Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand why you think scientists are boxed into a God of the gaps theory. Scientists in almost all fields are working on solving all kinds of mysteries. Some mysteries are harder to crack than others. Some mysteries may never be solved. "Solving" a mystery by saying "God did it" is a cop-out because it doesn't actually increase our knowledge. It's far more scientific to admit our ignorance on some topic (and keep trying the scientific method) than to make up an untestable explanation (like "God did it"). Yes, it is possible that a god, an alien, or Chuck Norris controls or accomplishes the things we don't understand, but historically this has not been the case: we have found better explanations.
My hypothesis is that atheist scientists (I don't use the word, "atheist" pejoratively, I'm just distinguishing them from the Christian scientists) by default box themselves in because when apologist extraordinaire, Craig offer up his silly kalam cosmological argument in a debate and his opponents rebutt it, the opponents have no real scientifically-test opposing argument to counter with because they don't have one. Craig is a nutjob but he is a canny, wily nutjob and makes his unproven theories sound so credible you actually believe he knows what he is talking about; he doesn't. But evolutionists who debate him haven't a credible argument to oppose him with---what they put forth for a defense is theory and conjecture, "We believe this is how it could have happened". That's no solid argument to confront intelligent theists like Craig with because he will always find a way around it with trick questions to ask his opponents. It's not the scientists' fault. It's just an impossible task they have before them: to prove how life really started on this planet. They might find the answer someday, but that day hasn't arrived. Do you see now why I say that atheist scientists inadvertently back themselves into a corner, or box themselves in when they put forth unproven counterarguments to crazy Christian theories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. I know that some humans are in fact born with six fingers, but apparently the survival benefit of having six fingers is not large enough to cause those folks to out-survive the rest of us. In certain environments, perhaps the six finger benefit would be a large enough?
I'm not a Real Evolutionary Biologist, but I'll take a stab at it anyway, since I'm a fool like that:
I have never heard that human evolution has halted. Major structures that work well in our current environment are unlikely to change much. In places where food is readily available, it is possible that the human stomach could actually get smaller over time since the extra capacity is not needed and can even contribute to obesity. Think of all the people getting gastric bypass surgery in order to artificially adapt to a food rich environment.
Notice I said, "macro". Microbiologically, of course we are still evolving in tiny almost immeasurable ways. But in terms of major structures like the various systems in the body we've completely halted evolving, else we'd have immune systems that kill cancer naturally; perhaps two digestive systems that more efficiently digest, and a thousand other major changes to our constitution. But man hasn't really changed much in the last several hundred thousand years, except his brain has grown bigger. But we still have one nose, two ears, two eyes, etc just like our hominid ancestors did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
As far as having an eye in the back of our head for driving: we don't need one since we have rear-view mirrors and backup cameras. We decided that Natural Selection against non-rear-eyed people on the freeway would be quite undesirable, so we invented rear-view mirrors in order to avoid such carnage. It would not be wise to wait for a rear-eye mutation to arise in the human genome in order to make driving safe without mirrors. We changed our environment instead of waiting for evolution to adapt to a non-mirror environment, which could take a long time. If a rear-eye mutation ever did arise in a non-mirror driving environment, you can bet that the mutation would spread by natural selection over the millennia since those folks would be less likely to die while driving.
Like mordant says, evolution produces life forms optimized for mere survival, not for enjoyment, quality of life, or convenience.
Maybe driving was a bad example. How about hunting/gathering while being on the lookout for predators sneaking up on you if you lived a hundred thousand years ago? Which is more efficient, having to constantly turn your neck every three seconds to see if a predator is sneaking up on you or evolving an eye in the back of your head so you don't have to constantly look over your shoulder?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-16-2015 at 10:08 AM..
You fail to understand that the Mechanism of Evolution is Natural Background Radiation.
It was Natural Background Radiation that drove Evolution in the first place.
If Earth wasn't bombarded relentlessly from both internal and external radiation sources, then the only avenue of mutation is natural mutation, which occurs infrequently.
At one time, the Natural Background Radiation on Earth was so intense, that you would have died within 20 minutes, but single-celled organisms evolving in that environment were practically immune to the effects, except for the mutation effects.
There is a direct correlation between the Mutation Rate and Natural Background Radiation, as well as the rate an organism reproduces, and the complexity of the organism.
The greater the complexity of the organism, the slower its reproductive rate, and the slower speed at which it evolves, relative to the Mutation Rate.
When I say humans have stopped evolving, I am always referring to on a macro level. On a macro level we have stopped evolving, except for a larger brain and cranium. Please name me one major change to our constitution the last 100,000 years.
Freak80 uses my example of a sixth finger and said some are born with six fingers but this is a rare occurrence like being born with two heads. It's not an evolved condition where all babies are born with six fingers because evolutionally we found it more useful to have six fingers instead of five.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It only takes 6 atoms: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. There is an organism on Earth that can substitute arsenic for phosphorus.
I'll trust you on that. It's way beyond my level of understanding. I'm not a biologist.
