Thanks to Forstier, Harry, Calm, Proton and Neo for contributing to what is turning out to be a very interesting thread. I'll be with you all shortly but in the meantime please continue to post your excellent viewpoints. This group is quite diverse so I hope we can all gain something positive from this exchange. I hope some of our Muslim members can also offer their opinion so that we can achieve a more balanced point of view on this fascinating subject. My best regards to you all. LOB
_____________________________
"As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others" - Nelson Mandela
I have in times past been fascinated by the efforts to resolve evolution from a scientific and religious view. The quest to resolve them or to prove one wrong the other right has been an intellectual challenge. But it has not been a spiritual challenge.
The question, my particular view at the moment, and the eventual outcome of the pursuit of an answer has made virtually no difference in my life. The important questions in my life are pursued in my home as I deal with my family and at work as I deal with what my employer pays me to face. Evolution is so irrelevant to that practice.
But still, isn’t it neat to pursue this!!
I had a moment of epiphany when I learned that the Greek root for the word “create” means “to organize”. Then a further epiphany when I learned that the Latin root for create means “to grow”. If that was the case, then what we are pursuing is not the appearance of something from nothing, but the organization of something from elements already present and the growth and development of that thing.
I do not know anything about making things appear and disappear. It is foreign to me, and is more magic than anything else. I know about “reorganizing” though, I do it to all the stuff in my office daily, and I do it to my garage at least once a month. If creation is the reordering of the elements present, and the development of something new and more sophisticated, or beneficial, then I know a lot about that. In that process I can see an eventual resolution of science and religion on how we came to be amongst the species that exist today. I also believe that both my garage and my desk will simultaneously be neatly organized at the same time in the near future, but having sustained that hope for nearly thirty years without any fulfillment I am suspecting that my hopes are misplaced.
Being an old fart I can claim that they changed the rules {or assumptions} since I was in school and concede your point. Still, the non-reversion makes sense, particularly when we point to the total absence of new species in the past 10,000 years. The non-reversion requirement is tested {and may have been replaced by} a requirement that for a species to be defined, reproductive opportunity with its "cousins" must be absent.
I can only reiterate what I said before. Though all catalogs of species are a function of evolution, however, evolution itself is not a direct function of irreversible speciation. The latter is a contingent by-product of the accumulated environmental changes + genetic variation favored by natural selection, over an indefinite period of time. It is obviously a very good index for measuring evolution (i.e. our fossil records of diverse strata testify to evolutionary history), but it is not the primary rationale for it.
quote:
And yes, most species arrive and dissappear in waves and not continuously over time. But, many species have arisen in a near continuous fashion.
True, and again, this is not a priori but simply a statistical correlation. Species can propagate and become more complex, they can remain unchanged, revert, or even get wiped out.
quote:
I think but do not know that a major reason for the number of species is ecological. The survival of a species depends on an adequate environment favorable to its growth. As long as a particular ecological niche is well occupied, it is difficult for another species to develop unimpeded into it. There is a defined number of ecological niches in this world and they are generally not continuous {ie, water ends, land begins-different niche, forest ends, grassland begins -different niche, and yes some niches vary continuously into another with no real edge}. so, the millions of possible combinations of species is dratically reduced to the number of ecological niches available on any given planet. {Clarification - a single ecosystem can support large numbers of species {hence food chains exist within ecosystems}
My point was that there are a variety of changing factors that are effective.
Yes a niche promotes surivival, but only for those individuals who are genetically primed for it. So, introducing a new species to that niche is not going to cast them all out. Its simply going to skew selection of the gene pool, towards those that are maximally fit to adapt.
quote:
Combine that with the fact that most combinations of biological attributes are not viable and offer no competitive advantage - five legged horses and three eyed fish do not gain sufficient advantage to overcome the cost of resources needed to support them. This acts as "friction" in evolution.
Again, we have to be specific. Generally speaking, a mutation is like a shot in the dark. But at some point, a few mutations will optimize survival for a particular environment (which frequently goes through changes and thus perturbs the 'mutational status quo').
One example is viruses which (under standard conditions) try to repel certain mutations that are lethal to them. Ergo, their genome naturally minimizes the frequency of that mutation. However, under exposure to certain biochemical predators, this same [normally] dangerous mutation is colaterally very vital for resistance and thus multiplies over just a few generations at an incredible rate of selection.
< Message edited by Proton -- 5/2/2008 6:24:16 AM >
I have in times past been fascinated by the efforts to resolve evolution from a scientific and religious view. The quest to resolve them or to prove one wrong the other right has been an intellectual challenge. But it has not been a spiritual challenge. The question, my particular view at the moment, and the eventual outcome of the pursuit of an answer has made virtually no difference in my life. The important questions in my life are pursued in my home as I deal with my family and at work as I deal with what my employer pays me to face. Evolution is so irrelevant to that practice.
But still, isn’t it neat to pursue this!!
