Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Thundercrack85]

Seeing the sorts of people who claim they will be going to heaven (the fundamentalists), will hell really be that bad?

 

[Piper Maru]

Hell will have good weather, music etc...

t:

 

[Godzilla2000]

I guess I have an interesting opinion about Evolution. I believe in it to some degree, but I just cannot accept that change randomly occurs as evolution seems to state. There must be some sort of unseen force at work to cause such physical changes of adaptability.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well it's not entirely random.

However please don't say that unseen force is some deity prophesized by people thousands of years ago, who didn't know where the Sun went at night.

 

[Godzilla2000]

Well it's not entirely random.

However please don't say that unseen force is some deity prophesized by people thousands of years ago, who didn't know where the Sun went at night.

Well, Deity is a very strong word to utilize here. I blame it all on the midichlorines.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I guess I have an interesting opinion about Evolution. I believe in it to some degree, but I just cannot accept that change randomly occurs as evolution seems to state.

It doesn't state that. Problem solved.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Let me make one attempt to explain the free choice vs. predestination question:
Let's say you have a son or daughter. You're in a restaurant, and they want a drink the restaurant has many kinds of soda. You've known your child all your life, so you know they'll choose let's say, Pepsi.
Did s/he choose it, or did you control him?

This - yet again - ignores the act of creation. It's not at all analogous to the scenario in question.

 

[Dr.]

I guess I have an interesting opinion about Evolution. I believe in it to some degree, but I just cannot accept that change randomly occurs as evolution seems to state. There must be some sort of unseen force at work to cause such physical changes of adaptability.

Genetic mutation and drift provide the random, raw materials for evolution. Reproductive survival (or failure) is the selection “force” that you speak of - and it’s decidedly non-random.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Genetic mutation and drift provide the random, raw materials for evolution. Reproductive survival (or failure) is the selection “force” that you speak of - and it’s decidedly non-random.

Very well put.

 

[Schlosser85]

The only thing more amazing to me than the utter mindlessness of the parents, is that they avoided prison. http://4yous.info/russel-and-brandi...rents-avoid-jail-after-austin-sprout-16-dies/

 

[grout]

I think Quantum Physics will play a role in the "theory of evolution",, in other words there seems to be a ghost in the machine that may effect things physically. Im not coming from any religious viewpoint at all. Interesting stuff though,,, and im not here to debate the physcial obersvations that the "theory of Evolution" has made. I think we just might find more to it.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The square cube law as it applies to biology also favors only certain forms at certain sizes.

The variety of forms on this planet alone at a given size-class gives me reason to doubt this. Did you read this somewhere, or are you speculating?

Our hands, as much as our brains, is responsible for our intelligence. Our brain is only a short cry from Chimps but we have much better dexterity. So regardless of the digit number; hands and limbs would have to exist.

Why?

Furthermore, how are you defining intelligence?

About the only thing that "discredits" it is the notion of other types of intelligence, like Hive mind. In order to be intelligent "like us" they'd have to be "like us".

Based on what? You throw out these assertions but you never provide support for them.

It's all interconnected and you'd really have to believe A) DNA like substance would have to be the basis B) they'd likely be carbon base and C) an atmosphere and no major bombardment.

(c) is not a required assumption, in my opinion.

Therefore you'd have similar conditions which would invariably yield similar results.

This was my central issue with Thundercrack's post, and this is basically the first time you've addressed it (with the exception of your first sentence). As before, you've given no support for this position. Why would it "invariably" yield similar results?

 

[Doctor Evo]

One thing I seem to read a lot is people saying that aliens won't look like us (i.e. the kind that can get to Earth).

I would say that convergent evolution would seem to imply that they will probably look very much like us. Especially if they come from a goldilocks planet.

Their may even be other apes out there.

This argument would be far more valid if we had evidence of the existence of other anthropomorphic beings that were derived through an independent evolutionary lineage within the history of our own planet. The simple fact is that there are many taxa that are morphologically and physiologically unique; if your argument were based in reality, we should expect (realistically) to see only a very few general morphotypes for a given environment. This is decidedly not the case.