Notice I said, "macro". Microbiologically, of course we are still evolving in tiny almost immeasurable ways. But in terms of major structures like the various systems in the body we've completely halted evolving, else we'd have immune systems that kill cancer naturally; ...
Cancer is Evolution in action.
Cancer is a cell that mutates. The mutation is benign to the cell, but often (not always) harmful to the organ or to the organism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Maybe driving was a bad example. How about hunting/gathering while being on the lookout for predators sneaking up on you if you lived a hundred thousand years ago? Which is more efficient, having to constantly turn your neck every three seconds to see if a predator is sneaking up on you or evolving an eye in the back of your head so you don't have to constantly look over your shoulder?
How about using your ears and sense of smell?
Evolution/mutations are neither spontaneous nor retroactive within a given population. Do you have any idea how long it would take a mutation to spread throughout the population? Assuming the mutating gene was Dominant (and not Recessive)?
My hypothesis is that atheist scientists (I don't use the word, "atheist" pejoratively, I'm just distinguishing them from the Christian scientists) by default box themselves in because when apologist extraordinaire, Craig offer up his silly kalam cosmological argument in a debate and his opponents rebutt it, the opponents have no real scientifically-test opposing argument to counter with because they don't have one. Craig is a nutjob but he is a canny, wily nutjob and makes his unproven theories sound so credible you actually believe he knows what he is talking about; he doesn't. But evolutionists who debate him haven't a credible argument to oppose him with---what they put forth for a defense is theory and conjecture, "We believe this is how it could have happened". That's no solid argument to confront intelligent theists like Craig with because he will always find a way around it with trick questions to ask his opponents. It's not the scientists' fault. It's just an impossible task they have before them: to prove how life really started on this planet. They might find the answer someday, but that day hasn't arrived. Do you see now why I say that atheist scientists inadvertently back themselves into a corner, or box themselves in when they put forth unproven counterarguments to crazy Christian theories?
Notice I said, "macro". Microbiologically, of course we are still evolving in tiny almost immeasurable ways. But in terms of major structures like the various systems in the body we've completely halted evolving, else we'd have immune systems that kill cancer naturally; perhaps two digestive systems that more efficiently digest, and a thousand other major changes to our constitution. But man hasn't really changed much in the last several hundred thousand years, except his brain has grown bigger. But we still have one nose, two ears, two eyes, etc just like our hominid ancestors did.
Maybe driving was a bad example. How about hunting/gathering while being on the lookout for predators sneaking up on you if you lived a hundred thousand years ago? Which is more efficient, having to constantly turn your neck every three seconds to see if a predator is sneaking up on you or evolving an eye in the back of your head so you don't have to constantly look over your shoulder?
All good questions. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to answer them.
All good questions. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to answer them.
Are there any evolutionary biologists out there?
Me neither.
And nope.
But I'll take a stab at the:
Quote:
Which is more efficient, having to constantly turn your neck every three seconds to see if a predator is sneaking up on you or evolving an eye in the back of your head so you don't have to constantly look over your shoulder?
I don't think it's a question of what's more efficient as it is what's more convenient - given the tools one has at the time.
Which, for primates and most animals I can think of, is turning one's head.
That's what gets the practice. So, evolution might tend to benefit those who can turn their heads the fastest, or the most degrees one way or t'other.
But developing a rear-view eye just never entered the picture - so to speak.
Cancer is a cell that mutates. The mutation is benign to the cell, but often (not always) harmful to the organ or to the organism.
How about using your ears and sense of smell?
Evolution/mutations are neither spontaneous nor retroactive within a given population. Do you have any idea how long it would take a mutation to spread throughout the population? Assuming the mutating gene was Dominant (and not Recessive)?
I smell red herring for dinner. I think you're splitting hairs, Mircea. Cancer is way WAY off my point.
Notice I said, "macro". Microbiologically, of course we are still evolving in tiny almost immeasurable ways. But in terms of major structures like the various systems in the body we've completely halted evolving, else we'd have immune systems that kill cancer naturally; perhaps two digestive systems that more efficiently digest, and a thousand other major changes to our constitution. But man hasn't really changed much in the last several hundred thousand years, except his brain has grown bigger. But we still have one nose, two ears, two eyes, etc just like our hominid ancestors did.
Macroevolution is simply lots and lots of microevolutionary changes added together. You profoundly misunderstand evolution if you think that there's any substantive difference between the two. And, yes, reading on I see again that you do not understand evolution with your comment about cancer.
Evolution operates on gene pools, not on individual organisms. Cancer is little threat to a species because it generally kills individuals who are past the reproductive periods in their lifespans and therefore does little to hinder the propagation of genes. As it only kills a small number of comparatively young specimens, it is evolutionarily insignificant.
Further, the notion that evolution necessarily leads to immunities to maladies is also wrong because, again, evolution works on populations (gene pools) and not individuals, and so from the point of view of a population, a small number of cancer in breeding-age individuals is statistically irrelevant to the survival of the species.
Evolution is as operant upon Homo sapiens as it ever has been.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
