A Bio Genesis

@sonhouse said
The point is, even humans with modern brains 100,000 years ago, it took till just a few hundred years ago to start science. Tens of thousands of years went by with not much in the way of technology change, somewhat better stone tools and such but that is about all then in a sudden rush, it all comes together as we see it today.
We should have walked on the moon 20,000 years ago.

You have said that a couple of times now without explanation, time does not automatically mean all things that we think may have occurred would have. Acquiring thought, sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell remain a mystery that can only given a "just so" explanation, and you fly by those to talk about how advanced our brains have become.

The way of technology could have arrived due to design upon life too, and when you look at things that are supposed to support evolutionary paths, there are a lot of things in my opinion don't add up, and don't seem to reflex things as they are.

You are aware of what it takes to add a new piece of technology to a PC and have everything work together, yet you think biologically it becomes very simple, that without a plan, purpose, goal, or anything leading the way some of the most complex systems in life just arrive.

@kellyjay said
You have said that a couple of times now without explanation, time does not automatically mean all things that we think may have occurred would have. Acquiring thought, sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell remain a mystery that can only given a "just so" explanation, and you fly by those to talk about how advanced our brains have become.

The way of technology could have ar ...[text shortened]... an, purpose, goal, or anything leading the way some of the most complex systems in life just arrive.

Smell, at least in the form of following chemical trails is a property of single celled organisms. Taste is related to smell, it's just chemical detection. Hearing and touch I would imagine are related. The earliest eye fossils date from 540 Million years ago.

The thing that is difficult to explain, or even understand is consciousness. They really don't have a good explanation of that.

@deepthought said
Smell, at least in the form of following chemical trails is a property of single celled organisms. Taste is related to smell, it's just chemical detection. Hearing and touch I would imagine are related. The earliest eye fossils date from 540 Million years ago.

The thing that is difficult to explain, or even understand is consciousness. They really don't have a good explanation of that.

Chemical's possess knowledge like the familiarity of touch, taste, and so on? This some highly evolved cell? I acknowledge the relationships between them but early on none of that would matter and it does not explain becoming a reality either.

Even the so called earliest eye would take a string of reactions to impart some type of useful information to be received and understood on some level, otherwise what would be the point? It would be like having a radio antenna without the ability to turn it into something useful, all that information with no way to decipher it.

A light sensitive spot would be like a pimple if its sensitivity to light couldn't be reacted to properly, so the spot alone would require more of the cell to be part of the process of making that information useful. It could never just be the a useful spot on a cell.

@kellyjay said
Chemical's possess knowledge like the familiarity of touch, taste, and so on? This some highly evolved cell? I acknowledge the relationships between them but early on none of that would matter and it does not explain becoming a reality either.

Even the so called earliest eye would take a string of reactions to impart some type of useful information to be received and unde ...[text shortened]... f the process of making that information useful. It could never just be the a useful spot on a cell.

Early on, millions of yeas ago, they could use just a sense of brightness to go to the maximum brightness perceived or to go to a darker spot to avoid predation.

@sonhouse said
Early on, millions of yeas ago, they could use just a sense of brightness to go to the maximum brightness perceived or to go to a darker spot to avoid predation.

This is an explanation without giving a reason. This is not an explanation, "They could use just a sense of..." it is a just so story. Signals to be received has to have some means to make use of the signal, making it distinguishable from everything else. A light sensitive spot has to communicate light into something that can make use of it. To receive light, translate that into useful information is complex and without a plan, purpose, or design how and why has to be asked. That isn't simple, signals can cause a lot of things to occur long before understanding, or a proper response could be figured out.

@kellyjay said
This is an explanation without giving a reason. This is not an explanation, "They could use just a sense of..." it is a just so story. Signals to be received has to have some means to make use of the signal, making it distinguishable from everything else. A light sensitive spot has to communicate light into something that can make use of it. To receive light, translate that ...[text shortened]... cause a lot of things to occur long before understanding, or a proper response could be figured out.

It's as simple as the ones with light sense getting away from predation. They live, the ones with poor light sense gets eaten. What is hard to understand about that?

@sonhouse said
It's as simple as the ones with light sense getting away from predation. They live, the ones with poor light sense gets eaten. What is hard to understand about that?

You once again jump to a fully functional system that can take in and use light as information without explaining the process's beginning. It isn't difficult to understand how seeing is useful, but how did it originate? Having heart to beat is useful, having a liver is useful, telling what they do, does not address how it got here.

Talking about off spring being stronger doesn't explain how sexes started when everything was asexual at one time.

@kellyjay said
You once again jump to a fully functional system that can take in and use light as information without explaining the process's beginning. It isn't difficult to understand how seeing is useful, but how did it originate? Having heart to beat is useful, having a liver is useful, telling what they do, does not address how it got here.

Talking about off spring being stronger doesn't explain how sexes started when everything was asexual at one time.

We are back to the idea science is still in kindergarten and only slowly getting answers to those kind of questions. Exactly what do you expect from science? We are humans and the best of us can figure things out one at a time but there are a LOT of things left to figure out.
Just dissing answers doesn't help anything either. If a light sense comes about it will get propagated because they will survive and it wasn't a god directing such developments, it was because life forms are not stupid pieces of rock, they have internal computers in them, very complex beings even if they are the size of a dot.
Look at some of the life forms from today and we see some with genes far more complex than humans but they are not mammals but plants. It means there are reserve options to respond to stresses.
That sort of build up of DNA reserves started a LONG time ago.

