Evolution is Unscientific

[juantoo3]

11 Recently Extinct Animals

From a Galapagos tortoise to one black rhino subspecies, these 11 species have been declared extinct or possibly extinct over the past half-century.

www.treehugger.com

Extinction is a terrible thing, but let's not confuse the issue. Show me one new species that popped up in the past week.

Maybe that's too narrow, since it takes the experts in the field awhile to get around to separating out a sub-species into a new species of its own, how about one new species that just popped up in the past year. Because, according to you quoting some religious dogma, new species appear daily. I only want to see just one...

For new species, the Covid-19 strains.

Can they interbreed with the parent species?

 

[juantoo3]

No, nothing strange in that. Such beliefs are common among people, not just in India, but in developed countries also among the religious. (Among the Christians) beliefs in God, soul, demons, judgment and after-life are examples of this. There is no evidence for them.

What constitutes evidence?

I have my own personal experiences. That is not objective evidence per science, and it is not recreatable in the lab. That doesn't make my evidence any less significant to me. It is subjective evidence, but it is evidence, and there are certainly more like me that have their own subjective evidences.

Science doesn't have the tools necessary to measure or recreate these experiences, or the focus to even attempt to do so. Anyone who thinks they can use science to dismiss G!d doesn't know what they are talking about. Science can only evaluate what it can measure. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Further, science is focused on questions of "how." How does this happen.

Religion is focused on questions of "why." Why do these things happen.

This from an atheist, perhaps you've heard his name, Stephen J Gould. The fundamental difference in point of view means the two sides talk past each other, as I see you do routinely.

I have no illusions of proving G!d's existence to you or to anybody. My personal experiences are sufficient for me, science bedamned.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Reproduction has little to do with how a human brain functions. Indeed, the old adage is that a man's thinking turns from his big head to his little head with next to no reasoning at all.

I think this is to misunderstand. Reproductive fitness, as the term is used, has to do with the ability of an organism to get its genes to the next generation, by whatever strategy. If your genes pass on, then the traits those genes carry are more likely to show up in subsequent generations. This is obviously more likely if your genes create traits that further help you pass on genes. If being smarter helps, then lots of smart genes end up in subsequent generations. If having abstract reasoning helps you in any fashion that would also help your genes make it to the next generation, either by one's abstract intelligence helping individuals and groups in having successful hunts, surviving long winters, garnering wealth, getting good marriages for their sons and daughters, etc etc, then the trait of being smart, and smart enough to engage in abstract reasoning, to the extent that it is genetic, will be passed to subsequent generations.

This explores it briefly and with some nuance https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/the_meaning_of_fitness/

It's a pity about the old adage, I don't know whom the adage was supposed to help out exactly, but the truth is, people's brains do make them want to reproduce, and reproducing passes on genes that make new brains. With the posessors of smarter brains having the best chance to make it to reproductive age and make sure their offspring make it to reproductive age. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "reproduction has little to do with how the human brain functions" what with so many people claiming their reproductive hormones influence how they feel, and what with people being so consciously preoccupied with their mating strategies (love lives) etc etc etc...

 

[TheLightWithin]

Why should anything evolve just because it is needed? The Earth was perfectly fine five billion years ago; without life.

It's not that somebody else needs a species to evolve and they just do it. NO -- that only happens with selective breeding, like humans using selective breeding to influence some aspects of evolution of a species within a few generations.

No, in nature, it's the species ITSELF that would "need" to survive. But it doesn't just decide to evolve. It's reproductive fitness. It is if the environment changes, the individuals best able to survive those changes are more likely to live long enough to reproduce and give their genes to another generation. Those genes survive. Any genetic trait that helps you survive AND REPRODUCE is likely to get passed on through the genes. That's the way it works, in a nutshell.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Every day, new species are born

Speciation isn't that abrupt

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can they interbreed with the parent species?

They don't need to. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have my own personal experiences.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Religion is focused on questions of "why." Why do these things happen.
This from an atheist, perhaps you've heard his name, Stephen J Gould. The fundamental difference in point of view means the two sides talk past each other, as I see you do routinely.
'science be damned'.

Yeah, your personal experience is for you, not for others. And for sure, you are welcome to your beliefs based on that.
True, but I give preference to evidence.
Science also is equally concerned with 'why?'
Have not heard the name of Stephen J. Gould. My atheism is solely from Hinduism and Buddhism, and of course, from science.
Your view, not mine.

