01 Jan 11
1 edit
I think before you can criticises a scientific theory, esp one so strongly based on evidence such as this one, it is essential that you have made sure you actually understood what the theory is! Else, whatever you say about it, you are talking a load of nonsense. This thread could not demonstrate this point more clearly.
02 Jan 11
Originally posted by lauseyI do not doubt the Evolution Theory. It is, in Darwin's language, one long argument based on-if I may try out a pun-on a "mountain" of evidence.Not only geological evidence e.g.fossils but biological evidence abounds.Modern Science of Genetics has confirmed this theory. No questions there.
The process is stability. Initially you need a molecular structure that replicates. The odds of this happening are very small but in a vast universe with enough time, this is certainly plausible.
Once you have simple molecules that replicate, making use of the resources available, you will certainly get random variation (at this point) based on resources a ...[text shortened]... 0s). Natural selection onwards is very clear though, with mountains of evidence to support it.
My first point is "Why at all there is an Evolution of Life when the universe is mostly Dead Matter." .My second point is" What was the Need to evolve from simpler forms to more complicated forms." Julian Huxley said that if God existed he will be in the form of an Insect e.g. a cockroach,this being the most tenacious form of Life. My third point is" Selection-whether by Nature or as alternatively put in this forum by Environment requires an external agency interfering into the Mechanics of Living Beings. Really?" If we are to come to a conclusion by saying that Selection is an automatic process as asserted by some in this forum,we are skirting the issue. Why not simply say we do not know? My fourth point is" the need to procreate,which is the distinguishing feature of Living Beings.Wherefrom has this need come?".
02 Jan 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDear Andrew Hamilton,
I think before you can criticises a scientific theory, esp one so strongly based on evidence such as this one, it is essential that you have made sure you actually understood what the theory is! Else, whatever you say about it, you are talking a load of nonsense. This thread could not demonstrate this point more clearly.
I do not doubt Darwinian Theory of Evolution of Life. It is an outstanding scientific achievement.I have with me the Wordsworth Edition of the Origin of Species.I am ploughing through it. With my very limited understanding (possibly because I am on lower evolutionary level than a celtic westerner !!), I draw your attention to the response I made to Lausey.Please see my 4 points. All I am saying that it is an incomplete theory and raises more questions than answers. Even Darwin was hesitant about the words he was using such as "Nature". Let us disagree without being disagreeable,yes,Mr.Logical?
02 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoMy first point is "Why at all there is an Evolution of Life when the universe is mostly Dead Matter."
I do not doubt the Evolution Theory. It is, in Darwin's language, one long argument based on-if I may try out a pun-on a "mountain" of evidence.Not only geological evidence e.g.fossils but biological evidence abounds.Modern Science of Genetics has confirmed this theory. No questions there.
My first point is "Why at all there is an Evolution of Life when ,which is the distinguishing feature of Living Beings.Wherefrom has this need come?".
This is not part of evolution theory, but there are several scenarios. Since there are no fossils of the first lifeforms on Earth, it is hard to verify such theories. Look up "abiogenesis".
My second point is" What was the Need to evolve from simpler forms to more complicated forms."
Evolution does not happen because there is a "need" for it to happen. More complicated forms evolved because they could, there was a niche for them to exploit.
My third point is" Selection-whether by Nature or as alternatively put in this forum by Environment requires an external agency interfering into the Mechanics of Living Beings. Really?"
Yes.
If we are to come to a conclusion by saying that Selection is an automatic process as asserted by some in this forum,we are skirting the issue. Why not simply say we do not know?
But we do know. We know very well how it works. Once again I recommend you read something about basic evolution theory.
My fourth point is" the need to procreate,which is the distinguishing feature of Living Beings.Wherefrom has this need come?".
This is an essential ingredient for evolution. It did not happen because there was a "need" for it. Evolution requires three basic ingredients.
1. A replicating agent carrying information.
2. A random or pseudo-random element to change the information.
3. Interaction with the environment.
Evolutionary systems do not just appear in nature, but also in computer programming, economics, sociology and other fields. I once again stress that evolutionary theory does not explain how the replicating agents came to be, nor is this explanation relevant for evolution theory to be valid.
02 Jan 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathanks for a more decent reply.
[b]My first point is "Why at all there is an Evolution of Life when the universe is mostly Dead Matter."
This is not part of evolution theory, but there are several scenarios. Since there are no fossils of the first lifeforms on Earth, it is hard to verify such theories. Look up "abiogenesis".
My second point is" What was the Need to evolv ...[text shortened]... nts came to be, nor is this explanation relevant for evolution theory to be valid.
I am studying The Origin of Species( a Wordsworth edition ). I understand from Darwin's own words that" I must premise ,that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers,any more than I have with that of life itself."(page 159)
Yet the basis of this theory that" the natural selection---is silently and insensibly working at the improvement of each organic being" (page 66 ) does not seem to explain-let us take 3 cases in Human Birth-every developement in the human body. i) Most of the human babies are born with head first position. obviously a better position for survival as it enables the baby to breathe right away.ii) All the skull bones have not grown at birth,a piece at centre top of the head being closed after some months after birth,being covered only by skin at birth.iii) Teeth grow much afterwords thereby allowing the baby to consume solid food and absorbing more calcium than available from mother's milk. Each of the three instances seem more easily explainable if good design is assumed to work rather than random selection of all possible modes and then one mode survivng from all those modes. The second instance positively smacks of Fast Track Project Management at work !!!
02 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI haven't read the Origin of Species myself, but if your goal is understanding evolution theory you're probably better off reading a more modern book. Something by Dawkins, maybe.
thanks for a more decent reply.
I am studying The Origin of Species( a Wordsworth edition ). I understand from Darwin's own words that" I must premise ,that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers,any more than I have with that of life itself."(page 159)
Yet the basis of this theory that" the natural selection---is silently an ...[text shortened]... modes. The second instance positively smacks of Fast Track Project Management at work !!!
Each of the three instances seem more easily explainable if good design is assumed to work rather than random selection of all possible modes and then one mode survivng from all those modes.
First of all, the random variations are of a much smaller scale than such macroscopic different options. Mutations occur at the level of DNA molecules, not at the level of collections of DNA string making up "genes". Secondly, we have no evidence for "design" (only some ad hoc arguments) and lots of evidence for evolution. Therefore, the latter is much more likely even though it is less intuitive from an anthropocentric perspective.
02 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...I do not doubt Darwinian Theory of Evolution of Life. ...”
Dear Andrew Hamilton,
I do not doubt Darwinian Theory of Evolution of Life. It is an outstanding scientific achievement.I have with me the Wordsworth Edition of the Origin of Species.I am ploughing through it. With my very limited understanding (possibly because I am on lower evolutionary level than a celtic westerner !!), I draw your attention to the re ...[text shortened]... ords he was using such as "Nature". Let us disagree without being disagreeable,yes,Mr.Logical?
I apologise 🙂
I have got so used to people on these forums criticizing scientific theories by misrepresenting them that I just assumed this was yet another example of that.
But I really do think you need to do some very careful serious background reading of what the theory ACTUALLY says as you clearly have somehow completely misunderstood it.
02 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoWhy do you assume the universe as a whole is barren? There are clear signs of highly complex molecules in bare space, giant light years wide clouds of the stuff. The stuff of life. Life might be relatively rare or it might be endemic in the universe. Myself, I go for the verdant universe, and we won't have to look very far to find it. Like in our own solar system, no trips to Alpha Centauri needed IMO. There seems to be liquid water on several moons in the outer system so there is enough energy to drive evolution there and I'm thinking we will find it within 100 years. Of course few of us will be around to view the answers but I think it will be found and in our solar system. The big question there would be, if we find life,say, on Europa, would the basic plan be like our DNA or can other structures besides our double helix do the same job?
What is the Raison d'être for this process,if I may say so. Who ordered this process in a barren universe ?
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHave I completely misunderstood Darwin ?
“...I do not doubt Darwinian Theory of Evolution of Life. ...”
I apologise 🙂
I have got so used to people on these forums criticizing scientific theories by misrepresenting them that I just assumed this was yet another example of that.
But I really do think you need to do some very careful serious background reading of what the theory ACTUALLY says as you clearly have somehow completely misunderstood it.
My view is that Darwin was right in correctly showing that all living beings evolve and that Natural Selection has a hand in improving the species ever so incrementally,so that the species survives by the fact of being the fittest to survive.
However Darwin was acutely conscious of the implications of his words like Nature and Selection. He knew these words would cause a misunderstanding that a selecting agency doing this work means bringing in God by backdoor. So he went on modifying his statement by saying that this selection gets done automatically.
I do not believe in any"Environment" or " Nature " interested in improving species. These entities do not have any stake in the evolution of living beings. If selection is random and automatic, why is the selection not biased towards the destruction of a species.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by sonhouseLife/Living Beings are in a miniscule minority in the enormous Universe known to us. Any hope that there will be plenty of life in the known universe is an indication of the ever present intellectual curiosity of humans and their usually positive,cheerful nature.
Why do you assume the universe as a whole is barren? There are clear signs of highly complex molecules in bare space, giant light years wide clouds of the stuff. The stuff of life. Life might be relatively rare or it might be endemic in the universe. Myself, I go for the verdant universe, and we won't have to look very far to find it. Like in our own solar ...[text shortened]... e basic plan be like our DNA or can other structures besides our double helix do the same job?
For the sake of argument let us go on with the view that Life/Living Beings are in utter minority. My point was , if " Nature"/"Environment" are doing a selection to improve the Species why would they do so? They are dead matter after all. Darwin went on add the words "insensibly" when he stated that Natural Selection was a process that incrementally improved the species so that the fittest survived.If the selection is "insensible" why would it be biased in favour of the continuation and improvement of living beings ? It might be as well be biased towards destruction of the species. is it not a wonder that the humans are what they are today in a basically dead universe and a hostile universe too.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoNatural selection works on the level of individuals, not species. The result is that species evolve. Natural selection is not "random" either.
Have I completely misunderstood Darwin ?
My view is that Darwin was right in correctly showing that all living beings evolve and that Natural Selection has a hand in improving the species ever so incrementally,so that the species survives by the fact of being the fittest to survive.
However Darwin was acutely conscious of the implications of his words l ...[text shortened]... random and automatic, why is the selection not biased towards the destruction of a species.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoEvolution has no goals. It's a process that happens if the three conditions I listed before are present.
Life/Living Beings are in a miniscule minority in the enormous Universe known to us. Any hope that there will be plenty of life in the known universe is an indication of the ever present intellectual curiosity of humans and their usually positive,cheerful nature.
For the sake of argument let us go on with the view that Life/Living Beings are in utter min ...[text shortened]... humans are what they are today in a basically dead universe and a hostile universe too.
04 Jan 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, but why it appears that life evolved from simple to complex,from unintelligent forms to intelligent forms,Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as sufficient for survival in a hostile environment ?
Evolution has no goals. It's a process that happens if the three conditions I listed before are present.
If it is an automatic process why it simply did not lead to extinction of all living beings?