I had a moment of epiphany when I learned that the Greek root for the word “create” means “to organize”. Then a further epiphany when I learned that the Latin root for create means “to grow”. If that was the case, then what we are pursuing is not the appearance of something from nothing, but the organization of something from elements already present and the growth and development of that thing.
I do not know anything about making things appear and disappear. It is foreign to me, and is more magic than anything else. I know about “reorganizing” though, I do it to all the stuff in my office daily, and I do it to my garage at least once a month. If creation is the reordering of the elements present, and the development of something new and more sophisticated, or beneficial, then I know a lot about that. In that process I can see an eventual resolution of science and religion on how we came to be amongst the species that exist today. I also believe that both my garage and my desk will simultaneously be neatly organized at the same time in the near future, but having sustained that hope for nearly thirty years without any fulfillment I am suspecting that my hopes are misplaced.
Forstier
Hi Forstier,
No I’m still here. Thursday is the start of our weekend so I like to keep Thursday and Friday nights to spend time with my lady. I understand your point but in my case this debate is fairly new to me. I’m not looking for a definitive answer but as you said, it’s interesting to think about and debate such issues. I’m self employed and single, although I do have a steady partner who is incidentally Christian, so I do appreciate that I don’t have the immediate family security that you described in your post.
You know the reason I started to think about the irrelevance of religion is that these days Iraqi Muslims are almost always categorized as either Shia or Sunna. Then there is the debate about US Christians v. Iraqi Muslims. The forum was full of this **** and I was getting sick and tired of these infantile debates. In the past the Shia/Sunna thing was never an issue even though we used to joke about the differences sometimes. And since many of the families I hung out with were of mixed marriage, there was never any point in creating these imaginary differences. For most of my life, I never even knew which of my friends was Sunni and which was Shia. It might have been easier to notice which was Kurdish or Christian but only because of certain cultural and language differences, and even this was never discussed at all. In fact before 2003 I didn’t even know what those differences were. But these days we are faced with this dam question every day. Last night I dropped my lady home and took a cab back to my apartment. The cab driver who was a Palestinian asked me if I was Iraqi and I of course confirmed that I am. His next question was “are you Shia or are you Sunna”. This is a bloody Palestinian!! what the hell difference does it make to him? and why did he immediately assume I am a Muslim Iraqi? Instead of telling him where he could shove his question I answered that I was an Atheist just to shut him up. I mean who the hell wants to discuss this rubbish at 2am in the morning? I swear if someone asks me if I'm Sunni or Shia again, I'll choke them to death.
Its events such as these have led me to question my religious feelings and hence the reason for starting this thread. As I’ve already stated I don't feel religion is a spiritual entity to me anymore and find no peace of mind in it. I think having a good dinner with my family or spending quality time with my lady to be far more spiritual and uplifting than religion. I also realise the religion v. evolution thing won't lead me to the answers I seek but as you said.......
quote:
But still, isn’t it neat to pursue this!!
LOB
_____________________________
"As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others" - Nelson Mandela
Hi I really don't know where the 6 thousand years came from. I was always brought up to think that what was in the past measured as a day, could be a week, a hundreds days, it was not what we know now of 24 hours. In other words, its a period of time, simple explainable answer. By knowing that, I have no problem in accepting the scientific facts.
Thats interesting. I was chatting with my mom and the subject of evolution came up. After me ridiculing the Islamic teaching of the world being created in six days (God rested on the seventh from making such a perfect being where two connected sectiops of the large intestine, Appendix and Caesum, have no purpose whatsoever, whose waste-disposal organs double as those for reproduction ans their jaws are just slightly too large for the sides of their mouths, so the keep accedentally biting the sides of their mouths - be God gets a real laugh from watching us!).
Anyway, she said the exact same thing as you, that each 'day' could be a billion years. I argued that if the world's total age would be scaled down to a week, humans would not be created in the sixth day, but in the last 40 odd seconds of the last day.
I thought people in the olden days were less educated and stupid - so why does God explain it in such a riddle that not even now we can understand? Or is it like very simplified so it is rather an order of how he created everything rather than a time-scale - ie created/split light and dark first, ie created the electromagnetic field, which is a medium for the transportation of electro-magnetic fluctuations throughout our universe, then created man last, whose ruining eleverything else God has created on Earth out of greed and hate of their fellow man. That seems to make a lot more sense to me, even though I'm a believer of the Big Bang Theory.
Last night I dropped my lady home and took a cab back to my apartment. The cab driver who was a Palestinian asked me if I was Iraqi and I of course confirmed that I am. His next question was “are you Shia or are you Sunna”. This is a bloody Palestinian!! what the hell difference does it make to him? and why did he immediately assume I am a Muslim Iraqi? Instead of telling him where he could shove his question I answered that I was an Atheist just to shut him up. I mean who the hell wants to discuss this rubbish at 2am in the morning? I swear if someone asks me if I'm Sunni or Shia again, I'll choke them to death.
Dont be too shocked buddy. I constantly get that question, to the point I have become discouraged from even telling people where I'm from (originally). There is so much politics interwoven with nationality and religion these days, that you feel repulsed by even associating with any of it.
It no longer shocks me but given my accent is Iraqi and I live in Jordan there is no way to escape this crap. My girlfriend is also Iraqi and she has to suffer this inane line of questioning even though she is Chaldean Christian!?! What I don’t get is when I get into a cab I wouldn’t dream of asking the driver if he supports Fatah or Hamas because it’s none of my business. You see these Palestinians love Saddam and if I was to say Shia then he would take it upon himself to give me a second grade lecture on how Saddam was the greatest leader the Arab world has ever seen. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve lost my rag with these idiots and told them to stop the car and let me out so that I don’t shove my fist down their throats. The problem is I like a drink and hence I never drive in the evenings and have to rely on these dickheads to get home. I guess this is the price you pay for being a responsible citizen.
< Message edited by Lion of Babylon -- 5/2/2008 7:33:54 PM >
_____________________________
"As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others" - Nelson Mandela
I appreciate your well prepared response, and apologize for a less than comprehensive reply on my part. I am unable to use both hands to type, and I am working on a laptop perched precariously on one of my legs.
Species can remain stable, or evolve, but I am curious if you have an example of reversion? It strikes me that given the infinitesimally small likliehood that any particular mutation will occur times the equally infinitesimally small likliehood that environmental/ecological conditions will support its survival, reversion strikes me as effectively impossible.
And it still appears to me to be a neccesary requirement. We have both agreed that evolution occurs for the most part in waves as opposed to continuously. I would attribute that to the way environmental/ecologic {I'm gonna abbreviate this "EE"} factors vary. While there is a background trend, there is also a ton of intermediate cycles. For example there is a global warming trend going on, but where I live there is deconal cooling trend occuring. These temporary reversals of trend would act to mitigate the advantagoeous mutation = adding another layer of statistical improbability to a system were statistics is already weighted against the outcome we propose.
Given recent discovery about the differring roles of RNA and DNA, most of what we call advantageous mutation may actually be nothing more than a stable genotype thriving in a modestly different condition ie DNA unchanged. If that is a possibility, then the absence of reproductive opportunity would likely be the only consistent, measurable way to identify speciation. {I may be wrong, there may now exist tests of DNA and metrics to describe genotypic difference}.
Species can remain stable, or evolve, but I am curious if you have an example of reversion?
There are quite a few. A simple example can be found in our own hominid history: gracile australopithecines (who were older) versus robust australopithecines showed evolutionary variance in brain-body mass ratio, with the former being greater.
Another thing you have to understand is that with alot of seemingly complex evolutionary trends, a good number of the contemporary branches do not all survive (as in the case with a. robustus).
At any rate, as you can tell, such connotations as 'forward' and 'reverse' or 'complex' and 'simple' are very relative. An organism evolves what it needs to survive; this is the thumb of rule which natural selection operates by.
quote:
It strikes me that given the infinitesimally small likliehood that any particular mutation will occur times the equally infinitesimally small likliehood that environmental/ecological conditions will support its survival, reversion strikes me as effectively impossible.
Again, you are quantifying evolution in terms of ascending complexity. You should not ask 'how does this mutation optimize complexity' but rather 'how does this mutation optimize survival'?
For example, if an organism has evolved certain complex features which serve its purpose for niche A then all is well for it. But if that niche is changed in such a way, that doesnt necessitate that complex feature - especially when it consumes energy, time, resources, etc. - then natural selection will tend to favor genetic mutations that might reduce it over time.
The consequence of this is what we might call 'reverse evolution' which is subjective in terms of natural selection.
quote:
And it still appears to me to be a neccesary requirement. We have both agreed that evolution occurs for the most part in waves as opposed to continuously. I would attribute that to the way environmental/ecologic {I'm gonna abbreviate this "EE"} factors vary. While there is a background trend, there is also a ton of intermediate cycles. For example there is a global warming trend going on, but where I live there is deconal cooling trend occuring. These temporary reversals of trend would act to mitigate the advantagoeous mutation = adding another layer of statistical improbability to a system were statistics is already weighted against the outcome we propose.
How exactly does it mitigate the mutation? The mutations are 'neutral' in the sense that they are - from the point of nature - just copying errors. Their 'improbability', again, is not an absolute measure. It depends on the environmental conditions and over many generations an accumulation of the most beneficial of these copying errors is stored in the genetic profile of the organism; this results in either 'complexity' or 'simplicity' which are a posteriori.
For an organism which generates a [lethal] mutation that maximizes the strength of an odor in a high-density predator environment, might be very good for a different environment that attracts the opposite sex.
It depends on what constraints we're dealing with.
Main Page
Log In
Register
Printable Version
RE: Lets talk evolution! - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread