how we use a clock to measure the time and use numbers to count. However these are still human interventions and concepts and as such are bound by the same limitations as the way they were conceived...i.e. They only hold truth if everybody abides by it and accepts it. but does this mean its the truth in the greater universe?

 

How can you say that for sure? Especially if its not 100% viable (notice how I didnt say 100% true as that contradicts the point I am trying to make)

 

viable being to the point that nothing can discredit it. Only then can one say it is what it is and it can never be another way. (even then its debatable as there could be philosophical ideas and that takes it to a whole other tangent)

 

For example, we all know that 1 + 1 = 2. But what if its not? what if 1 + 1 = 3 and we as humans just haven't realised it yet because we haven't yet found that other better way to explain things. Chances are we probably will change our thinking on a whole load of things in future to what we think now. Historically this always happens, the same way we once thought the earth was flat (for example) we just dont have the pleasure of hindsight to see how stupid some of our theories are until we disprove them in the future  

 

In science the methods they use is undoubtedly very thorough, rigorous and self-correcting (as you say) I cant deny that. The very principal of what science is demands this. However this still doesn't prove that science is fact. It still faces the same limitations as what I mentioned above which is its still a HUMAN driven process its 100% man made

 

In the greater scheme of things humans are very fickle and naive. They rely a lot on the notion that seeing is believing and proof is fact. Its all to do with the insecurities of human nature itself. the fact that we demand to know everything and the arrogance to think we are smart enough to explain life when we cant even cure the common cold!

 

Me personally I just accept that I will probably never know the truth and just try to live a humble life.

 

As Socrates once said "I know that I know nothing"

 

Lol none taken

 

I think it's funny you mention the common cold, as it may seem like one distinct infection every single time you get one, but the very reason the 'common cold' hasn't been cured, is because the organic virus mutates and evolves and adapts, so is resistant to many of the drugs that are used in the attempt to eradicate it, many other viruses and bacterial strains are the same.

 

I think relativity can apply more in a situation of 1+1, because 1 in terms of relativity is not quantifiable.

 

However, this isn't so with demonstrable, replicable results, like the ones that are used to determine evolution, germ theory etc

 

Humans ARE very naive by nature but humans are also very inquisitive, and during our progress as humanity we have come up with THOUSANDS of ways to explain the earth around us, why we live, we there are storms, why we die, why there are other animals, and in our intellectual infancy (which we are still in really), this void was filled with a myriad of things, namely superstition and religions of various kinds, which were our first attempt at explaining the world around us,

 

Our understanding, while absolutely nowhere near complete, has grown overtime, the manner in which we study things has changed, logic and rationale have for the most part, replaced superstition, proof itself is required instead of faith or hearsay, or arguments from emotion / bias

 

Nobody will ever know everything, but the most we CAN do is make sense of the things that we CAN observe and DO know, and I say know in as much as we CAN know anything.

 

Science in itself is a man-made observation yes, but the things it observes are (largely) NOT, and it is the absolute most perfect way we have of examining ANYTHING, from bacteria to volcanoes, there is not a single proven better way of analysing known facts, and anybody (here or otherwise) is welcome to try

 

Einstein himself put it very well when he said that it is much much more important for children to learn the process of critical thinking, rather than to memorise specialised facts

[Fighting Weight]

 

can you explain why humans began to draw on caves, use language, logic  etc without prompt. I can understand why a giraffe would have a long neck, but the creativity prevalent in humans i cannot explain with evolution

 

I would say that this is not at all a question that concerns evolution (or one that needs to concern evolution) similar to the theory of abiogenisis

 

Though I think that abilities and traits that are characterised by higher brain function (i.e. creativity, reason, memory) can be attributed to the evolution of the brain, seeing as none of the less advanced forms of life are capable of such feats

 

Was it not you who put anthropology in the opening post? Language and art are some of the universal facets of human culture, therefore are they not relevant to human evolution?

 

So you admit these characteristics are unique to humans, but could you honestly say the cause was natural evolution. To me, they have nothing to do with natural selection, or the survival instinct? Which would lead me to think there was some outside intervention.

What species of human did these abilities develop within?

 

There are not relevant from the prospective that evolution and common descent do not need to delve into the subjects (nor do they with Love, or God or anything else) to be absolutely verifiable, and I would class it as another topic entirely

 

It's also a rather large one in some sections of the scientific community,

 

Creativity itself is demonstrably possessed by only the higher-brain-function-possesing mammals, this includes

 

Apes ( some of which have been proven to use a simplified version of the ASLFD - american sign language for the deaf alphabet

Whales

Porposes

 

Yes, I think looking at the problem solving abilities, intelligence, and relative creativity of the more advanced animals, that things such as creativity are BYPRODUCT of an evolved brain

 

I also think the problem posed by positing a potential intervention at some point in our history, throws open a very large door that would need a great deal of testable hypothesis, none of which look like being possible now, or ever

 

It's not enough to merely assert that there had to be an intervention, because then who intervened? And by what means did they possess the ability to do this? etc etc etc

 

But then I'd say that's an entirely separate issue from evolution & common descent, and could spiral into pages and pages of posts in itself..

[Fighting Weight]

We might all prefer to be here for a greater meaning or purpose but preference doesn't account for anything, none of us are here through choice. 

 

I don't mean arrogant in a personal sense but rather as a whole. We place great importance on ourselves when really it is all trivial, we mean no more to the universe than any other species. All you can do is enjoy your life for what it is and try to make the most of it. But anyway this is another topic.

 

This, I mean, an individuals preference (i.e. emotional connection) as to what they would like the meaning of their life to be or not to be, shouldn't be confused with observable phenomena that indicate to us facts about the world we live in

 

So where did the ape come from ?

