Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: It's evolution, baby!

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    thinBasic MVPs danbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,378
    Blog Entries
    29
    Rep Power
    145

    It's evolution, baby!

    [font=courier new][size=8pt]I read a quote in a book. According to it, physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler estimated that global human civilization could not last more than 41,000
    years. (John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", New York, Oxford University Press, 1986, pages 556-570).

    I did a Yahoo search on, "Barrow Tipler 41000 years". The article below was the first link.

    If you look at the article, apparently, many great scientists think that evolution does not adequately explain what we observe.

    The article mostly consists of quotes by famous scientists.

    If you are interested in learning why these scientists are not evolution "cultists", then, you might want to look at the article.

    (Would, EVOLUTION = FALSE, be equivalent to, GOD = TRUE? I don't think anyone can prove it.)


    Dan

    http://english.sdaglobal.org/researc...m#_Toc68181284
    "You can't cheat an honest man. Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump." - W.C.Fields

  2. #2

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    These quotes go back a long way. We have far more information at our fingertips now than any of these veteran scientists had in their lifetimes.

    The sequencing of the human genome has reveal some fascinating details of the course of evolution. Apparently about 90% of the human genome does not appear to do anything, and only about 1.5% encodes for proteins (about 20,000 genes are encoded from this tiny percentage). The remaining DNA is thought to be the result of accumulated replication errors and possibly the remnants of harmless viruses. The puffer fish has 1/8 the amount of 'junk' DNA as humans but most of the same protein-encoding and regulatory genes.

    You can fit the entire human genome onto a CD - but only 75 Megs of this appears to be useful. That makes it a lot smaller then MS Windows or Linux

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

    Charles

  3. #3
    thinBasic MVPs kryton9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Naples, Florida & Duluth, Georgia
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,869
    Rep Power
    397

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    I guess perhaps one day we can use our unused genes as our own onboard personal data storage area
    Acer Notebook: Win 10 Home 64 Bit, Core i7-4702MQ @ 2.2Ghz, 12 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 760M and Intel HD 4600
    Raspberry Pi 3: Raspbian OS use for Home Samba Server and Test HTTP Server

  4. #4
    thinBasic MVPs danbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,378
    Blog Entries
    29
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    [font=courier new][size=8pt]Quote from article:

    "But what kind of mutations could bring about the major changes I have described? Could cause a tube to roll up into a helix? Could cause other tubes to form semi-circular canals accurately set at right angles to each other. Could grade sensory hairs according to length? Could cause the convenient deposit of a crystal in the one place it will register gravity? ...It just doesn't make sense."

    Gordon Rattray Taylor,
    Former Chief Science Adviser, BBC Television. Commenting about the ear in, "The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: London, 1983, p106
    "You can't cheat an honest man. Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump." - W.C.Fields

  5. #5
    Member JosephE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Age
    24
    Posts
    85
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    That's interesting. That only makes me more convinced not to believe in evolution...

  6. #6

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    This is probably best answered by Richard Dawkins.

    Climbing Mount Improbable

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable

    Lecture for children at the Royal Institution 1991


  7. #7
    thinBasic MVPs danbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,378
    Blog Entries
    29
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    [font=courier new][size=8pt]I don't have any of Dawkins' books. He could be correct. Mindless probability and evolution may be responsible for all life. But, I hope he is wrong. I much
    prefer, if we are here for something, rather than nothing. I will say that, apparently, Dawkins is the new Newton. Seemingly, he knows just about everything.
    Maybe, only future generations will recognize the true magnitude of his intellect. Anyway, I will try to raise some questions, by listing more quotes from the
    article. (But, I don't think we are going to come to a consensus.)


    Dan


    "People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over
    long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer illusion, for there is no
    scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done,
    and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria
    remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings."


    Darrel Kautz, The Origin of Living Things, p. 6

    "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for the evolutionists the most
    notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.
    The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record. Darwin was concerned enough about this problem to devote a chapter of the ‘Origin’ to it. He
    accounts for the ‘imperfections of the geological record’ largely on the basis of the lack of continuous deposition of sediments and by erosion. Darwin also
    holds out the hope that some of the gaps would be filled as the result of subsequent collecting. But most of the gaps were still there a century later and some
    paleontologists were no longer willing to explain them away geologically."


    David B. Kitts, Evolution (Sept, 1974), p. 458.

    "Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in
    itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great
    as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its
    chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 4^1000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4^1000 = 10^600. Ten multiplied
    by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."


    Frank Salisbury, Evolutionary biologist

    "To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information,
    equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms
    controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a
    purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes
    precedence!"


    Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

    "In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community
    itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. In the final
    analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the
    process. After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and
    unsupported conclusions it offers.... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to
    our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept
    advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology,
    fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."


    I. L. Cohen, Mathematician, Researcher, Author, Member New York Academy of Sciences. Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America

    "Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular
    moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking
    some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that
    contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very
    hard."


    Prof. Evelleen Richards, Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

    "But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth
    is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case?
    Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability
    of Nature the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want
    to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative
    atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents
    they so despise."


    A. Scott, 'The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien', Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.111-112

    "Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either–despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing
    themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing–no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was
    a quantum fluctuation from which...'Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to
    bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are off and away and before you know it, they have pulled a
    hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."