Speciation isn't that abrupt

True, but you cannot have a generalized time-frame. And then, there are more than 8.7 million species of life on Earth (Google Search).

 

[muhammad_isa]

..True, but you cannot have a generalized time-frame. And then, there are more than 8.7 million species of life on Earth (Google Search).

Mmm .. G-d is not a person, and is of infinite nature..

 

[juantoo3]

They don't need to. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties

Then it isn't a new species.

Viruses technically are not even alive, and without a host cannot reproduce and cannot survive for very long.

Nice try though. "Species" applies to sexually reproducing organisms.

Care to give another go? There's been at least one more species born since yesterday, it's got to be out there somewhere.

 

[juantoo3]

I think this is to misunderstand. Reproductive fitness, as the term is used, has to do with the ability of an organism to get its genes to the next generation, by whatever strategy. If your genes pass on, then the traits those genes carry are more likely to show up in subsequent generations. This is obviously more likely if your genes create traits that further help you pass on genes. If being smarter helps, then lots of smart genes end up in subsequent generations. If having abstract reasoning helps you in any fashion that would also help your genes make it to the next generation, either by one's abstract intelligence helping individuals and groups in having successful hunts, surviving long winters, garnering wealth, getting good marriages for their sons and daughters, etc etc, then the trait of being smart, and smart enough to engage in abstract reasoning, to the extent that it is genetic, will be passed to subsequent generations.

This explores it briefly and with some nuance https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/the_meaning_of_fitness/

It's a pity about the old adage, I don't know whom the adage was supposed to help out exactly, but the truth is, people's brains do make them want to reproduce, and reproducing passes on genes that make new brains. With the posessors of smarter brains having the best chance to make it to reproductive age and make sure their offspring make it to reproductive age. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "reproduction has little to do with how the human brain functions" what with so many people claiming their reproductive hormones influence how they feel, and what with people being so consciously preoccupied with their mating strategies (love lives) etc etc etc...

Sounds like Lamarckism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

"By his own account, Herbert Spencer described a concept similar to "survival of the fittest" in his 1852 "A Theory of Population".[8] He first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology of 1864[9] in which he drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin's biological, evolutionary ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."[2]"

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To keep matters in a context, it was Sir Francis Galton's application of Darwinian logic to human evolution known as Eugenics that fuelled the "Final Solution."

"Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911) systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his half-cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now-common "regression towards the mean".[16] "

Looks good on paper, but really sucks for those at the bottom end of the power structure.

How many brute jock bullies giving wedgies and swirlies to nerds would it take to politely but seriously question your position of brains being sexy? Simply, I don't see it. The typical brainiac is anything but a chick magnet.

 

[juantoo3]

Yeah, your personal experience is for you, not for others.

And I've said as much, many times over the years.

True, but I give preference to evidence.

So do I, but evidence is not always available.

Science also is equally concerned with 'why?'

Why does one plus one equal two?

Why do birds fly?

Why does the sky change color at sunrise and sunset?

Is it not, perhaps, that "how come" is being confused with "why?"

Have not heard the name of Stephen J. Gould.

Short book called Rocks of Ages, worth a quick read.

My atheism is solely from Hinduism and Buddhism, and of course, from science.

I accept that.

Just curious, apart from philosophy and logic, what scientific measures or equipment were used in your search for G!d? Surely, as a scientist, you did not simply dismiss and then wait for someone else to provide definitive proof, no? I mean, science is all about the exploration and explanation, nothing is ever dismissed without at least some testable experiment.

So Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and logic would naturally dismiss G!d in any anthropomorphic sense, although in deep discussion with Buddhists we have agreement of a "Source," a "Wellspring" from which all of physical reality comes, which is certainly what I've always considered to be G!d.

I don't know of anyone who has developed equipment to find, measure, or otherwise scientifically interpret this Source. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, what else could the Big Bang be afterall?, the source of all material existence?

Your view, not mine.

Bedamned, not be damned. Like it or not, there are things science is not equipped to address. (Dismissing G!d without substantiation is only one.)

 

[TheLightWithin]

If the person is holding a false belief for some benefit, then I will consider the person as smart, intelligent.
If for no benefit, then the person is dumb, not intelligent.
Take the example of the Shaman. Who is intelligent and who is not?

Most Shamans are probably brilliant. But what do I know of Shamans?
Sadly little at this time.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Sometimes beliefs makes them unintelligent, sometimes they are unintelligent even without their beliefs. It depends on what education they got.

I think you are confusing a belief being logical with a person being intelligent.
You can make the argument that believing in something in the absence of a certain standard of evidence is not logical.
You can then try to apply that to the specific circumstance of someone believing in the existence of the supernatural.
You then face at least two problems:
One, a person can argue that one way or another, they have some evidence that they find convincing as to the existence of the supernatural, whatever that evidence or information may be.
Two, you are still conflating logic with intelligence.
Intelligence is only partly defined by the ability to use logic.
It is not identical with every belief held by an individual meeting your criteria for what is logical.
Intelligent, logical people can do or say or think some illogical things.

And even then, you're still left with question 1 as to whether someone's beliefs are really illogical, depending on what evidence they are looking at and their process for arriving at their conclusion.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Most Shamans are probably brilliant. But what do I know of Shamans?
Sadly little at this time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mmm .. G-d is not a person, and is of infinite nature..

I give the credit to evolution. Like we used iron, now there are thousands of kinds of steel. Like we used plastics, now we have thousands of kinds of plastics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then it isn't a new species. Viruses technically are not even alive, and without a host cannot reproduce and cannot survive for very long.
Nice try though. "Species" applies to sexually reproducing organisms.
There's been at least one more species born since yesterday, it's got to be out there somewhere.

1. So you agree that the line between life and non-life is hazy.
2. I do not think so. Will like to know what other members think about it.
"Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour, or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
3. Yeah, I am sure of that. It will wait to be found.

 

[juantoo3]

3. Yeah, I am sure of that. It will wait to be found.

Until it is found you have no evidence, only supposition based in dogmatic rumor.

 

[Faithfulservant]

The World Health Organization (WHO) did recommend eating locusts as a possible solution to food insecurity and malnutrition in some regions of the world. Locusts are edible insects that are rich in protein, iron, zinc, and other nutrients. They are also environmentally friendly, as they require less water, land, and feed than conventional livestock. The WHO published a report in 2013 titled “Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security”

John the Baptist lived off locusts and wild honey while in the desert.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So do I, but evidence is not always available.
Why does one plus one equal two?
Why do birds fly? Why does the sky change color at sunrise and sunset?
Is it not, perhaps, that "how come" is being confused with "why?"

Short book called Rocks of Ages, worth a quick read.

I accept that.

Just curious, apart from philosophy and logic, what scientific measures or equipment were used in your search for G!d? Surely, as a scientist, you did not simply dismiss and then wait for someone else to provide definitive proof, no? I mean, science is all about the exploration and explanation, nothing is ever dismissed without at least some testable experiment.

So Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and logic would naturally dismiss G!d in any anthropomorphic sense, although in deep discussion with Buddhists we have agreement of a "Source," a "Wellspring" from which all of physical reality comes, which is certainly what I've always considered to be G!d.

I don't know of anyone who has developed equipment to find, measure, or otherwise scientifically interpret this Source. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, what else could the Big Bang be afterall?, the source of all material existence?

Bedamned, not be damned. Like it or not, there are things science is not equipped to address. (Dismissing G!d without substantiation is only one.)

The only difference is that when evidence is not available, I do not substitute it with 'Goddidit'. I wait.
Oh, I never did well in Mathematics. I should have gone for Biology.
Birds fly because evolution gave them wings.

Whether it is a croc, bat, or a butterfly, or a human; all have Humerus, Radius and Ulna bones. We are related, even to dinosaurs.

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/appearance-sky (Before a question is asked, it should be checked in Google or Wikipedia or the like).
Science is interested in all sentences which end with a '?'

Don't really need to read Stephen J. Gould. I am already there, and perhaps could tell him something new.

I am not a research scientist. I only did a Bachelor's with Physics and Geology (ages ago - 1960).
They use Sigma classification In science too. The concept of God qualifies for Sigma 0.1^100.

There are various views in Hinduism and Buddhism. They are different from One God, One Messenger, One Book religions.

Finding the 'source' is for future. It will take decades or centuries, not in my life time at least (unless a Super Einstein appears).
I am a bit short of time.