@sonhouse said
We are back to the idea science is still in kindergarten and only slowly getting answers to those kind of questions. Exactly what do you expect from science? We are humans and the best of us can figure things out one at a time but there are a LOT of things left to figure out.
Just dissing answers doesn't help anything either. If a light sense comes about it will get prop ...[text shortened]... rve options to respond to stresses.
That sort of build up of DNA reserves started a LONG time ago.

I agree we have gone full circle! I find it amazing you produce “stories” to talk about science, have disputed experiments, not because of the science applied, but who did them. It is also find it interesting you don’t dispute the data, but because it can cast doubt on what you hope to see in the future, you claim its bad.

Isn’t science what we can test and know, not what we hope to see?

@kellyjay said
I agree we have gone full circle! I find it amazing you produce “stories” to talk about science, have disputed experiments, not because of the science applied, but who did them. It is also find it interesting you don’t dispute the data, but because it can cast doubt on what you hope to see in the future, you claim its bad.

Isn’t science what we can test and know, not what we hope to see?

I never said or implied I would not believe a verified science experiment that went against say, evolution or some such. If a science bit is proven and done independently it is a done deal usually.
Some things take a long time to prove itself real and there are open questions like in cosmology, there is an ongoing debate about 'dark matter' where a galaxy spinning on its axis has stars almost like they are on a dinner plate, where one would expect with normal gravity equations, stars at the edge of the galaxy would go slower than stars in the center but we find proven over and over again, periferal stars are going just as fast as those in the center.
As if they were on a dinner plate.
But the ongoing theory says there must be invisible extra mass we can't interact with that makes the galaxy some 20 times heavier so the stars at the edge are going just as fast as those closer in.

Now however there is another explanation, "Mond' where they modify the laws of gravity for large objects like galaxies. So there is this dispute going on, the extra matter dudes Vs the 'altered gravity' dudes.

Anyway, that is how science advances so we will see what happens in evolution also.

@sonhouse said
I never said or implied I would not believe a verified science experiment that went against say, evolution

Yes, same here.
It's just that there is currently such a huge mountain of evidence for evolution and absolutely no viable alternative to evolution that the probability of it being false must be truly vanishingly small albeit non-zero thus we rationally consider evolution to be a proven scientific fact.
The chances of ever suddenly finding evidence against evolution would have to be something vaguely like the chances of suddenly finding evidence against round Earth and discovering the flatearthers were right all the long! -yes, it must be possible, but we have to be completely stupid to think it was credible let alone likely!
But if we, including myself, hypothetically suddenly DID find evidence against evolution (which would certainly be a big first! ), yes, of course we will then reject it. That's because that's how scientific thinking and our thinking works. And then all that would mean is that we will then find an alternative scientific theory even better than evolution to replace evolution, which would be yet another huge triumph for science and yet another nail in the coffin for the old religious fundamentalism beliefs and ignorance because still no need for a stupid goddidit. That is assuming of course the continuation of the absence of evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If we found evidence of the existence of a god then theism will become just part and parcel of science.

@sonhouse said
I never said or implied I would not believe a verified science experiment that went against say, evolution or some such. If a science bit is proven and done independently it is a done deal usually.
Some things take a long time to prove itself real and there are open questions like in cosmology, there is an ongoing debate about 'dark matter' where a galaxy spinning on its a ...[text shortened]... avity' dudes.

Anyway, that is how science advances so we will see what happens in evolution also.

What is done independently mean to you?

@humy said
Yes, same here.
It's just that there is currently such a huge mountain of evidence for evolution and absolutely no viable alternative to evolution that the probability of it being false must be truly vanishingly small albeit non-zero thus we rationally consider evolution to be a proven scientific fact.
The chances of ever suddenly finding evidence against evolution would have ...[text shortened]... we found evidence of the existence of a god then theism will become just part and parcel of science.

Please you couldn’t bring yourself to view the first lecture.

@kellyjay said
What is done independently mean to you?

For instance, the first real proof of GR, the star check done by Eddington in 1919 showing during a total eclipse of the sun, the stars close to the sun were not where they would have been under Newtonian gravity.
So that was the first shot over the bow about that issue.
Then the experiment, the measurements were done on subsequent scientists and all showed the same displacement of stars where the light skimmed fairly close to the surface of the sun.
Then another set of experiments were done, this time at radio frequencies by radio astronomers and they showed the same thing but probably even greater precision.

Totally different groups converging on the same measurement showed conclusively starlight bends around the sun just a bit, due to the mass of the sun and there is a formula that predicts the amount of bending using mass and radius as parameters.
THAT is what I mean by independent checks.
Some dude goes, RATS CAUSE CANCER. So we go. Ok, anyone else looked at that issue? No, Sorry dude, you are nuts. But if several studies come to the same conclusion, like one in Toronto and another in Rio and another in NYC, and published in journals, THEN you can say more definitively RATS CAUSE CANCER.

@kellyjay said
I agree we have gone full circle! I find it amazing you produce “stories” to talk about science, have disputed experiments, not because of the science applied, but who did them. It is also find it interesting you don’t dispute the data, but because it can cast doubt on what you hope to see in the future, you claim its bad.

Isn’t science what we can test and know, not what we hope to see?

Zzzzz. We can't test design.