• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

My attempt at an Evolution thread! OhgodwhatamIdoing.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jiien

Member
JesseZao said:
Sounds good. Not sure what you personally would consider evidence that God did it anyway, so evolution must be true!

Well, that is the inherent issue between religion/God/Creation and Evolution. Science demands that we, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, make no assumptions, or as few as possible, and build idea, theory, and fact out of only what can be proven, with factual backing.

Religion, by nature, hinges on personal faith, the "belief and assurance of things not seen or have yet to come". The fact that religion is largely faith-based is not ascribed by those not religious; religions largely claim that one requires faith to be truly religious. And faith/belief, as a concept/action flies in the face of science.

So while our current theory of Evolution may be far from perfect, the "theory" that some unseen, supernatural force did it will never be scientifically proven, and therefore scientifically accurate/right, unless God comes along himself and tells us otherwise.

And unfortunately, as "imperfect humans", we will continue guessing with whatever knowledge we have. It's the gift and curse of intelligence and free will.
 

JesseZao

Member
jiien said:
Well, that is the inherent issue between religion/God/Creation and Evolution. Science demands that we, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, make no assumptions, or as few as possible, and build idea, theory, and fact out of only what can be proven, with factual backing.

Religion, by nature, hinges on personal faith, the "belief and assurance of things not seen or have yet to come". The fact that religion is largely faith-based is not ascribed by those not religious; religions largely claim that one requires faith to be truly religious. And faith/belief, as a concept/action flies in the face of science.

So while our current theory of Evolution may be far from perfect, the "theory" that some unseen, supernatural force did it will never be scientifically proven, and therefore scientifically accurate/right, unless God comes along himself and tells us otherwise.

And unfortunately, as "imperfect humans", we will continue guessing with whatever knowledge we have. It's the gift and curse of intelligence and free will.

Yeppers.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
JesseZao said:
Sounds good. Not sure what you personally would consider evidence that God did it anyway, so evolution must be true!


How come scienctific method has created great leaps in our understanding of physics, energy, medicine, transport, nutrition, cosmology and biology, but 10,000 years of religion hasn't improved our understanding of supernatural deities (and there are THOUSANDS of them)one iota, beyond, "god(s) did it, because."
 

sullytao

Member
Awesome OT and well explained. I've been reading into the subject in the last few months and I absolutely love finding out these things. The whale cycle is still the biggest wow factor for me. I remember seeing it first on a documentary a few weeks ago and I sadly missed half of it so when they recapped at the end and showed a cgi of the land mammel if almost choked lol.

EmCeeGramr said:
i hope that as soon as we finally "reverse engineer" an undeniably dinosaurian morphology in a modern avian, that they present it to kirk cameron and a crowd of creationist onlookers
Present it? I hope they set it loose on them :lol
 

JGS

Banned
danwarb said:
It's the default because there's life where there was none, life on Earth started very simple, and the components for life were already present.
That is an answer without the equation imo. Since we can't comprehend any other option or scenario, this is the one.

I get that if the definition of abiogenesis is simply starting from nothing which means there can be control in the process as proven by the lab experiments.

However, the hypothesis doesn't say that in regards to the start of life on earth. It attempts to explain the process. Unfortunately, the process is completely unverifiable.

You can't say that life came from lifeless matter because that's how it has to be. That's circular logic. It's practically
magical
.
 

JesseZao

Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
How come scienctific method has created great leaps in our understanding of physics, energy, medicine, transport, nutrition, cosmology and biology, but 10,000 years of religion hasn't improved our understanding of supernatural deities (and there are THOUSANDS of them)one iota, beyond, "god(s) did it, because."

Not sure if that's a serious question or not, but I think you know the answer to that. The scientific method is great for understanding the world we live in, that's what its purpose is. The purpose of religion isn't to explain string theory. If a "religion" is to be true, it has to be the absolute truth. There is no, any religion is fine, whatever you believe is fine. Those people might as well be atheists, it doesn't make sense to me. People that want more information about God are those that believe in God and read the text he has given them. Why would somebody that doesn't believe in God seek information about God? That's ludicrous; it's not going to happen.
 
JesseZao said:
Not sure if that's a serious question or not, but I think you know the answer to that. The scientific method is great for understanding the world we live in, that's what its purpose is. The purpose of religion isn't to explain string theory. If a "religion" is to be true, it has to be the absolute truth. There is no, any religion is fine, whatever you believe is fine. Those people might as well be atheists, it doesn't make sense to me. People that want more information about God are those that believe in God and read the text he has given them. Why would somebody that doesn't believe in God seek information about God? That's ludicrous; it's not going to happen.


You do realize that a lot of people who are atheist didn't start that way right? In the US, the majority of people who don't believe in gods started off as devout (typically Christian) and went off on honest quests to know more about God. They looked behind Oz's curtain to be closer to their beliefs and the act of learning about the lack of evidence lead them towards nonbelief. Others started learning about the historicity and origins of their religion and that lead to nonbelief.

The original scientific pioneers did not do science to understand string theory. They were religious people seeking to learn more about God's Creation, only to discover no god was necessary to create any of it.

You also seem to be expressing a No True Scotsman fallacy when you say: "There is no, any religion is fine, whatever you believe is fine. Those people might as well be atheists, it doesn't make sense to me."
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
JesseZao said:
Not sure if that's a serious question or not, but I think you know the answer to that. The scientific method is great for understanding the world we live in, that's what its purpose is. The purpose of religion isn't to explain string theory. If a "religion" is to be true, it has to be the absolute truth. There is no, any religion is fine, whatever you believe is fine. Those people might as well be atheists, it doesn't make sense to me. People that want more information about God are those that believe in God and read the text he has given them. Why would somebody that doesn't believe in God seek information about God? That's ludicrous; it's not going to happen.


Atheism is more likely to emerge from knowledge than be the default state for a lack of knowledge. And demonstrably contrary to your point, most religions are formed first out of ignorance in an attempt to explain the universe in irrational terms. Science attempts to explain the universe in rational terms, with more useful and practical results.
 

JesseZao

Member
DragonGirl said:
You also seem to be expressing a No True Scotsman fallacy when you say: "There is no, any religion is fine, whatever you believe is fine. Those people might as well be atheists, it doesn't make sense to me."

So you have one religion that says you must do X to reach heaven/enlightenment and another that says you must do Y to reach heaven/enlightenment. How can they both be true? Either they are both false or only one can be true. Don't see how that statement contains a fallacy.

OuterWorldVoice said:
Atheism is more likely to emerge from knowledge than be the default state for a lack of knowledge. And demonstrably contrary to your point, most religions are formed first out of ignorance in an attempt to explain the universe in irrational terms. Science attempts to explain the universe in rational terms, with more useful and practical results.