    Dr. D. Darling, "On creating something from nothing," New Scientist, Vol 151, No. 2047, 14 September 1996, p.49

    "Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is
    that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists
    are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of
    religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that
    Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon
    evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but
    we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


    Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A
    Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2
    "You can't cheat an honest man. Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump." - W.C.Fields

  8. #8

    Re: It's evolution, baby!


    In the classical theory evolution comes about by minute changes to the genome which may be beneficial, neutral or deleterious to an organisms ability to reproduce. It is algorithmically very simple, involving trillions of little 'experiments' over millions of years. We can see evolution at work in pathogenic bacteria and viruses which quickly adapt and resist our drug treatments and immune systems.

    Large chunks of gene bearing DNA may also be transposed from one organism to another. This is often seen with bacteria and viruses, and is an additional mechanism at work in evolution.( This phenomenon is exploited in genetic engineering.)

    The evidence for evolution is truly vast and though intermediate fossil forms of organism types are not so abundant they are widespread. For instance there have been recent discoveries of feathered dinosaurs with claws suitable for climbing trees. And what about the marsupials of Australia which depart from the typical mammalian or reptilian forms - for instance the egg laying Duck Billed Platypus.

    Now that we can sequence entire genomes, a huge amount of detail emerges - The Neanderthal genome - from bone tissue around 40000 years old - was sequenced very recently, enabling close comparison with H. Sapiens and trace of cross-breeding even shows up in modern humans.

    But the "why are we here" question is not really addressed by evolutionary theory, though we could say that we are part of the reflective nature of the universe.

    Charles







  9. #9
    Member JosephE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Age
    24
    Posts
    85
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    If that were so, it makes me wonder why humans are so unique. We can tell we are not animals. It is difficult to live in the wild with no clothes, without thick fur (very vulnerable!), fingernails hardly double as claws, etc. We have to rely on intellect and working together to create shelters, food, clothing, and other necessities of life.

    We're also the only thing that can speak. We have advanced civilizations, and we dominate over most all other creatures, and eat whatever animals we want.

    I would think there would be more animals with civilizations and linguistic coexisting with us if evolution were true.

    We are definitely much weaker compared to many animals, so why have we survived? We didn't adapt physically, we just used our brain. That's cheating evolution .

  10. #10

    Re: It's evolution, baby!

    Quote Originally Posted by JosephE
    If that were so, it makes me wonder why humans are so unique. We can tell we are not animals. It is difficult to live in the wild with no clothes, without thick fur (very vulnerable!), fingernails hardly double as claws, etc. We have to rely on intellect and working together to create shelters, food, clothing, and other necessities of life.
    In The Voyage of the Beagle Darwin reported on a people (Yaghan) living in Tierra del Fuego (an extremely cold place) who wore no clothes at all.


    We're also the only thing that can speak. We have advanced civilizations, and we dominate over most all other creatures, and eat whatever animals we want.
    Absolutely true, I think. But we still don't really understand how language works (how it is represented in the brain, how it comes to mean, etc) so we can't really answer the question of how close or how far other animals are from us in terms of language. But we do share most of our genes with Chimpanzees...

    I would think there would be more animals with civilizations and linguistic coexisting with us if evolution were true.
    Neanderthals may well have been able to speak. Other human like species (Homo Florensis, for example) have also been found that may have been able to speak.

    There is some reason to think that intelligence is costly in evolutionary terms. Intelligent animals (humans, crows, etc) tend to be omnivores that live in multiple environments, and also tend to be social living creatures. But studying these species and others show again and again that evolution tends to select against high intelligence. Brains consume more energy than any other organ in your body. They need a constant supply of oxygen. Cut off circulation to your leg and it will survive for several hours. Cut off circulation to your brain for four minutes and you are dead. Speech is also costly. One reason Chimpanzees can't speak is that they have a different throat structure to us (see the book on this topic by Philip Lieberman). The human throat allows us to make all sorts of sounds but also allows the possibility of choking to death. So if a species finds an environmental niche where it can specialise then evolution will work to reduce brain size and overall intelligence. Only omnivores, social living creatures and creatures that need to adapt to constantly changing environments need large brains.

    If you look at the destructiveness of human beings - and now nuclear weapons and environmental problems, etc - then it is clear that natures experiment with highly intelligent humans may not work out after all. And that would simply confirm the conjecture that intelligence may not be good for evolutionary success in the long term. Humans haven't been around very long, after all.

    We are definitely much weaker compared to many animals, so why have we survived? We didn't adapt physically, we just used our brain. That's cheating evolution .
    One study of muscle fibers puts Chimpanzees as about four times stronger than humans. But when examined by a physiologist the only difference that could be found in the sets of human and Chimp muscles was the number of nerve fibers connected to the muscles. There were three to four times as many in humans as in Chimps. Conclusion: Humans may have traded strength for fine muscle control.

    There is evidence of human adaptation - physical human adaptation. For example in two separate places some humans have learned changed to be able to drink milk. Both Tibetans and Andean Indians show changes in physiology (and genes) to enable them to live at high altitudes. Sickle cell anaemia arises from a recent adaptation to resist Malaria. And so on.

    The use of intelligence to enhance survival is not cheating. Birds build nests, beavers build dams, crows and chimps learn to use tools, etc. Humans, more than anything else, rely on their group for survival. Dawkins calls these kinds of adptations the "extended phenotype.

    Lance

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •