Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

@Aedes,

"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted." -- Stephen Wright

:na:

@IntoTheLight,

I can't see why evolution as it stands has to be shown to be wrong to make room for a Designer. It can stay just as it is and theists can choose to believe that God is guiding or manipulating the results. There is no need to resort to pseudoscience (not that anyone has on this thread, I'm just saying) to support this.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;105654 wrote:

Maybe it takes 2 billion years for a brain to develop which is capable of this level of development.

It takes much less time than that considering that we had common ancestry with chimps just ~ 5 million years ago, mammals arose only 200 million years ago, and ALL chordates (from sea squirts to eels to humans) have only been around for 500-600 million years. In other words, the development of all modern life 2009 took billions of years; but the development of the human brain per se happened very rapidly if you're counting from when the brain was more primitive.

jeeprs;105654 wrote:

But the Darwinian account of the human species is reductionist.

The Darwinian account also took place before the development of paleontology, geology, isotopic dating methods, genetics, molecular biology, and modern mathematics, so no wonder it was reductionist -- he was missing EVERY tool that has created the evolutionary biology of 2009 as opposed to 1850. The Darwinian account was a hypothesis. But there has been a subsequent 150 years of evolutionary biology, and the most revolutionary work has been done in just the last 20-30 years since the advent of modern molecular biology methods.

Honestly, the work of Thomas Cavalier-Smith utterly dwarfs that of Darwin in terms of explanatory power and the explanation of ancestral relationships between species. Darwin was revolutionary, but that was because he launched the science -- not because he gave us the answers.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;105662 wrote:

But you are not likely to produce books patiently explaining to the rest of us ignorant earthlings why all of our traditional culture is based on a delusion.

No, but why is that an issue?

If someone wants to write a book like that I support their right to do so.

If the resulting disillusionment affects people in various ways - some of them apparently upsetting - I think the onus is on them to reconcile themselves to it, or pass it by and find some alternative consolation.

Dawkins annoys you - so move on or get over it - it's not worth it. There are celebrities out there who annoy the Hell out of me - so I don't think on them. I don't give the likes of Liam Gallagher or, Glenn Beck my time and money. But I don't think music is wrong just because a celeb I find annoying plays music.

Whilst denying the worldview of Richard Dawkins is anyone's privilige, I don't think denying the facts employed to construct the worldview is worthwhile (beyond the clear fun and education to be had from the debate itself).

Quote:

And, as I said before, and I think it remains unrebutted, if nature is blind and dumb, there is no real notion of truth possible, in the sense in which it is understood in Western philosophy.

But existentialism and absurdism are western philosophies, and they deal specifically with the notion that objective truth isn't possible, and that one must create one's own.

Quote:

We are just being carried forward in what remaining momentum our dying culture has accumulated. It is possible that the import of the situation is not actually clear to you.

As far as I see it, the secular search for understanding is what has made my culture worthwhile and added much to my quality of life.

What I see threatening my culture is an ignorance of the human condition, and a kind of blase trust in supernatural salvation over actually doing something about looming environmental catastrophe.

A danger dismissed by many of those who beleive in salvation as being part of a master plan, and therefore to be ignored, or even looked forward to.

The Anne Coulter "Jesus wants you to have a big house, SUV, powerboat, as many kids as you want, etc" attitude.

Rather than the "we are part of this ecosystem, which works like this, and is balanced by this, and if our children are to appreciate it as we do we need to treat it with care" attitude of most informed secular scientific types.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Thanks Dave - you are right in many ways. I have these discussions with one of my best friends here in Sydney and he says more or less the same thing. I am not institutionally religious, or supporting a religious state, but I will always stand up for spiritual values, that is the perspective I will generally defend. I have nothing in common with right wing columnists or down-home US religiosity.

Of course it is Dawkins right to publish such a book, and my right to say it contains a great deal of uninformed bigotry, which I will continue to do.