Of course God is irrational. How in the world would we rationalize something that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present? That is nothing like us! The only way God would be something we'd know about is if he chose to reveal himself to us.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
JesseZao said:
I was just curious, because evolution relies on the "large amounts of time" did it, similar to how creationists depend on "God did it." Take either one out and the conclusions crumble. Next time I'm at the library I'll see if they have that one.

Except that we have mountains of evidence that support the idea that there were large amounts of time (and that evolution occurred over this time), whereas there's no evidence at all that there is a god.

We have molecular evidence (C14 and other isotopes), geological evidence (tectonic plates shifting, process of planet formation, etc.), cosmological evidence (how old the universe is, how far away the stars we see are, etc.).

No doubt about "microevolution" I've worked with single-cell organisms in classes and a lab I worked in. It happens. I haven't observed a species shift, though. All my work in labs was screening for mutants/phenotypes and then finding the defective gene. It's the unobservable macroevolution that will never be "proven."

Except that we have mountains of evidence for "macroevolution" (a term, by the way, created by creationists in an effort to mislead people into thinking that there's a difference). Fossil records, genetic evidence (geneticists can point to our DNA and show exactly where we started to diverge from the apes that became chimpanzees, etc.), etc.

We only can't "prove" "macroevolution" in the same sense that we can't "prove" murder. You can't run an experiment to show that someone murdered someone else, but you can see that they left behind DNA and fingerprints, that the bullet matches their gun, etc.

Similarly, we can't "prove" history. Maybe the United States didn't start out as colonies of England. I've never seen an experiment that supports that "theory."

I think it would be better to just say I/we don't know. It just sounds like fishing for a way to say of course God didn't do it, it was X.

If scientists didn't know, they wouldn't call it a theory. It's why there isn't a theory of abiogenesis, for instance.

Science is perfectly happy to say it doesn't know the answer. It's one of science's strengths. But evolution is something where, again, there are mountains of evidence to support the conclusions.

I don't think either viewpoint will ever be satisfied in our species lifetime in this universe as there are just too many impossible to prove unknowns. I like to try and see what every side says about different issues, as I'm a hard skeptic and don't accept things immediately at face value.

How skeptical are you, really? Do you believe in genetics, even though you may not have seen genes yourself?

Do you accept quantum mechanics, even though you've probably never run a double-slit experiment in which one photon was fired at a time?

Do you accept relativity, even though you've probably never seen its effects firsthand?

Do you believe that the Roman Empire existed, even though we only have ruins and artifacts from that time?

Or do you just disbelieve in evolution, because creationists have managed to muddy the waters enough (with dichotomies like "microevolution" and "macroevolution") to convince you that evolution is somehow uncertain?

Read the book. There's plenty of evidence for evolution.
 

JesseZao

Member
@Ri'Orius: You keep saying "mountains of evidence," so I'll have to compare what I call mountains of evidence once I get a chance to read that book that contains the mountains.

Of course I accept genetics/DNA/Roman History just like I accept fossils for what they are. Those are physical objects that can be observed and studied. Whether it be through a microscope or reading historical texts (you accept those right?). Evolution is a process which is said to take millions upon millions of years. It is not something which can be observed, it is an extremely subtle and long drawn-out process.

Maybe if we can invent some cyrogenic preservation that will let our minds survive for another 100million years, we can see who's right or we can ask the aliens who have been watching us since the beginning of earth when we find them.

I know from your viewpoint, nothing I could say would ever make sense, but there are just too many unknowns/questions/holes that I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
JesseZao said:
@Ri'Orius: You keep saying "mountains of evidence," so I'll have to compare what I call mountains of evidence once I get a chance to read that book that contains the mountains.

Of course I accept genetics/DNA/Roman History just like I accept fossils for what they are. Those are physical objects that can be observed and studied. Whether it be through a microscope or reading historical texts (you accept those right?). Evolution is a process which is said to take millions upon millions of years. It is not something which can be observed, it is an extremely subtle and long drawn-out process.

Maybe if we can invent some cyrogenic preservation that will let our minds survive for another 100million years, we can see who's right or we can ask the aliens who have been watching us since the beginning of earth when we find them.

I know from your viewpoint, nothing I could say would ever make sense, but there are just too many unknowns/questions/holes that I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.

You seem very insistent with this whole "We'll never know unless some form of time travel is brought about" idea - when it's really not even sort of necessary. No more necessary than needing time travel to know that Bob murdered Suzie, that's what we have CSI for.

Are you one of those skeptics 'just because'? You don't seem to have any sort of religious leanings, so I can't quite understand why you actually don't seem to want to understand the weight of the evidence.

Can you like... point out some unknowns/questions/holes for me?

For example, would you say that the Whales ancestor -> current whale is 'Macroevolution'?
Would you say that observed speciation through 'ring species' like that Salamander counts as macroevolution?

Actually could you just describe macro evolution to me? Is it speciation or is it something else? I mean you do realize it's a made up non-scientific term right? It's a little silly that you are so skeptical of Evolution theory, but you will gladly throw around a term that is an absolute misnomer.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
JesseZao said:
Of course I accept genetics/DNA/Roman History just like I accept fossils for what they are. Those are physical objects that can be observed and studied. Whether it be through a microscope or reading historical texts (you accept those right?). Evolution is a process which is said to take millions upon millions of years. It is not something which can be observed, it is an extremely subtle and long drawn-out process.

So archeological artifacts are good enough to prove Roman history, but not evolution? Thousand-year-old writings in a language few people speak any more proves Roman history, but our genes, which clearly show common descent (two different videos there about the genetic evidence), is just evidence for "microevolution"?

... I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.

Wrong. You drank the "evolution is flimsy" kool-aid. The stuff offered by creationists and politicians.
 

JesseZao

Member
Kinitari said:
You seem very insistent with this whole "We'll never know unless some form of time travel is brought about" idea - when it's really not even sort of necessary. No more necessary than needing time travel to know that Bob murdered Suzie, that's what we have CSI for.

Are you one of those skeptics 'just because'? You don't seem to have any sort of religious leanings, so I can't quite understand why you actually don't seem to want to understand the weight of the evidence.

Can you like... point out some unknowns/questions/holes for me?

For example, would you say that the Whales ancestor -> current whale is 'Macroevolution'?
Would you say that observed speciation through 'ring species' like that Salamander counts as macroevolution?

Actually could you just describe macro evolution to me? Is it speciation or is it something else? I mean you do realize it's a made up non-scientific term right? It's a little silly that you are so skeptical of Evolution theory, but you will gladly throw around a term that is an absolute misnomer.

By microevolution I just meant mutations and phenotype changes within a species. Macroevolution is just Darwin Evolution. If evolution is real: why is there only one species of humans? Why haven't we discovered other life in the universe? Why is it surprising that carbon-based lifeforms have similar mechanisms for metabolising energy? Why is the only conclusion that we must have descended from a single-celled organism? Where did matter come from? How do we know for sure certain fossils couldn't "mate" with each other? How many examples of each species fossils have we found?

There are other tangents, but just as I haven't read that book, I haven't studied what the answers usually given for these would be: How do you define/identify different eras? How do we know what the atmosphere/climate was like/composed of? What wiped out all of the dinosaurs? What created fossil fuels? If the Earth has had Ice Ages, why are we worried about the [edit:hilarious error] ozone layer or global warming? If we came from some infinitely improbable explosion, when did "time" start? Why did it take an eternity for this explosion to take place? How many times has it happened? Where is the dark matter?


I think my main beef is that it would be much more profitable to press on in scientific matters that can benefit us now (a broad idealization sure, but if research was with purpose to better our lives instead of just curiousity, that's what I want). Humans will never figure out the origins of life or fully understand the complexities of life and our universe, so why waste time acting like we can. What if we could? Would you say that is our purpose in life? Religion/creationism always gets brought up as the only other acceptable view point which makes it look like this debate is just an "Accept God or Reject God and rationalize our world" situation. Why is it so important to accept evolution? How does it benefit humans?
 

Gaborn

Member
JesseZao said:
Sounds good. Not sure what you personally would consider evidence that God did it anyway, so evolution must be true!

There is an inherent problem with inserting God into science. God is essentially the definition of Deus ex machina. God can theoretically do just about anything if She exists. If She wishes She can create a world 6,000 years ago exactly as if it was created 6 billion years ago. Or create us right NOW with full memories of our life spans up to this point. Or... well, anything. And there's no test for it, you can't prove a God did or did not create the world as it is now, or as it was at any point in the past.

That doesn't mean that God does or does not exist, all it means is God is not a question that can or should be addressed by science because there is no test for it, no way to prove God does exist or God does not exist. Therefore, until such a test is developed we have to base any scientific exploration on what we can test for and what our results indicate.
 

ianp622

Member
JesseZao said:
@Ri'Orius: You keep saying "mountains of evidence," so I'll have to compare what I call mountains of evidence once I get a chance to read that book that contains the mountains.

Of course I accept genetics/DNA/Roman History just like I accept fossils for what they are. Those are physical objects that can be observed and studied. Whether it be through a microscope or reading historical texts (you accept those right?). Evolution is a process which is said to take millions upon millions of years. It is not something which can be observed, it is an extremely subtle and long drawn-out process.

Maybe if we can invent some cyrogenic preservation that will let our minds survive for another 100million years, we can see who's right or we can ask the aliens who have been watching us since the beginning of earth when we find them.

I know from your viewpoint, nothing I could say would ever make sense, but there are just too many unknowns/questions/holes that I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.

This is as good as a fossil, if not better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M&feature=related

Not only does it give irrefutable evidence for evolution, it goes through how science works: a theory must make a hypothesis, and that hypothesis must be supported by evidence.

Gaborn said:
There is an inherent problem with inserting God into science. God is essentially the definition of Deus ex machina. God can theoretically do just about anything if She exists. If She wishes She can create a world 6,000 years ago exactly as if it was created 6 billion years ago. Or create us right NOW with full memories of our life spans up to this point. Or... well, anything. And there's no test for it, you can't prove a God did or did not create the world as it is now, or as it was at any point in the past.

That doesn't mean that God does or does not exist, all it means is God is not a question that can or should be addressed by science because there is no test for it, no way to prove God does exist or God does not exist. Therefore, until such a test is developed we have to base any scientific exploration on what we can test for and what our results indicate.

Good one :)
 

genjiZERO

Member
JesseZao said:
. . . but there are just too many unknowns/questions/holes that I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.

A lot of people keep mentioning this... but I don't really get it. Can you give examples of these "holes"? What types of "evidence" would be sufficient for you?

I feel like people want too much from biology and evolution. I feel like they want to see species split into two, or they want it reduced to a mathematical formula. But, at the same time, no one questions the validity of Atomic Theory... and you can't see atoms... And even more boggling no one questions physics, but general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible with each other.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
JesseZao said:
but there are just too many unknowns/questions/holes that I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.

Please name 3 unknowns/questions/holes you think there are in the theory of evolution.
 

KHarvey16

Member
JesseZao said:
@Ri'Orius: You keep saying "mountains of evidence," so I'll have to compare what I call mountains of evidence once I get a chance to read that book that contains the mountains.

Of course I accept genetics/DNA/Roman History just like I accept fossils for what they are. Those are physical objects that can be observed and studied. Whether it be through a microscope or reading historical texts (you accept those right?). Evolution is a process which is said to take millions upon millions of years. It is not something which can be observed, it is an extremely subtle and long drawn-out process.

Maybe if we can invent some cyrogenic preservation that will let our minds survive for another 100million years, we can see who's right or we can ask the aliens who have been watching us since the beginning of earth when we find them.

I know from your viewpoint, nothing I could say would ever make sense, but there are just too many unknowns/questions/holes that I refuse to just drink the kool-aid.

We have observed speciation first hand.
 

Raist

Banned
JesseZao said:
By microevolution I just meant mutations and phenotype changes within a species. Macroevolution is just Darwin Evolution. If evolution is real: why is there only one species of humans? Why haven't we discovered other life in the universe? Why is it surprising that carbon-based lifeforms have similar mechanisms for metabolising energy? Why is the only conclusion that we must have descended from a single-celled organism? Where did matter come from? How do we know for sure certain fossils couldn't "mate" with each other? How many examples of each species fossils have we found?

There are other tangents, but just as I haven't read that book, I haven't studied what the answers usually given for these would be: How do you define/identify different eras? How do we know what the atmosphere/climate was like/composed of? What wiped out all of the dinosaurs? What created fossil fuels? If the Earth has had Ice Ages, why are we worried about the O-Zone layer or global warming? If we came from some infinitely improbable explosion, when did "time" start? Why did it take an eternity for this explosion to take place? How many times has it happened? Where is the dark matter?

Many of these questions have nothing to do with evolution.
As for "why is there just one human species", well, there were different species at some point, and only "ours" survived. Now, unless 2 populations of current humans are completely isolated from each other for thousands of years (a fundamental requirement for speciation) we will never see a different Homo species arise.
 

JesseZao

Member
Gaborn said:
There is an inherent problem with inserting God into science. God is essentially the definition of Deus ex machina. God can theoretically do just about anything if She exists. If She wishes She can create a world 6,000 years ago exactly as if it was created 6 billion years ago. Or create us right NOW with full memories of our life spans up to this point. Or... well, anything. And there's no test for it, you can't prove a God did or did not create the world as it is now, or as it was at any point in the past.

That doesn't mean that God does or does not exist, all it means is God is not a question that can or should be addressed by science because there is no test for it, no way to prove God does exist or God does not exist. Therefore, until such a test is developed we have to base any scientific exploration on what we can test for and what our results indicate.

Exactly. Then why aren't scientists/everyone on the planet agnostics then? Why must they say there is no God? Seems rather unnecessary if everyone thought that way. As I've said, man alone wouldn't be able to know of a God unless God wanted them to know.
 

ianp622

Member
JesseZao said:
Exactly. Then why aren't scientists/everyone on the planet agnostics then? Why must they say there is no God? Seems rather unnecessary if everyone thought that way. As I've said, man alone wouldn't be able to know of a God unless God wanted them to know.

So should we all be Zeus agnostics, Thor agnostics, flying teacup agnostics, flying spaghetti monster agnostics, and pink unicorn agnostics? Sure there's a possibility of these things, but the possibility is so small that it's not worth mentioning. Same goes with the Judeo-Christian god.
 

jiien

Member
Raist said:
Many of these questions have nothing to do with evolution.
As for "why is there just one human species", well, there were different species at some point, and only "ours" survived. Now, unless 2 populations of current humans are completely isolated from each other for thousands of years (a fundamental requirement for speciation) we will never see a different Homo species arise.
I think it would be even better to suggest that we are still evolving, but we can't see slight genetic differences, and we wont know the effects of the differences among us until many years down the line. We classify ourselves as one species, but there may and probably are many differences between us.

Edit: I think I just repeated what you said. Just rewording it for myself and others. :)
 

Gaborn

Member
JesseZao said:
Exactly. Then why aren't scientists/everyone on the planet agnostics then? Why must they say there is no God? Seems rather unnecessary if everyone thought that way. As I've said, man alone wouldn't be able to know of a God unless God wanted them to know.

I don't see why you think that in any way supports your point. Scientists are not all agnostics because their profession is separate from their spiritual beliefs because whether there is a God or not doesn't affect basic facts and observation, nor does it change scientific data. Science and religion are areas that don't touch, you cannot use the supernatural to discuss the natural world and do so rationally.

Thus, a theory like Evolution (Using the word "Theory" in the scientific sense, a highly tested hypothesis that is the best fit for the evidence that has been observed over a long period of time based on a large amount of data) is as close to the scientific truth as we can get, as opposed to Creationism or "ID" (which is creationism under another name) which wouldn't even pass muster as a hypothesis (since "God" is untestable)
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Count Dookkake said:
Think of species as you would genres of film as opposed to specific movies. I think it makes a bit more sense.
That's really the issue in a nutshell. The species categorization is artificial. There are some hard facts that are used for classification, like interbreeding for example, same as it is in movies, where you'd maybe classify a flick with more than 3 action scenes as an action movie.

But when it comes down to what we've classified in the past and apply it to what the scientific data says, just like with movies, the borders blur. And for the sake of categorization, at some point, some species is chosen and that's the end of that.

You actually could partition humans into subspecies if you went ahead with the right glasses on. I'm not going to get into specifics here because there's a moral issue attached to that approach, but if you just ignore that for the sake of argument, especially genetics allow for that idea.

Here's a neat link in that regard: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00349.htm
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
I'm going to attempt to tackle this post.

JesseZao said:
By microevolution I just meant mutations and phenotype changes within a species. Macroevolution is just Darwin Evolution.
It might help if you understood that the word 'species' is just a tool that we use to categorize animals, these are not predefined categories, these are... post-defined categories.

If evolution is real: why is there only one species of humans?
Maybe some more clarification would help, but why does there need to be more than one 'species of human' for Evolution to be 'real'? Are you asking why there aren't multiple animals in the same Taxonomical group as humans? There are - both living and extinct (see. Apes).

Why haven't we discovered other life in the universe?
This has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, and barely anything to do with Abiogenesis. Even then - we don't have the tools at our disposal to search out the bajillion other solar systems in our galaxy, let alone the universe. Maybe one day.

Why is it surprising that carbon-based lifeforms have similar mechanisms for metabolising energy? Why is the only conclusion that we must have descended from a single-celled organism?
1. Who's surprised?
2. We don't -have- to, we just did. It's not like someone went around saying "I think that all life started as single celled organisms!" and then struck down all those with apposing views.

Where did matter come from?
Nothing to do with Evolution, but the Large Hadron Colliding thingy is doing it's best to figure that one out.

How do we know for sure certain fossils couldn't "mate" with each other?
I don't even know how fossils would be able to mate, they're all dead.

How many examples of each species fossils have we found?
I don't know what this has to do with the validity of Evolution, but I guess the answer is 'varying amounts'?

There are other tangents, but just as I haven't read that book, I haven't studied what the answers usually given for these would be: How do you define/identify different eras? How do we know what the atmosphere/climate was like/composed of? What wiped out all of the dinosaurs? What created fossil fuels? If the Earth has had Ice Ages, why are we worried about the O-Zone layer or global warming? If we came from some infinitely improbable explosion, when did "time" start? Why did it take an eternity for this explosion to take place? How many times has it happened? Where is the dark matter?

I'm going to answer all of these with the same "has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Evolution". Although some of the answers to these questions are really easy to figure out, Google!

I think my main beef is that it would be much more profitable to press on in scientific matters that can benefit us now (a broad idealization sure, but if research was with purpose to better our lives instead of just curiousity, that's what I want).
So you're skeptical of Evolution's validity because you feel research money would be better spent elsewhere? Or are you just... not a fan of Evolution? Also, there are benefits to studying Evolution - it has greatly helped our understanding of biology, and has assisted in our creation of a few specialized micro-organisms for example.

Humans will never figure out the origins of life or fully understand the complexities of life and our universe, so why waste time acting like we can. What if we could? Would you say that is our purpose in life? Religion/creationism always gets brought up as the only other acceptable view point which makes it look like this debate is just an "Accept God or Reject God and rationalize our world" situation. Why is it so important to accept evolution? How does it benefit humans?

I mentioned how Evolution benefits humans right above this quote, but to tackle the other stuff - you honestly just seem threatened with the idea of Evolution - there is no harm in better understanding our Universe, and for that matter, our planet. Whether or not God has anything to do with anything is a moot point, denying or avoiding facts and truths because you feel there is no 'point' to understanding these things, or because it may cause conflict with another world view (Religion) - well.. it's cowardly, and that sort of mindset is dangerous. You should not push aside the truth because it makes you uncomfortable.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
wmat said:
That's really the issue in a nutshell. The species categorization is artificial. There are some hard facts that are used for classification, like interbreeding for example, same as it is in movies, where you'd maybe classify a flick with more than 3 action scenes as an action movie.

But when it comes down to what we've classified in the past and apply it to what the scientific data says, just like with movies, the borders blur. And for the sake of categorization, at some point, some species is chosen and that's the end of that.

You actually could partition humans into subspecies if you went ahead with the right glasses on. I'm not going to get into specifics here because there's a moral issue attached to that approach, but if you just ignore that for the sake of argument, especially genetics allow for that idea.

Here's a neat link in that regard: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00349.htm

Actually, not really ^^. There are not enough phenotypical or genetic differences between any Ethnicities for anyone to really be able to separate us by subspecies. Mind you, this is a debated term, but racialists don't really have much of a leg to stand on.
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
JesseZao said:
If evolution is real: why is there only one species of humans?
i can think of about 10 species in the homo genus.
and atleast 3 species of homo sapiens.

i imagine there's probably more than that.

so yay, i guess evolution is real.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
I know the questions are irrelevant here, but it's fun to answer these few, so here I go:
JesseZao said:
If the Earth has had Ice Ages, why are we worried about the O-Zone layer or global warming?
It's ozone. Ozone (O3) is a molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms.
Ozone in the earth's atmosphere is finite. It isn't just there without a source in infinite amounts.
A central factor in the production of ozone is plant life, another the upper atmosphere (more specifically, plants produce oxygen using water (H2O) and the upper atmosphere enables photolysis, which results in O3).
The rest is pretty obvious if you understand the basic function of the ozone layer.
If we came from some infinitely improbable explosion, when did "time" start?
There is no real start to time. Time isn't really a thing. It's more of a concept or a way of understanding the fabric of existence, the succession of events as we experience them, and to measure that succession.
Time and space together however, that's a thing. They're a unity that form the net we are woven into, if you will.
If you condense all space we can experience into a tiny point, time as a concept follows that condensation because time and space are inseparable. You wouldn't be able to experience it, but as we understand it now, the result is an incredible stretching of time. If you condense the space to infinity, the concept of time becomes meaningless.
Why did it take an eternity for this explosion to take place?
s.a.
How many times has it happened?
Currently, we humans have no way of answering that question. There certainly is an answer. It might not satisfy you though.
There are theories about this, of course. Some scientists have good arguments for an oscillating universe, others have good arguments for an oscillation that expands and dissolves eventually. It's an interesting thing to think about.
Where is the dark matter?
You should deal with the basics first before expecting an answer to this question that would satisfy you. There are theories about where that dark matter is. There are experiments going on that are dealing with verifying or falsifying these theories.

If you're at all interested in these topics, there are lots of interesting sources on the internet for checking out where we're at right now. Usually, Wikipedia tells it in layman's terms at least in parts, so if you start there, you should get an idea about what's up.
 

JesseZao

Member
Kinitari said:

I know a lot of that isn't directly about evolution, but they tie in to my curiousness about the origins of "us," that's why I said they were tangents. Yes, I want the truth, but I'm okay not being able to know everything. Especially if such knowledge isn't required to function. Science can't explain the beginning of time as we know it on earth and that's why I wish they would stop saying they know what happened for a fact.

Discovering the origin of life is key to understanding the purpose of life. If we really just evolved from amoebas, certainly there is no purpose in life. We are but a spec on a small planet among millions of celestial bodies.

If we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals? How did intelligence evolve and why did it take billions of years to start and then only thousands to reach our level of intelligence [Edit: I meant our level as in our species]? Why do we have language and why don't we all speak the same language (assuming humans didn't evolve in different places independently)? When did we become self-aware? Why do we feel bad if we hurt/wrong somebody? Isn't it survival of the fittest? I'm sorry to bore you guys with silly questions. I'll stop clogging the tubes.

Late Edit: Forgot to clarify. What I meant by "mating" fossils was how do we know those animals couldn't mate and thus were different species as there is lots of variation in a species. That's all.
 

ianp622

Member
JesseZao said:
By microevolution I just meant mutations and phenotype changes within a species. Macroevolution is just Darwin Evolution.
Where did you read this? I don't understand where you draw the line. Speciation is the result of mutations and phenotype changes. A "species" is just a label that humans have designed to indicate which animals can interbreed. What makes a species is the one little mutation that makes it impossible for an animal to interbreed with those animals that don't share that mutation.

Did you watch the video I posted?

JesseZao said:
If evolution is real: why is there only one species of humans? Why haven't we discovered other life in the universe? Why is it surprising that carbon-based lifeforms have similar mechanisms for metabolising energy? Why is the only conclusion that we must have descended from a single-celled organism? Where did matter come from? How do we know for sure certain fossils couldn't "mate" with each other? How many examples of each species fossils have we found?

There is only one species of humans because no group of humans has developed and maintained a mutation that would prevent them from interbreeding.

As for the other questions, evolution is not the theory for everything. It only explains diversity of life. But if you're really curious:

1. We don't have the technology to reach very far in the universe. The closest star is 4.3 light-years away. Few stars have planets. Even fewer have solid planets. Even fewer have planets capable of sustaining life. Even fewer have had fertile conditions for long enough to create intelligent life. See where this is going?

2. Science isn't based on "what seems right", it's based on evidence. The evidence shows common ancestry.

3. Evidence.

4. Matter comes from energy. The total energy of the universe is zero. Energy can form pockets, which can then form matter. We don't know why these pockets exist yet.

5. I don't even know what that means.

6. Again, you're thinking in terms of species. You're skirting the question, "where are the transitional fossils", when the answer is that every fossil is a transitional fossil.

I think my main beef is that it would be much more profitable to press on in scientific matters that can benefit us now (a broad idealization sure, but if research was with purpose to better our lives instead of just curiousity, that's what I want). Why is it so important to accept evolution? How does it benefit humans?

Yeah, we should totally divert resources away from evolutionary theory. Fuck modern medicine and agriculture. Who needs it?

Less sarcastic answer: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Humans will never figure out the origins of life or fully understand the complexities of life and our universe, so why waste time acting like we can. What if we could? Would you say that is our purpose in life? Religion/creationism always gets brought up as the only other acceptable view point which makes it look like this debate is just an "Accept God or Reject God and rationalize our world" situation.

Why are you so sure? We have synthesized RNA in the lab. We have created synthetic organisms by programming genomes and injecting them into single-cell organisms. We can track evolution to see how we got to where we are now. We know how the Earth formed. We know how stars are formed, and we know what the universe looked like microseconds after the Big Bang. Why do you think this is such a lofty goal?

