Anti-Evolution Theories?

[Write4U]

I believe this thread is about anti-evolution. May I not engage? I believe the first two humans were without belly-buttons. What is wrong with that? What's it to you if that's what I believe?

And where is the proof of that? A pretty picture. Perhaps the first humans had no genitalia either.
Oh no, there is Da Vinci's picture of a nude Adam, tenderly touching the hand of God, and not a trace of dirt on him. Strange that his belly button is clearly visible.


Counter, you have no clue as the metaphorical meaning of Creationism.

You may want to read up on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which has come to the correct conclusion that Evolution is in fact true, as testified to by Pope Francis

Pope Francis has stated: "God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life...Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."[19][20] The rules of genetic evolutionary inheritance were first discovered by a Catholic priest, the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel, who is known today as the founder of modern genetics.

According to a 2014 Gallup survey, "More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising

And rightly so.

 

[James R]

Counter:

I believe the first two humans were without belly-buttons.

Why do you believe that?

Very probably, human evolution didn't work in such a way that there was ever a "first two humans". Speciation doesn't typically work that way.

It is highly likely that Homo sapiens evolved from a more ape-like ancestor. Apes have belly buttons, so it would be very odd if early humans didn't also have them. Humans are, after all, placental mammals.

Are you working in a knowledge vacuum wherein you just believe stuff because it feels right to you? Or are you basing your belief on some knowledge?

What's it to you if that's what I believe?

You can believe whatever you like, but if you're going to make scientific claims in the Biology and Genetics subforum here, it would be preferable if you had some facts to back them up.

The THEORY of Evolution makes little sense to me...

I find that usually people who say that turn out to know next to nothing about the theory of evolution.

Which parts make little sense to you, exactly? And why?

The THEORY of evolution states the following...

Just a note: the THEORY of evolution has a similar status in science to the THEORY of gravity, or the THEORY that inheritance is due to the action of DNA molecules. In science, a THEORY is a well verified finding about how the world works. Hypotheses in science have to work hard to earn the title "theory".

... due to radiation affecting a creatures sexual organs, animals give birth to creatures differing significantly from their parents.

It doesn't have to be radiation. With every cell division there's the possibility of copying errors.

Also, be careful using that word "significantly". A tiny genetic difference can make a hugely "signficant" difference to an animal's chances for survival and reproduction.

If the "deformity" is advantageous enough to allow the creature to survive to reproduce, then the genes dictating the deformity will be inherited by the offspring.

Your use of the word "deformity" suggests that you believe there is a "perfect" human gene template out there somewhere that gradually gets degraded by genetic mutations. If that's the case, where do you think that original, "perfect" template came from in the first place?

In fact, genetic changes are often harmful, often neutral, and sometimes beneficial, in an evolutionary sense.

What I find most in-credible is the variability of genetics, which are then strictly inherited...

What exactly do you mean by the "variability of genetics"? If human beings share more that 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, is that an example of incredible variability?

Natural selection? Isn't it ladies' choice?

That's an example of natural selection, known as sexual selection.

 

[James R]

The fossil record provides significant evidence for evolution.

Eohippus to modern horse & early primates to modern Homo Sapiens are only two examples.
​

Do the anti-evolutionists have any alternative explanation for the pertinent fossil record. I suppose that "God did it" might be the explanation provided by the fundamentalist religious types.

Creationists hold that every "kind" was created individually by God. Some creationists allow for some variation within "kinds", which might allow for eohippus to become a horse, I guess. When pressed on what, exactly, a "kind" is, creationists have no workable answer, as far as I am aware. Oh, and they tend to insist on a separate, special, creation of human beings.

As for the existence of the fossil record itself, young earth creationists put it all down to Noah's flood - an explanation that falls apart at the briefest examination, but there you have it.

 

[TheFrogger]

Hello again.

With the word incredible I was referring to the theory genetics can be altered so easily, yet solid enough to allow inheritance.

 

[Write4U]

Hello again.

With the word incredible I was referring to the theory genetics can be altered so easily, yet solid enough to allow inheritance.

Chemical interactions tend to be pretty reliable, as long as conditions are not too exotic.

But on any planet, somewhat similar to earth, life most likely will emerge. See the Robert Hazen lecture on "Chance, Necessity, and Origins of Life"

 

[origin]

But on any planet, somewhat similar to earth, life most likely will emerge. See the Robert Hazen lecture on "Chance, Necessity, and Origins of Life"

This is your opinion. There is no evidence that this is true. We have only 1 example of life in the universe, statistically speaking our sample is N=1. That is not a very big population to draw any useful conclusions.

 

[Michael 345]

This is your opinion. There is no evidence that this is true. We have only 1 example of life in the universe, statistically speaking our sample is N=1. That is not a very big population to draw any useful conclusions.

The instance is one

The chemicals of life throughout the Universe are numerous

I would go with the abundance of chemicals giving life on other planets more than a something% chance of occuring

I'm short of guessing the actual % because of lacking some details such as number of Earth equivalent planets

I would rule out 0% and 100% with really only a statistical guesstimate

Other %s are up for grabs

 

[billvon]

Hello again. With the word incredible I was referring to the theory genetics can be altered so easily, yet solid enough to allow inheritance.

?? Computer programs can be altered very easily, but are solid enough to land a Space Shuttle, or beat any human at chess, or design an entire building.

 

[Michael 345]

Why are the first humans without belly-buttons

I thought this to stupid to comment on

I was wrong

The only two humans who were considered not to have belly buttons were Adam and Eve because they were created not born

Big full stop HERE

Hello again.

With the word incredible I was referring to the theory genetics can be altered so easily, yet solid enough to allow inheritance.

Genes

There are an estimated 19,000-20,000 human protein-coding genes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

Since each person is a combination of genes of the parents why the suprise at inheritance?

The genes will act as genes and produce similar (not the same) results as previous gene sets because that's what genes do

A manufacturer of cars when he builds a similar car plant in a new location expects to build and produce similar cars not packets of Cornflakes

 

[James R]

With the word incredible I was referring to the theory genetics can be altered so easily, yet solid enough to allow inheritance.

DNA is fairly robust, considering how often it is copied in the process of creating new cells. A lot of the variation seen in different organisms is not actually due to mutation or copying error. It is due to deliberate mixing, which is what sex is for.

 

[TheFrogger]

Yes that's it's use. Reproduction. Anything else is ab-use. This is just as there is normal or ab-normal...

 

[Dinosaur]

From Origin Post 66

We have only 1 example of life in the universe, statistically speaking our sample is N=1. That is not a very big population to draw any useful conclusions.

Your remark is reasonable if you are presented with the total value of one roll of set of dice whose shape is unknown (other than being some regular polyhedron), whose number is unknown, & for which the numbers assigned to each face is also unknown, with zero & repetitions of a number being allowed.

With our knowledge of the Earth, we can draw quite a few useful conclusions. For example

Life appeared circa 3.7 billion years ago, indicating that the existence of life is likely to occur almost as soon as conditions are suitable.

A technological culture is not an inevitable result of evolution.

Dinosaurs lived & evolved for over 185 million years. The last were not much (if any) closer to becoming a technological culture than the first.

Neandertals & Denisovans became extinct while still at a Stone Age level of culture.
​

BTW: In contexts like the above, I avoid discussing intelligence: Instead preferring to discuss the development of a technological culture. Intelligence is not as easy to define & nobody ever seems to ask for a definition of technological culture.

If I had more time (my wife just asked for some attention to some problem), I might be able to think of some other conclusions based on our sample of only one Earth.

 

[origin]

Life appeared circa 3.7 billion years ago, indicating that the existence of life is likely to occur almost as soon as conditions are suitable.

How many times have those conditions occured? There is only one example that we have. N still =1.
I have no idea how common or uncommon life is in the universe. There is no way to know. If we were to find evidence that life exists or existed on mars or moon of Jupiter then I would tend to think life is common in the universe. But for now I just hope it is....

 

[DaveC426913]

How many times have those conditions occured? There is only one example that we have. N still =1.
I have no idea how common or uncommon life is in the universe. There is no way to know.

Perhaps, but don't forget the Principle of Mediocrity (a special case of Occam's Razor).

"if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories".

"The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

 

[James R]

A lot of the variation seen in different organisms is not actually due to mutation or copying error. It is due to deliberate mixing, which is what sex is for.

Yes that's it's use. Reproduction. Anything else is ab-use. This is just as there is normal or ab-normal...

It looks like you misunderstood what I wrote, Counter. Or I wasn't clear.

What I meant was that the biological purpose of sex - the reason that sex exists at all - is that it is an efficient way to generate genetic variation. This is not specific to human beings. The same thing applies in plants, non-human animals etc.

The purposes of sex to human beings, in a social sense, are many and varied. But I wasn't talking about that.

Also, notice that I didn't saying anything about what is "normal" or "abnormal" in terms of sex, or what constitutes an "abuse" of sex. Once again, you're thinking of human social and cultural attitudes there, whereas I was talking about biology and genetics.

 

[origin]

Perhaps, but don't forget the Principle of Mediocrity (a special case of Occam's Razor).

"if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories".

The earth was not drawn at random.
A planet drawn at random from just this solar system would most likely be a gas giant. Each of the planets in our solar system are quite different. IF we find evidence of current or extinct life on any other planet in the solar system, I would then postulate that life must be common in the galaxy, because of the vastly different conditions on the planets.
If we do not find evidence of life on other planets in the solar system, then the best we can say is with the large number of planets in the galaxy there probably is extraterrestrial life, but we do not know.

 

[DaveC426913]

The earth was not drawn at random.
A planet drawn at random from just this solar system would most likely be a gas giant. Each of the planets in our solar system are quite different. IF we find evidence of current or extinct life on any other planet in the solar system, I would then postulate that life must be common in the galaxy, because of the vastly different conditions on the planets.
If we do not find evidence of life on other planets in the solar system, then the best we can say is with the large number of planets in the galaxy there probably is extraterrestrial life, but we do not know.

It wasn't about the likelihood of life on any old planet; it was about the likelihood life on planets with suitable conditions - in Dinosaur's words: "....as soon as conditions are suitable..." The fact that it arose very quickly after conditions were suitable is, when applying the Principle of Mediocrity, suggestive that this is a likely case for Earth-like planets.

To your point about frequency of terrestrials - sure, I'll grant that there are likely 10x more gas giants than rocky terrestrials; let's be generous and say a hundred times or a thousand times more. Still - even if only one in every thousand bodies is Earth-like - and life crops up on most of them - I'll still accept that as "common". Heck, I'd call that teeming with life.

 

[origin]

It wasn't about the likelihood of life on any old planet; it was about the likelihood life on planets with suitable conditions - in Dinosaur's words: "....as soon as conditions are suitable..." The fact that it arose very quickly after conditions were suitable is, when applying the Principle of Mediocrity, suggestive that this is a likely case for Earth-like planets.

As an old engineer I know that when you really want something to be true it is very hard not to interpret the data to support it. If there is very little data it is easier to see the results you want. So for me I remain skeptical of life outside of earth. I would love if the galaxy was like Star Wars or Star Trek, but because I would like that I tend to temper my acceptance of the extremely thin data supporting any conclusion.

To your point about frequency of terrestrials - sure, I'll grant that there are likely 10x more gas giants than rocky terrestrials; let's be generous and say a hundred times or a thousand times more. Still - even if only one in every thousand bodies is Earth-like - and life crops up on most of them - I'll still accept that as "common". Heck, I'd call that teeming with life.

In our solar system 1 out of 3 earth-like planets, has life. If we find evidence that there was ever life on Mars or Venus - then I will push my way onboard the 'galaxy is teeming with life' bandwagon.

 

[DaveC426913]

As an old engineer I know that when you really want something to be true it is very hard not to interpret the data to support it. If there is very little data it is easier to see the results you want. So for me I remain skeptical of life outside of earth. I would love if the galaxy was like Star Wars or Star Trek, but because I would like that I tend to temper my acceptance of the extremely thin data supporting any conclusion.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't lead to any conclusion; it is simply one of many factors used to assess what we think may be the probability of life spontaneously occurring elsewhere. We place a bet, and we use whatever principles we can to make the right one.

 

[origin]

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't lead to any conclusion; it is simply one of many factors used to assess what we think may be the probability of life spontaneously occurring elsewhere. We place a bet, and we use whatever principles we can to make the right one.

I hope there is life elsewhere in the Galaxy.
The thought that we are the only life in the Galaxy is kind of terrifying. I would hate to think that we are the hope of the Galaxy...