 

 Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis, have a look at the vid when you have time. 

[Fearless-Guy]

 

 

can you explain why humans began to draw on caves, use language, logic  etc without prompt. I can understand why a giraffe would have a long neck, but the creativity prevalent in humans i cannot explain with evolution

 

I would say that this is not at all a question that concerns evolution (or one that needs to concern evolution) similar to the theory of abiogenisis

 

Though I think that abilities and traits that are characterised by higher brain function (i.e. creativity, reason, memory) can be attributed to the evolution of the brain, seeing as none of the less advanced forms of life are capable of such feats

 

Was it not you who put anthropology in the opening post? Language and art are some of the universal facets of human culture, therefore are they not relevant to human evolution?

 

So you admit these characteristics are unique to humans, but could you honestly say the cause was natural evolution. To me, they have nothing to do with natural selection, or the survival instinct? Which would lead me to think there was some outside intervention.

What species of human did these abilities develop within?

 

There are not relevant from the prospective that evolution and common descent do not need to delve into the subjects (nor do they with Love, or God or anything else) to be absolutely verifiable, and I would class it as another topic entirely

 

It's also a rather large one in some sections of the scientific community,

 

Creativity itself is demonstrably possessed by only the higher-brain-function-possesing mammals, this includes

 

Apes ( some of which have been proven to use a simplified version of the ASLFD - american sign language for the deaf alphabet

Whales

Porposes

 

Yes, I think looking at the problem solving abilities, intelligence, and relative creativity of the more advanced animals, that things such as creativity are BYPRODUCT of an evolved brain

 

I also think the problem posed by positing a potential intervention at some point in our history, throws open a very large door that would need a great deal of testable hypothesis, none of which look like being possible now, or ever

 

It's not enough to merely assert that there had to be an intervention, because then who intervened? And by what means did they possess the ability to do this? etc etc etc

 

But then I'd say that's an entirely separate issue from evolution & common descent, and could spiral into pages and pages of posts in itself..

 

Hang on, I think we are arguing slightly different things. I am not saying that the prevalence of these phenomena (love, belief in god, language, art) negate the theory of evolution. As I said in my first post, I believe in evolution and intellectual design (creator,divine intervention, - whatever you wanna call it).  Saying evolution does not need to delve into human characteristics tho seems wildly contradictory

I think the emergence of these bevaiours, can't be explained by science, as they have nothing to do with survival or natural selection.

If you are talking about the cases of Washoe and Koko etc, these were animals that were taught rudimentary sign language under captivity. If you were to look at these apes in the wild their communication would be quite primitive and not creative - mainly for survival. I share the opinion of Noam Chomsky that language is a skill unique to humans

You say human creativity has come about through natural evolution of the brain, but is there any evidence which explains why this might have taken place, or when, or in particular which species of homosapiens this developed through?

I will leave the creator debate, although i've alluded to it here, as I think there is a wide gap in the evolution theory which doesn't explain some human phenomena.

It would be great if science could test the existence of intervention at some point, as that is obviously what so many people, atheists included care so much about.

[Benicio del Toney]

can you explain why humans began to draw on caves, use language, logic  etc without prompt. I can understand why a giraffe would have a long neck, but the creativity prevalent in humans i cannot explain with evolution

 

The very fact that written records only go back to 4000bc points to evolution imo.

 

All animals have a need to communicate, the difference with us is we developed the anatomy to communicate on a more complex level.

 

 

I think you said it has nothing to do with survival or natural selection, why not?

 

 

 

The world for early man was a far more dangerous place than it is now, without language, writing, the ability to manipulate tools, man could not have been as successful as it is today.

 

Without advanced communication we would have died out like our ancestors or be critically endangered like the Mountain Gorilla is today.

 

We are the only species of Great Ape which are not threatened with extinction.

[Da Luv Doc]

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

[Sole]

Some shit engineer

[dom dom bullets]

Cipher whats your background?

[Da Luv Doc]

Some sh*t engineer

A sick engineer you mean.

[Mizchif]

Can I interject that there have been several ELE's (extinction level events) that have thinned out the biodiversity and that all of the millions of different species of Flora/Faunae only make up roughly 1% of all species of plants and animals that have ever existed.

It's not even a significantly difficult concept to grasp, apes and humans and dogs and birds and giraffes and whales and cows and velociraptors and pigs and sheep and humans and etc all come from Fish who developed limbs and crawled out of the ocean, where all life began and is a massive factor for us being around today. Some species evolve differently and quicker and more significantly based on various survival factors which will change dramatically over millions of years, but essentially we adapt to survive. Although Humans evolved beyond that of the ape the reasons apes still exist is the ape we know today come from the same lineage as us but at one point our species split and developed "further" if that's what you want to call it, but I call it differently.

That's why you have apes in so many different shapes and sizes. And evolution doesn't mean that they'll end up exactly like us or even in anyway like us they may need to develop gills and be swimming or flying monkeys in the future, there are unique factors that determine the evolution of any given species and our own are unlikely to be replicated, which is another reason why I believe in extraterrestrial life but not necessarily intelligent life. Sharks haven't needed to evolve much in hundreds of millions of years because they suffer few threats and thus the diversity in their species is limited. And why we have sharks in pretty much the form today.

What you and I classify as an important factor for an evolved species is not what nature classifies as such, as soon as you can grasp the significance of that statement and understand life is genuinely amazing, diverse, important and special on all levels you'll start to understand the concept.

Just to upset a few more people, yes we share the same lineage as skunk plants, batty germs and the aids virus.