JesseZao said:
I know a lot of that isn't directly about evolution, but they tie in to my curiousness about the origins of "us," that's why I said they were tangents. Yes, I want the truth, but I'm okay not being able to know everything. Especially if such knowledge isn't required to function. Science can't explain the beginning of time as we know it on earth and that's why I wish they would stop saying they know what happened for a fact.
You seem to attribute qualities to scientists that aren't actually true. Do you think scientists want to find the answer to something and just be done with it? They make a living by being wrong and answering hard questions. We don't know everything, but it's a journey that is accelerating at an exponential rate. I'm confident we'll be able to synthesize life from organic compounds in my lifetime.

Discovering the origin of life is key to understanding the purpose of life. If we really just evolved from amoebas, certainly there is no purpose in life. We are but a spec on a small planet among millions of celestial bodies.
Yeah, sorry, maybe no purpose. You should probably find something that makes you happy while you're here, because this is it. Instead of trying to rely on an imaginary being to give you purpose, why don't you make your own purpose? Or, your purpose could be to help someone else.

If we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals? How did intelligence evolve and why did it take billions of years to start and then only thousands to reach our level of intelligence? Why do we have language and why don't we all speak the same language (assuming humans didn't evolve in different places independently)? When did we become self-aware? Why do we feel bad if we hurt/wrong somebody? Isn't it survival of the fittest? I'm sorry to bore you guys with silly questions. I'll stop clogging the tubes.

1. I'm not sure we're levels of magnitude smarter than other animals. Dolphins communicate, use tools, have a culture, murder in cold blood, and have sex for enjoyment. But our intelligence is related to language development and lack of fur (yeah, I saw this in Scientific American but didn't get a chance to read it).

2. Can't answer that, not a linguist (just a computational linguist :) )

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

4. Survival of the fittest applies to an environment. It's not "fit" as in physically fit. Empathy is required for society to function, and therefore it's a desirable trait (usually). It's also a societal construct, so evolution can't take all the credit.

5. I've never met someone who was intelligent and got tired of answering questions from people willing to learn. It's only when someone refuses to look at evidence in front of them that we get frustrated. Also, we learn when we teach - it's a way of organizing thoughts and testing our knowledge.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
JesseZao said:
Science can't explain the beginning of time as we know it on earth and that's why I wish they would stop saying they know what happened for a fact.
You can't prove that statement, and they don't. There's really not much more one can say.
I think you're mistaking TV documentaries with actual scientific work. To an extent, I can relate. But it's an issue that might just be one of the roots of this ridiculous discussion about whether or not evolution is something that is going on.
Discovering the origin of life is key to understanding the purpose of life. If we really just evolved from amoebas, certainly there is no purpose in life. We are but a spec on a small planet among millions of celestial bodies.
Surely there is a purpose to life. Life leads to offspring, consumption, death (and therefore, biomatter to consume). So life finds its purpose in itself. It doesn't really matter on what level of life you start for accepting that.
Meaning that amoebas also have a purpose in life. You could say that principally, they share our purpose, although the way it plays out looks completely different. How magnificent is that?
Where we come from is of course not as important in that context as it's made out to be. But then again, what is importance anyway?
If we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals?
We do some things great with our gray matter, that is abstract stuff and combine abstractions. Speech we also do great.
I don't know about any scientist going around with a smartness scale, however.
How did intelligence evolve and why did it take billions of years to start and then only thousands to reach our level of intelligence?
Intelligence is a form of adapting to your needs to survive as a species.
At the end of your sentence, you mistakenly assume that we are much more intelligent than our ancestors. Actually, we're as smart as they are, we just have much more information to reflect on because we've figured out cool ways to preserve information. Speech plays a big role in that.
Why do we have language and why don't we all speak the same language (assuming humans didn't evolve in different places independently)?
We have language because we found a way of expressing complex relations of abstract concepts by pushing air out of our lungs and training stuff in our throat so that it makes sound when air goes by, then agreeing upon which sounds mean what abstract concept.
We don't all speak the same language because there were great distances between tribes a long time ago, distances we couldn't overcome, so these agreeings were made independantly.
This all happened long after the biological possibility of speaking occured in our throats.
When did we become self-aware?
It's impossible to answer that without a time machine, I think. Back in the days.
Why do we feel bad if we hurt/wrong somebody?
Social contracts, training.
Isn't it survival of the fittest?
On some level, it still is. We've found ways of dragging the non-fittest along though, just as buffalos drag along their young when they're on the move. We're just really good at that.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
JesseZao said:
I know a lot of that isn't directly about evolution, but they tie in to my curiousness about the origins of "us," that's why I said they were tangents. Yes, I want the truth, but I'm okay not being able to know everything. Especially if such knowledge isn't required to function. Science can't explain the beginning of time as we know it on earth and that's why I wish they would stop saying they know what happened for a fact.

It's not about knowing everything, it's about willfully being ignorant. And Science doesn't say anything about the 'facts' of how time started. Scientists have guesses, and some interesting ideas and observations - but that's about it.

Discovering the origin of life is key to understanding the purpose of life. If we really just evolved from amoebas, certainly there is no purpose in life. We are but a spec on a small planet among millions of celestial bodies.

Is there a problem with this? Again, you're going into abiogenesis here - but if your self-worth is only substantial if it is assigned by someone else, you need to do some soul searching.

If we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals?
Because we Evolved that way? I don't understand the question.

How did intelligence evolve and why did it take billions of years to start and then only thousands to reach our level of intelligence?

You know there are a lot of intelligent animals, and there are animals with very basic levels of communicative skills. If an animal had a mutation that made him substantially smarter than his peers, and it significantly increased his chances of survival, he would get all the ass he wanted - thus passing on this smart gene.

Why do we have language and why don't we all speak the same language (assuming humans didn't evolve in different places independently)?
Language is useful for communication - language is still not a well understood aspect of Evolution to be completely honest, we know that a lot of languages are rooted from other languages, but the origin of language? Still a bit of a mystery.

When did we become self-aware?
Great and interesting question, again, up for debate - but probably has some sort of relationship with language.

Why do we feel bad if we hurt/wrong somebody? Isn't it survival of the fittest?
Combination of things - social teachings for one, this is observed when you see kids who are not taught that it's wrong to hurt people, and in fact enjoy it at times. But also, it can be seen as self preservation - if you attack and all of a sudden figure out you are about to get your ass clawed to bits, it probably would have been a better idea to not attack.

I'm sorry to bore you guys with silly questions. I'll stop clogging the tubes.

Hey! Some of the questions are not so silly, self awareness and language are very interesting topics, and these are things I don't think Scientists are very confident in explaining quite yet.
 

genjiZERO

Member
JesseZao said:
1 Discovering the origin of life is key to understanding the purpose of life. If we really just evolved from amoebas, certainly there is no purpose in life. We are but a spec on a small planet among millions of celestial bodies.