Parallel adaptive radiation appears to work in far too general a fashion to justify your prediction. There's also the issue of ecological niches being based, at least in part, on existing diversity. That is to say, the evolutionary history of co-existing organisms may play a huge role in future evolutionary development. Your argument must also assume, then, a progression of evolutionary development identical to earth's across multiple (and potentially all) lineages on this hypothetical planet, which seems rather unlikely.

Here you go, TC. Have at it.

EDIT: One point worth making: I used to believe that "convergent evolution" and "parallel adaptive radiation" were the same thing. I recently learned that there is a very fine distinction between them. When I say "parallel adaptive radiation," I do mean convergent evolution.

 

[Dr.]

The variety of forms on this planet alone at a given size-class gives me reason to doubt this. Did you read this somewhere, or are you speculating?

Possibly a reference to “scaling” - the square/cube relationship between surface area and volume. Thus, an ant is constrained to a relatively small size because it would collapse under its own weight if it were larger (an evolutionary limit imposed by physics).

JBS Haldane wrote a famous essay about this in 1926. Google “On Being the Right Size.”

 

[Doctor Evo]

Possibly a reference to “scaling” - the square/cube relationship between surface area and volume. Thus, an ant is constrained to a relatively small size because it would collapse under its own weight if it were larger (an evolutionary limit imposed by physics).

JBS Haldane wrote a famous essay about this in 1926. Google “On Being the Right Size.”

Oh, I got that reference, and I'm familiar with the concept. The problem I have is that it seemed as though he was implying that the limitations are far greater (with respect to the variety of possible forms at a given size) than they really are. His phrasing has me perplexed:

"Certain forms at certain sizes," as he puts it, seems to be a misinterpretation of the concept.

He's trying to argue in favor of the inevitability of the independent evolution of hominid forms on other planets. There's no reason to expect that, given our size, a hominid body plan would be an inevitability. That's specifically what I was asking him to support. Otherwise, the argument seems out of place here.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Here you go, TC. Have at it.

EDIT: One point worth making: I used to believe that "convergent evolution" and "parallel adaptive radiation" were the same thing. I recently learned that there is a very fine distinction between them. When I say "parallel adaptive radiation," I do mean convergent evolution.

Right, my point is simply that, this planet has produced a lot of species (billions). The only one capable of going into space are humans.

Are there other hypothetical designs that could? Sure. But so far we have only evolved one (out of billions). If there are other planets out there, under similar conditions (in the goldilocks zone), your odds are that there will be other humanoids in space.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Right, my point is simply that, this planet has produced a lot of species (billions). The only one capable of going into space are humans.

Are there other hypothetical designs that could? Sure. But so far we have only evolved one (out of billions). If there are other planets out there, under similar conditions (in the goldilocks zone), your odds are that there will be other humanoids in space.

There are two claims here with which I take issue. I've already addressed the first:

1) That planets under similar conditions will in all likelihood produce humanoid forms (I've already explained why this is not the case - and, to add to my original point, this completely ignores the stochastic aspect of evolution and the chance events that lead to various selection events and pressures, which I partially covered in the second paragraph).

2) That since the evolutionary history of this planet has produced only one form that is capable of going into space, this is the form we will most likely see in other space-faring beings.

If you cannot address my objections to the first point, how can you justify the second? It is a prerequisite. Furthermore, the second represents a blatant logical fallacy. It simply does not follow that since we've made only one such observation that all subsequent observations must in all likelihood be of a similar nature.

What it means is that we cannot properly assess the likelihood of such an outcome because we've only been able to make one such observation. You can't make inferences with a sample size of "one."

 

[Thundercrack85]

Evolution may be random (to some degree), but there are certain outcomes. Most creatures are doomed to never leave their own planet. Only a handful of species will go into space. The humanoid form is the best we've got. It's the only form we have. Maybe there's something better out there, but it hasn't happened here. And what's happened here, will inevitably happen elsewhere.

I agree it's not a great sample size, but it's all we got. And well, the alien sightings... but then scientists have never been interested in those. And most of them are rather dubious. I have always found it interesting that virtually all are described as humanoid though. Perhaps subconscious anthropocentrism?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Evolution may be random (to some degree), but there are certain outcomes. Most creatures are doomed to never leave their own planet. Only a handful of species will go into space. The humanoid form is the best we've got. It's the only form we have. Maybe there's something better out there, but it hasn't happened here. And what's happened here, will inevitably happen elsewhere.

You really need to support these statements. You're treading dangerously close to the territory of "goal-based" evolution, and you keep making the assertion of this "inevitable" outcome without supporting it.

I agree it's not a great sample size, but it's all we got.

Then why try to extrapolate? The only honest position to take, given this problem, is that we cannot make a proper assessment with respect to likelihood/probability.

And well, the alien sightings... but then scientists have never been interested in those. And most of them are rather dubious. I have always found it interesting that virtually all are described as humanoid though. Perhaps subconscious anthropocentrism?

Bingo. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, we are talking about a sextillion stars, with literally countless planets. We know Earth exists, we know Earth-like planets exist. Ergo, it's basically guaranteed that every animal that evolved independently on Earth can evolve elsewhere. Barring Earth and humanity really being some individual's specific plan (i.e. creationism).

We've been at this for billions of years, and the only species on the planet that has been able to go into space, is us. The only species that even comes close. And since there is nothing that stops creatures like us from evolving elsewhere... and the fact that virtually all other creatures are poorly designed to build any sort of high-end technology, I'd say it's rather likely that we'll find other humanoids out there. And when I say humanoid, I don't mean ape. Bipeds, who can use their hands to manipulate things.

Doesn't mean we won't find a weird highly evolved cephalopod that managed to do the same thing, but I suspect we'll see more humanoids.

 

[Shemtov]

I've been thinking for while, nd I releize tht I have MAJOR problem with this thread's poll.
It honestly isn't a yes/no question there are many grades of believing in evolution.
The poll does not include belief in evolution that includes rejection of specesation (sp?). Tht is wht I beleive in, I'm not lone. Like it or not there are plenty of people who think that. We feel that we have to vote no, because most people think that evolution includes speciesation, but really this poll misrepersents us .

 

[moviedoors]

Well, we are talking about a sextillion stars, with literally countless planets. We know Earth exists, we know Earth-like planets exist. Ergo, it's basically guaranteed that every animal that evolved independently on Earth can evolve elsewhere. Barring Earth and humanity really being some individual's specific plan (i.e. creationism).

We've been at this for billions of years, and the only species on the planet that has been able to go into space, is us. The only species that even comes close. And since there is nothing that stops creatures like us from evolving elsewhere... and the fact that virtually all other creatures are poorly designed to build any sort of high-end technology, I'd say it's rather likely that we'll find other humanoids out there. And when I say humanoid, I don't mean ape. Bipeds, who can use their hands to manipulate things.

Doesn't mean we won't find a weird highly evolved cephalopod that managed to do the same thing, but I suspect we'll see more humanoids.

You're still basing all of this on a sample size of one.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You're still basing all of this on a sample size of one.

I freely admit that. Get me a second one, and we'll talk.

I'm not ruling out star-faring cephalopods... or what have you, I'm simply saying that humanoids are as far as we know, the most likely organism to achieve space-flight. And there's no reason to believe they won't evolve elsewhere.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I've been thinking for while, nd I releize tht I have MAJOR problem with this thread's poll.
It honestly isn't a yes/no question there are many grades of believing in evolution.
The poll does not include belief in evolution that includes rejection of specesation (sp?). Tht is wht I beleive in, I'm not lone. Like it or not there are plenty of people who think that. We feel that we have to vote no, because most people think that evolution includes speciesation, but really this poll misrepersents us .

Well, you can't cherry pick a scientific theory. Well I suppose you could, but not on any rational grounds. Everything supports everything else.

I mean, which part of the theory of gravity do you disagree with?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I've been thinking for while, nd I releize tht I have MAJOR problem with this thread's poll.
It honestly isn't a yes/no question there are many grades of believing in evolution.
The poll does not include belief in evolution that includes rejection of specesation (sp?). Tht is wht I beleive in, I'm not lone. Like it or not there are plenty of people who think that. We feel that we have to vote no, because most people think that evolution includes speciesation, but really this poll misrepersents us .

You do understand that speciation - the process as well as the end result - has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild, correct?