The aim of the secular society, in my view, is to provide the space and freedom to choose any spiritual value system, or none, as you see fit. But it does not necessarily follow that none is better than any. If you are an intelligent and conscientious person, you can always create a perfectly sound value system on your own. But many are not, and I think western society is loosing its moral foundation in many ways. It doesn't mean bringing back the past, but it doesn't mean throwing it away, either. It needs to be re-intepreted, re-discussed and re-discovered, knowing what we now know.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;105587 wrote:

I am not really sure what you are implying here.

But if you want to get technical. Humans have created elements that don't naturally exist in nature. From the understanding of chemistry we have in a sense created elements because they didn't previously exist to our knowledge.

They might not have created life from these experiments, but it is a promising start to understanding just one possibility of how life began. Perhaps one day the whole process will unfold and the end product will be considered something organic and living.

I almost sense a sort of HA! man cant create a universe so there! in your response. But wouldn't you be implying that something else did? It is a little contradictory that you require proof from scientific endeavors but when it comes to your theology it requires absolutely none.

You are referring to element such a Plutonium?, these elements are formed from other existing elements by nuclear fusion ext not created, again other in the field of art man creates nothing only manipulates what already exists

Something greater than man can imagine created the universe, but if evolution is an example of its work it cannot be omni-all

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

My bottom line is that nature is not dumb, it - she - is smart. Intelligence gave rise to us, we are not the accidental products of unintentional dumb accident. It that makes me theistic, amen, but I can tell you now there ain't many Christians who would feel comfortable with what I have to say.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;105322 wrote:

I would like to energize this topic with a few points of my own
The present theory of relativity supposes that the single cell is simple. Cells process information, store and retrieval They have a language and decoding system They have a mechanism foir error detection, correction and for quality control. They have a transportation and distribution system. Automated addressing system. They have embedded in there code an assembly process and modular construction system and self reproduction manufacturing plants
Cells are more complex than the space shuttle.

If you mean single cells are more complex than the space shuttle. I should agree with you. Complexity depends on knowledge, perception, and perspective. At one point of time, lets say the 1950s, television set was a highly complex machine/devise or instrument.

The coding and decoding system you mentioned are a modern type of description or attributes, perhaps your refernece is a complex computer system like a robot machine, except for the self reproducing manufacturing system, which obviously a robot machine is not acapable to do or replicate itself.

Today of course you can call cells as complex machine, except that they are naturally found, grows, navigates, exchanges energy and reproduces.
This in other words can be defined as 'life systems'.

Alan McDougall;105322 wrote:

Darwin theory although titles the "Origin of the species" never really spoke about the origin but the diversity and variation of the species

True, he did not bothered about the origin issue but his emphasis was to direct the attention of human kind into the process or method to look at the origin. We humans had always been du eto our cognitive capability pondered on the vexed issue of our origin. Darwin, showed us the direction at which to look.

Alan McDougall;105322 wrote:

DNA is a code and any code that is randomly altered usually ends up as nonsense..

Thats a strange proposition. Variation shows to random selection. It is labelled 'random' because there was no way that Lamarck Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Mendel knew about cells, dnas, and genes. Again, 'randomness' as a term is still used because, i think, there is an admitted dearth of knowledge on how genes mutate, or dna letters are restructured in a chromosome, or what exactly causes change in species.

The fact and probablity of, one's son or daughter being or getting smarter than the parents is not a 'nonsense' but a common sense.

Alan McDougall;105322 wrote:

No one has answered the question how did life was created out of the basic elements.

Yes, thats fortunately and unfortunately true.

Alan McDougall;105322 wrote:

As far as mutation I can not recall even one mutation that has been an advantage to the entity or its fellow creatures.

Why can't it be said that the giraffe has survived the african hostility only due to its long neck and its long legs, the flying squirrels can survive better than the non flying squirrels in the jungle, and kiwi shed its wing when they found that there is no threat to their life in New Zealand.

The above non-human examples does indicate mutation taking place somehow and can be seen as an advantage in the present day context.

[QUOTE=Alan McDougall;105322] Homology suggest a common ancestor but I see a common designer keeping to a proved design.[/quote]

We have come a long way from evolution from natural selection to creative evolution, to directed evolution to intelligent design theories of life history. The painting of Monalisa is an act of creation, The woman called Monalisa is a act of creation too. The former is an man made act or object, while the later is a natural act or object. Yes both are product of some form of 'happening', which may be called creation.

[QUOTE=Alan McDougall;105322] What about the lack of evolution as far as plant life is considered?[/quote]

Plants have also evolved, biogenesis and plant breeds are ample proof of evolving tendencies and capacities of plants. There are thousands and thousands of variety of grasses, each adopting and adapting to the niche or biotic zones.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Yeah, the evolutionary biology of plants is as fascinating if not more so than that of animals. The endosymbiosis of plastids, the diversification of ALL terrestrial plants from green algae... amazing.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106023 wrote:

Yeah, the evolutionary biology of plants is as fascinating if not more so than that of animals. The endosymbiosis of plastids, the diversification of ALL terrestrial plants from green algae... amazing.

The symbiosis of flowers and pollinators, the relatively recent appearance of grass, the positive feedback loop between fruit and things which eat fruit, human influence on the edible flowerheads, buds and leaves of brasilicas resulting in three types of popular (or loathed) vegetable...

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Friday Afterlife Report 27th November 2009

But when tackling the Thomas Aquinas' argument that 'God' is the first Cause, Mills said, Wrong! Why?
1. Thomas Aquinas entered into evidence a legitimate 'qualified' statement to the argument of Cause and Effect: that 'God WAS the First Cause'.
2. Directly linked to this is the fact that an 'intelligent' effect had to have had an 'intelligent' cause, i.e. GRAVITY is an 'intelligent' energy effect which had to come from an 'intelligent' cause. You can't have 'gravity' without energy.
3. Order in the universe, an 'intelligent' effect had to have an intelligent cause. Gravity plays a huge part in producing order in the universe. If there is 'order', there has to be intelligent design..
4. The power5. The process of 'growth' anywhere, is an intelligent effect from an intelligent cause - has to be!
6. The perfection of the structure of an atom is an intelligent effect from an intelligent cause. And there are thousands of other examples of intelligent effects which had to come from an intelligent cause. Nature on its own is not intelligent.
7. Every intelligent effect mentioned above has energy for its sustenance and maintenance.There is energy in the evolution-process. Whilst energy cannot be destroyed - energy can be transformed. 'Intelligent effects' are intelligently- -designed energy. Some experts say that the activity of energy had no beginning, it will be modified over time in many ways but it will have not end. 'Chance' does not and cannot explain 'order' in the universe.
8. Scientific observation of 'consciousness'. Scientists - such as Profs. Aspect, Dalibard, Roger and even Dr.David Bohm claim that the universe has 'consciousness'. If there is consciousness there inevitably is energy - because you cannot have consciousness without energy. Everything in the universe - and on planet Earth is ' intelligently -designed energy.' There are those who argue that the power/order behind the universe's intelligent-designed energy is the First Cause - 'God.'
9. Implied in Mills' argument that the thousands and millions of intelligent effects we can observe ourselves came about by 'chance'. That is not acceptable and can never be acceptable.
10. Statisticians will tell you 'NO' - 'You can't use 'chance' as a reasonable explanation for a cumulative succession of things, each with a one in a billion billion probability of coming by chance. Chance' alone will not and cannot explain 'intelligent effects.'

This does NOT mean that 'God' is the traditional religious God - and someone with a long white beard in the sky 'controlling traffic' on Earth. . .Accordingly, the atheists' argument against the First Cause can never be accepted in logic, in professional debate and in science. The 'First Cause' adequately explains the existence of a 'POWER' people call 'God.'

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

The scientific theory of evolution neither imputes nor denies causes or purposes.
One could interpret the evolutionary process as blind and purposeless or one could see profound purpose in the process.
The theory in its general outline- the development of more complex life forms from simpler life forms over time with lots of extinctions and blind alleys is almost certainly correct.
Lots of the specifics are still open to debate.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;106245 wrote:

Friday Afterlife Report 27th November 2009

But when tackling the Thomas Aquinas' argument that 'God' is the first Cause, Mills said, Wrong! Why?
1. Thomas Aquinas entered into evidence a legitimate 'qualified' statement to the argument of Cause and Effect: that 'God WAS the First Cause'.
2. Directly linked to this is the fact that an 'intelligent' effect had to have had an 'intelligent' cause, i.e. GRAVITY is an 'intelligent' energy effect which had to come from an 'intelligent' cause. You can't have 'gravity' without energy.
3. Order in the universe, an 'intelligent' effect had to have an intelligent cause. Gravity plays a huge part in producing order in the universe. If there is 'order', there has to be intelligent design..
4. The power5. The process of 'growth' anywhere, is an intelligent effect from an intelligent cause - has to be!
6. The perfection of the structure of an atom is an intelligent effect from an intelligent cause. And there are thousands of other examples of intelligent effects which had to come from an intelligent cause. Nature on its own is not intelligent.
7. Every intelligent effect mentioned above has energy for its sustenance and maintenance.There is energy in the evolution-process. Whilst energy cannot be destroyed - energy can be transformed. 'Intelligent effects' are intelligently- -designed energy. Some experts say that the activity of energy had no beginning, it will be modified over time in many ways but it will have not end. 'Chance' does not and cannot explain 'order' in the universe.
8. Scientific observation of 'consciousness'. Scientists - such as Profs. Aspect, Dalibard, Roger and even Dr.David Bohm claim that the universe has 'consciousness'. If there is consciousness there inevitably is energy - because you cannot have consciousness without energy. Everything in the universe - and on planet Earth is ' intelligently -designed energy.' There are those who argue that the power/order behind the universe's intelligent-designed energy is the First Cause - 'God.'
.............
..........
This does NOT mean that 'God' is the traditional religious God - and someone with a long white beard in the sky 'controlling traffic' on Earth. . .Accordingly, the atheists' argument against the First Cause can never be accepted in logic, in professional debate and in science. The 'First Cause' adequately explains the existence of a 'POWER' people call 'God.'

We have got into a metaphysical and epistemiologcal issue, far away from the issue of evolution.

Evolution is a natural process, as you too, almost, seems to agree. And you are trying to draw the attention that evolutionary theory, as it stands may be wrong. Well, any theory which is not testable, or falsified is possible if not liable, to be wrong.

Since evolution cannot be proved in one lifetime, does not mean its logic is wrong. In that case the God theory or the Intelligent Design based on an Intelligent Power theory is also equally wrong, and wrong for more reasons than one.

As we debate over diffrent theories in a trial and error basis, so also the theory of evolution suggests a method of evolutionaty processes which at a very basic level of understanding appears to be a trial and error kind of process. The very fact that extinction occurs in species, is evidnece to the fact that natural processes are not necessarily working on a purposeful objective or desired goals. The Dodo getting extinct is an example of its failure.

Intelligent Power or Universal Energy is an anthropomorphic attribute given to the elan-vitale or force. This is almost near to the understanding of Brahman in the Hindu philosophy. The Intelligent Design argument is a slightly twisted concept thats all. Because putting the attribute of Intelligence (with a capital I, always) to every vital things is problematic for a rational thought. The whole problem being that intelligence, is manifest in the concept of 'life' itself. There cannot be 'Life without intelligence, which is an abstract human quality. But these days it is shown more as a property by putting 'I' in capital.

For a rational thought, gravity is a vital force - definitely an energy, but why should it be caused by a supposed Intelligent Power.

The intelligent design caused by intelligent power argument is no doubt a God theory. As you agree, it is not a personal God argument but acknowledges the First Cause argument. The whole argument of Thomas Aquinas is based on Aristotalian concepts. The First Cause being an non-Contingent Intelligent (- a modern day western concept) Cause is not logical as it is premised on an a-priori principle.

The chance that an a-priori principle exists is a challenge to human intelligence and knowledge, and thats where all the ambiguity lies.

Even supposing that an Intelligent Power exists, and has caused life, then too, Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection is in no way undermined and still holds true. The ambiguity is well taken up by Alfred Wallace's assertion that humans have a mystical and spiritual tendency, in spite of the overwelming evidence of laws of nature all around the living beings.

Perhaps, the mystery and therfore the ambiguity will be resolved, only if, we intelligently find out why and how do humans act or behave or seeks spiritual and mystical mental experience's. A related field of enquiry would be to understand the nature of human consciousness, and the laws of nature. Apparently, Nature had been and has to be more benevolent towards us to give more intelligence- this theory can be said as a corollary of Darwin's Theory by our relative successfulness for surviving and transforming - and allow us or make us know about the relationship and causes of human mental experiences.

Going by the above, if we receive intelligence, like gravity as a physical phenomenon has, than the giver is also intelligent, by logic. Therefore, it can be said that Nature or God are intelligent. So there is nothing new added by the Intelligent Design argument.

Hence, the intelligent design argument only tries to address, in its own way, mistakenly or super-intelligently, the first cause metaphysical issue of matter. It does not prove the Evolutionary theory or the Origin of species theory wrong, in the physical plain of our human understanding.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106332 wrote:

Since evolution cannot be proved in one lifetime, does not mean its logic is wrong.

Evolution can be proved in one week in a petri dish. Take a bacteria that has a 20 minute generation time, expose it to a partially selective pressure, and wait a week (better yet give it some low dose radiation). After a week's time, you'll have a resistant phenotype as the dominant population, and this will be a genetically-mediated phenomenon.

That is evolution. It happens right in front of us. We have tamiflu-resistant H1N1 in our hospital right now. That is real time evolution.

You cannot prove the evolution of humans from ancestral chordates in the lab, but on the other hand the exact same signatures of genetic divergence exist in us as exist in bacteria, and these are corroborated by non-genetic examination (i.e. comparative morphology and the fossil record). So by far the most parsimonious and plausible explanation of human evolution invokes a genetic mechanism of evolution that is demonstrable real time.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Well i am not quite convinced by that real-time evolution hypothesis. The bacteria getting a resistant strain, and possibly the subsequent generation also follow up the capability, although indicates a mutation of sorts, does not make it a solid evidence to prove that species change takes place. bacteria remains a bacteria.

For arguments sake, lets take your logic with another example. If i administer a cholera resistant antibody inoculation, then does it make my subsequent generation, and thereafters, immune to cholera. I dont think so. this is a contrarian argument for your evidence.

The non-evolutionists or lets call them the den(y)iers wants more proofs, which clearly is not there. Evidence's are certainly there.

Yeah, i would support your argument if it is as shown in The Selfish Gene theory, and other lab experiments on fruit flys where the flies are subjected to a specific food regime or some other methods (i read long back) tend to change their colour. For me thats a good way to observe a change within the species. But even so, it does not show changing their morphology in a drastic fashion.

But to reemphasis, all the evidences like even from fields like paleontology, anthropology etc does indicate that the theory holds its stead in good.

There can be little doubt about the evolutionary theory having a solid basis for it to be a great principle or law of life. However, one cannot make light of the argument put forth by persons like Allan, because, as it may be, they believe that there is not enough proof, and that there are many unanswered questions for it to be logically concluded.

lets wait till then........

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106398 wrote:

does not make it a solid evidence to prove that species change takes place. bacteria remains a bacteria.

Bacteria are a kingdom, not a species. Within the species of Homo sapiens there is a great deal of phenotypic heterogeneity, and this is traceable to genetic polymorphisms. Same with phenotypic differences among bacterial species.

Jackofalltrades;106398 wrote:

If i administer a cholera resistant antibody inoculation, then does it make my subsequent generation, and thereafters, immune to cholera. I dont think so. this is a contrarian argument for your evidence.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I'm an infectious disease physician, so I'm not playing dumb -- what is a "cholera resistant antibody inoculation"? Are you talking about a cholera vaccine? Or are you talking about a genetic modification that would render humans resistant to cholera?

Antibody responses are not hereditable. So a vaccine would not pass to the next generation.

For gene therapy to be transmissible, it would have to also affect your germ line. A bone marrow transplant introduces a genetically novel bone marrow, but this is not transmissible to the next generation because it does not affect your germ line cells. If it did, however, which is a technical matter, then it WOULD be passed on in the next generation.

Whether it would persist or eventually predominate depends on how advantageous it is and how otherwise reproductively fecund the carriers are.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Why has evolution stopped with apes but not with Homo Sapient?

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

who says it has stopped with apes? Evolution via natural selection takes place over extremely long time periods in human terms. H Sapiens realised his(her) current physical form many tens of thousands of years before written records commenced. If you could arrange to return in 150,000 years I am sure the apes of those days might be appreciably different to the ones we see now.

Don't mix up the philosophical ideas of evolution with Darwin's theory of evolution. They are related topics but also very different, as I keep getting reminded on this forum.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;106400 wrote:

Bacteria are a kingdom, not a species. Within the species of Homo sapiens there is a great deal of phenotypic heterogeneity, and this is traceable to genetic polymorphisms. Same with phenotypic differences among bacterial species.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I'm an infectious disease physician, so I'm not playing dumb -- what is a "cholera resistant antibody inoculation"? Are you talking about a cholera vaccine? Or are you talking about a genetic modification that would render humans resistant to cholera?

Sir I'm not an infectious disease physician, .... all i am doing is that I'm pretending. I'm pretending to be a philosopher. Therefore, i cannot by the nature of the field i am interested in, cannot be a specialist of sorts. So, i am sorry to give a wrong impression. But not being a specialist has its advantages and disadvantages, depending on which ground you are standing!

As far as the conversation we are having, i would like to point out that you had mentioned about 'a bacteria' ..... now my common sense told me that if 'a bacteria' is subjected to some kind or method of experimentation, then the most likley surmise would be that you are talking about a strain or specie or subspecie of bacteria. It would be very difficult to know that the experiment was conducted to all kinds of the bacteria's under the kingdom (your classification) of Bacteria.

About inoculation, Sir, in this part of the world, we, and specially my physician always (well, most of the times) uses the word inoculation,....... having said this, you are right, i am refering to vaccination, if that helps.

But i did use the word delibartely, as it used to mean a deliberate administeration of a anti-pathogen, or anti-biotic to create anti-bodies, with the objective of increasing protection or tackling diseases. I may not be right in my understanding of medical terms. So, again i am sorry to confuse you.

As far as, the genetic modification of species is concerend, please tell us how do you know that the bacteria has been genetically modified. Meaning, what proof do you have that the genetic code is altered in someway or the other.

Even so, how does it prove evolution of species?

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Evolution is not random. Mutations can be but evolution itself is anything but random, it is highly structured.

Evolution does not pretend to give the answers to the beginning of life and ultimate truth, it merely purports to show how life works (rules it follow, how it advances). As such many people can still believe in god and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive.

So please don't say evolution is random, you are doing a great disservice to everyone on all sides of the issue by further clouding the truth.

Evolution is science that can be observed. It can tell you facts about how life is, not how it began. That is a different subject.

1 Reply

Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know