2 AIf we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals? BHow did intelligence evolve and why did it take billions of years to start and then only thousands to reach our level of intelligence? CWhy do we have language and why don't we all speak the same language (assuming humans didn't evolve in different places independently)? DWhen did we become self-aware? EWhy do we feel bad if we hurt/wrong somebody? Isn't it survival of the fittest? I'm sorry to bore you guys with silly questions. I'll stop clogging the tubes.

1 that's it completely. Life is really nothing more than organic molecules that have the property of being able to perpetuate "themselves". "Perpetual chemistry" is all we are.

2 A"smarter" doesn't really mean anything. In part because you can't define smart with any meaningful degree of certainty. Additionally what does being smart do for humans? Humans don't come close to constituting the most amount of biomass, nor are we particularly "successful" (in the biological sense, meaning ability to leave descendants). We may be very successful mammals, or even vertebrates, but that's not particularly impressive when compared to other species or types of organisms.

B Not really sure how to answer this... because it did... All mammals have a neo-cortex (very top layer of the brain). That's what makes us "smart". But like above I don't really know - from a biological point of view - why it matters so much. Again, based on numbers humans aren't the most successful species. Yeah, it's great that we can have this conversation on a computer, but E Coli can still out reproduce us at the end of the day.

C Just a note - no one in the scientific community believes that humans evolved simultaneously in the world. The "out of Africa" theory is the only legitimate one. In fact I can trace my Y-chromosome to a man who lived in what is now Tanzania from ~40k years ago. Think about language this way: think of the thickest Cockney accent you can think of and the thickest Alabama accent you can think of. Their accents have only been separated by ~300 years. What do you think would happen if they were isolated from each other for 10,000 years? Also note, we aren't the only animal with language. Song birds can have vocabularies in the couple thousands.

D We probably became self-aware when we evolved a neo-cortex. We aren't the only self-aware animals. All mammals are self-aware to a degree. Humans are just more self aware than other mammals.

E Yes, we are self-interested, but we are also social animals. We "feel bad" because by hurting others we have potentially hurt the society as well. Also know that other animals "feel bad" when they have done wrong too (think about your dog when it's misbehaved). "Survival of the fittest" means specifically that 'those who are most adopted to their environments are more likely to leave a disproportionate number of descendants'.
 

JesseZao

Member
Thanks guys. That's a lot of info to review :D

Applications for evolutionary theory link made me realize what it encompassed. I guess I wouldn't consider cDNA libraries, bioinformatics, etc to be inherently evolution processes, I just thought it logical to catalog genes to compare enzymes and such among species. I never thought that because genes were similar that meant we evolved. I must have a pretty narrow view of what I consider evolution-related research. Also, I didn't know a better way to mention intelligence, but clearly it separates us from the "real animals."

I'm always wanting to understand how things work, the world is a fascinating place. Don't worry about me "soul searching" (you believe in souls? sorry, no more questions!), I just was lamenting that a life of being step xtrillion in a chain of species is pretty bleak. Hadn't heard of mirror neurons before. Thinking about how the brain actually works makes me think of Waking Life (we are all just a collection of randomly firing neurons). Quantum Mechanics is coming up in the fall so I'm ready for my head to hurt. Might squeeze in "modern physics" too, but I don't need it. Take care mates.
 

Nocebo

Member
JesseZao said:
If we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals? How did intelligence evolve and why did it take billions of years to start and then only thousands to reach our level of intelligence
I'm not sure where you got "only thousands of years". Maybe because that's how far our written history stretches? We know the evolution of the brain took far longer than that thanks to the fossils of humanoid skulls we've dug up.

[Edit: I meant our level as in our species]? Why do we have language and why don't we all speak the same language (assuming humans didn't evolve in different places independently)? When did we become self-aware? Why do we feel bad if we hurt/wrong somebody? Isn't it survival of the fittest? I'm sorry to bore you guys with silly questions. I'll stop clogging the tubes.
Your language question is pretty silly. I hope you were not serious when you asked it. English now is different from english 100 years ago. Within english there are several dialects etc. Language uses is sometimes even different from city to city. Survival of the fittest isn't something species conciously play part in. Most of us feel wrong for hurting someone someting because we are a social species and therefore emphatic.
 

Tntnnbltn

Member
Bringing religion back into this..... ;)

The Evolutionary Advantages of Faith

At some point in mankind's distant past, religious faith arose from where there was none. The concepts of spirituality and religion are a biologically-based product of evolution; adaptations that gave the possessors of this trait a distinct survival advantage: Faith.

Neurobiologists think they have found regions of the brain that are responsible for all spiritual and religious experiences, naming the new field that studies these areas 'neurotheology'. Since the only way that something as bizarre and universal as the human propensity to have faith could have arisen is if it conferred a survival advantage, this entry looks at what these advantages are, and whether indeed they exist.


Faith in the Brain

It is no coincidence that every culture and all types of people of the world have some concept of a higher power. They all have their own form of the supernatural, spirituality or religion all of which are experienced through the structure of the brains of human beings.

'Spiritual experiences are so consistent across cultures, across time, and across faiths that it suggests a common core that is likely a reflection of structures and processes in the human brain.'
– David Wulff, Wheaton College​

It is clear from all the fascinating research that neurobiologists have undertaken that religiosity can be defined in terms of, and observed in, the hard wiring of the human brain. The structures of the brain, such as the temporal and parietal lobes, are a product of evolution. A complex and precise network of genes strictly defines the development and layout of the brain, including the structures that are responsible for the spiritual experiences described above. In biology, structure is always directly related to function. All genes are, or were, under the direct influence of evolution; therefore the ability to have powerful religious experiences has evolved. The pertinent questions are not 'if' we evolved these remarkable capabilities, but 'why?' and 'how?'


The Survival Advantages of Faith

The possessors of religious faith have a distinct survival advantage. Somewhere along mankind's evolutionary history the brain developed the ability to dissociate certain areas of itself from the rest, depriving them of sensory input, altering an individual's perception of themselves and the world around them. Electrical crackling in the temporal lobes produces vivid, ultra-real visions and voices, apparently from God. It is no surprise that humans, as social animals, organised and gathered to experience these visions together. From these deep, powerful visions and otherworldly experiences, the religions and supernatural beliefs of the world arose.

It is significant that so many people have powerful spiritual experiences sometime in their lives (people in their 40s and 50s are most likely to have them), and it is not detrimental to their lives. It is, in fact, beneficial. Instead of these traits being something that was excised out of the population, or kept at bay by natural selection, it became a survival advantage.

In the 1950s Viktor Frankl used to give talks to American audiences about his experiences in the concentration camps. He would open his talks by thanking his audience for coming to hear him. They took this to be a speaker's standard courteous introduction. He then said 'I want to thank you for saving my life...'

One of the things which had sustained Frankl for two and-a-half years in the concentration camps was his belief that he could and would testify to what had happened in them. He imagined talking to the audiences who came to hear him speak a decade later. They - or rather his belief in them - had saved his life.

Frankl's experience is eloquent, but there are countless records of individuals going through extreme experiences where survival was marginal, who say that it was their faith or their vision of the future that sustained them. One Indian Army officer who was a prisoner of war of the Japanese attributed his survival to having his fortune told in the 1930s by an Indian in a bazaar. The fortune-teller said that he would die when he was 80. He did in fact die 6 weeks before his 80th birthday, some 50 years after the surrender of the Japanese.

From these two examples we might conclude that it is not the believer's deity that saves them, but their faith. Jesus Christ ascribed his miracles to the belief of those healed: 'He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."'

This anecdotal evidence is substantiated by the numerous studies which have observed and correlated a link between religiosity and spirituality with:

  • Longer life spans
  • Evolution of a pool of wisdom and experience in the form of grandparents
  • Rates of survival during the holocaust of faithful against non-faithful
  • Faster recovery from surgery; faith-healing is an advantage
  • Reduced risk of disease


The Survival Advantages of a Shared Faith

We have already seen that while faith can denote religious faith, there are many other kinds of faith. There is belief in a cause, faith in an individual leader and belief in one's country. All of these have similar mechanisms and similar outcomes, so the following examples have been drawn from political and other arenas.

Shared faith in a cause creates powerful and cohesive groups. The armed forces call this Esprit de Corps. George W Bush is, at the time of writing, using the patriotism of the American people to push through his military policies. It is a powerful force.

The group of scientists, pilots and engineers who put man on the moon were inspired by Kennedy's vision. Their imaginations were grabbed, and their dedication was far greater as a result. Gandhi inspired half a billion people in British India and ended British colonialism. Hitler generated the Third Reich by creating a national belief in a national destiny while Chamberlain was faffing around with an umbrella.

The shared faith that people had in these leaders and their visions inspired them to go above and beyond the call of duty, and to achieve far more in a focused direction than they would or could have achieved otherwise.

A shared faith confers a clear performance and survival advantage on a group, making it more than sum of its parts.


Spirituality and Natural Selection

Early man had no modern medicine and daily life was a struggle for survival. To have a way to manage and deal with a crisis and to boost your chances of survival after injury or illness was a massively useful trait. The only purpose of genes is to replicate themselves - they are entirely selfish entities. Natural selection preserved the quirk in brain structure, by preserving the genes responsible for the trait that promoted spirituality; those with this trait more effectively survived and flourished than those who lacked it. This trait was so successful that it spread throughout the population of early man (or perhaps even mankind’s predecessors) even before the great diaspora, when Homo Sapiens spread out and populated the globe.


Conclusion

Religious faith is a phenomenon derived from biological processes that occur in the brain. Developmental networks of genes control every aspect of the brain's anatomy, including the areas of the brain that are responsible for deep and powerful religious and spiritual experiences. All genes are, or were, under the influence of evolution; therefore, the ability to have such experiences is an evolved trait. This trait, which spawned the religions, spirituality and supernatural beliefs of all human cultures all over the world, confers a definite survival advantage. Study after study confirms that people who consider themselves religious have, amongst other things, a far greater recovery rate from major surgery, and longer life spans. This would have been especially beneficial to early (perhaps pre-civilisation) man, whose struggle for survival and lack of medicine would mean that any possessor of such abilities would be at an advantage. Natural selection preserved this trait and it spread throughout the population.


It's pretty sensible when you think about it. You have two early societies: One with basic moral constructs brought on my religion ('though shalt not kill' kind of stuff), and one without. People in the first society would be at a survival advantage compared to those in the second.
 
Early on that would help immensely. Like using jesus' teachings as a cornerstone of moral living. I would say our intelligence as grown enough to make the logical conclusion to morally without the fear of god.
 
JesseZao said:
Exactly. Then why aren't scientists/everyone on the planet agnostics then? Why must they say there is no God? Seems rather unnecessary if everyone thought that way. As I've said, man alone wouldn't be able to know of a God unless God wanted them to know.


Simple: Cognitive dissonance. People hold incompatible ideas in their heads all the time. A lot of people don't even find it uncomfortable.
 
Important note on speciation, and this is actually what I wanted to tackle in detail this weekend since it requires some drawing on my part.

No species gives birth to a new species. Offspring are always the same species as the parent (we're assuming no hybrids here as the parents are different species, leave that aside for now).

This is probably the biggest stumbling block for people who don't understand Evolution. "Where are the cats giving birth to dogs?!" being a pretty common denialist/Creationist complaint against Evolution.

Evolution happens in populations, not individuals, and it happens over generations within a population. It happens on a gradient, an accumulation of so called "microevolutions". The human tendency for labeling things (this species, that species) only works because we're dealing with contemporary animals. It breaks down when you try to apply it temporally. There are no species boundaries through time when you look at family lineages. Only when you select samples sufficiently far apart via many generation do you see differences.

Also, size of populations and how much interchange of genetic material is going on has a big effect on evolution. Maybe you've got a mutant gene that could turn future generation into super humans, but in today's world where humans are global animals, because of modern mobility the breeding pool is the entire planet, novel traits get buried. The chance of two novel traits that create something new coming together consistently in a population to evolve into something distinct is slim. In earlier days when human populations were more isolated, that's when our "races" had a chance to evolve. If that isolation had continued, then your multiple modern human species might have come about. Only if something new happens to isolate human gene pools from each other will we have another chance to speciate.
 
JesseZao: If we evolved, why are we levels of magnitude smarter than other animals?



You've picked out one trait here and set it on a pedestal. Why are cheetahs so much faster than most other animals? Why can termites digest wood when most creatures can't? Why do chimpanzees have better memories than humans? A lot of animals have traits that set them orders of magnitude apart from the pack. Intelligence is important to human survival so we place it in an artificially superior position.

Humans, mentally, are fantastic generalists, but our "betterness" mentally than other animals is by degree, not leap. We used to have a whole list of stuff humans were supposedly unique in having: self awareness, tool using, language, etc. We now know none of those traits are unique. Experiments with chimps have shone only one behavior that we have that they don't seem to that might have made all the difference. We purposely teach our young and each other while they apparently learn purely by observation. That may be the one trait, combined with a lucky collection of physical attributes, that allowed us to accelerate into a civilized species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom