Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

kX49dlbfG9E
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:hang on a tick.

ive known plenty of blokes whos conversation ability didnt extend much beyond a dog or monkeys - mostly eyebrows with a few tonal variations to back it up.


:lol: there is nothing wrong with this- that's most of life. But I have a hard time believing they've never asked, "why"? Like, "why did they raise the price of beer?"
also, maybe no squirrels but how about parrots....

again, this is matters of degree to me.
As the good doctor says, humans love stories about animal intelligence and we apply our own causal-mania thinking to them. But it doesn't mean they demonstrate anything more than first-order perceptually-based relational reasoning. That they are better at it than we give them credit for is a consequences of our arrogance and are (largely) disinterest in non-human things.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:kX49dlbfG9E
even if i accept that is absolutely true - its viewable as a side effect of our increased tool/language/symbol abilities and thusly not out of the question for other critters with the rudiments of those abilities such as apes, dogs , crows or parrots.

you cant fly/glide without a certain surface area to weight to muscle ratio, its a side effect of having those pre conditions not a special property per se.
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:hang on a tick.

ive known plenty of blokes whos conversation ability didnt extend much beyond a dog or monkeys - mostly eyebrows with a few tonal variations to back it up.


:lol: there is nothing wrong with this- that's most of life. But I have a hard time believing they've never asked, "why"? Like, "why did they raise the price of beer?"
my dog gets a biscuit every time it does certain tasks - you should see the expression on its face when im out of biscuits, it might not be a conceptual "why" but then again its not complete ignorance of the situation either.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
also, maybe no squirrels but how about parrots....

again, this is matters of degree to me.
As the good doctor says, humans love stories about animal intelligence and we apply our own causal-mania thinking to them. But it doesn't mean they demonstrate anything more than first-order perceptually-based relational reasoning. That they are better at it than we give them credit for is a consequences of our arrogance and are (largely) disinterest in non-human things.
we vaguely appear to be talking around simmilar points - this is probably lumper/splitter stuff.

when you have an analog spectrum of black to white with infinite shades of grey in between, the hard catagories of "silver" versus "light grey" are always fun for humans but perhaps not as relevant as they think.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

duplicate
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:i see no evidence for the uniqueness of human rationality nor the hard lines of species separation in the world around me.

its all matters of degree - we have more language/symbology and more tool usage than anything else but thats like saying an elephant has more nose.
I may agree with you about no hard line of species separatism but that is different from saying there are no lines, even if they are in flux in the scheme of things.

But as for conceptual thinking, it is most certainly not a matter of degrees.

Our symbol-deriving may not be as important as the physiological differences we possess from our joints and bipedalism to our dentition to our cranial capacities; we are most certain an animal species and not severed from the rest of earth's species. We also run on the same or similiar perceptions (including the deliberative ability to think imaginatively)/instinctual/emotional software as the other critters around us- and 99% of our lives runs on that alone. In this regard, we are indeed "more nose".

Yet, despite the best efforts of some to convince us all sorts of animals can do it too, I've yet to meet a squirrel who can ponder round-ness.

Tool making, (most) communicative behavior can be explained by imagination, instinct and habit; but conceptual thinking is a whole other kettle of fish. And one distinct to us as best as the evidence shows.

All the best press in the world couldn't defeat the skepticism that Koko couldn't really "speak" and was responding merely to her handlers signs coupled with her possessing keen perceptive and volitional abilities. But no one doubts Helen Keller getting the concept of "water" despite being deaf and blind or that humans as a species play around with concepts all the time. {see the math and physics departments. }

To say otherwise is more akin to saying that any precursor-respiratory hole on a body is a 'nose'; at some point you cross that threshold and you've either got it or you don't (or you may possess some sort of alternative- even then, you wouldn't say creatures who breathe through their skin possess all nose either.
You guys realize you are crazy.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:The discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs has been a tremendous boon to creationism. They are cashing in on it left and right. The quality of creationist content these days is off the charts.
Rather, they are once again demonstrating that they are willfully clueless about the process of science.

Cashing in the same way as late comers in a US Marine biscuit circle jerk.
Lol evolutionists are the most sensitive defensive people I know. One little pinprick and category 4 hurricane. Their beliefs are sacred
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:Nature | Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving
Analysis of 215,000 people's DNA suggests variants that shorten life are being selected against.
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
wronger than a wrong thing dipped in wrong.

evolution believes penguins and ostriches lost their wings, it believes dolphins and whales lost their hair..

this is basic stuff, taught in atheist churches.

traits come and go based on whats working in the environment at that time - as the conditions change so too the traits required to breed successfully.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:kX49dlbfG9E
even if i accept that is absolutely true - its viewable as a side effect of our increased tool/language/symbol abilities and thusly not out of the question for other critters with the rudiments of those abilities such as apes, dogs , crows or parrots.

you cant fly/glide without a certain surface area to weight to muscle ratio, its a side effect of having those pre conditions not a special property per se.
You may be right about it being a side effect of certain preconditions. I am not arguing any ghost-in-the-machine thing here.

I'm merely saying that, like abilities to achieve motion, there are certain orders that you either possess or don't at any given time: swimming, flying, walking, slithering on the ground remain different abilities even if we can abstractly file them all under "motion". That some possess one or more of them (or even lose an ability along the way) doesn't change that or suggest that one is merely a different assignation of the same type of thing.

We share all sorts of perceptual, instinctual, volitional, and behavioral, cognitive abilities with other creatures which may fairly be described as a mere difference in degree. I would say our ability to make tools, a cephalopod's ability and a chimp's ability is a univocal matter of degrees. In (most?) instances, there are animals superior to us in one or more of these abilities. But that we conceptualize as well is something that, as far as we know, currently only found amongst the human branch of primates-- how far back in species, we cannot say. Nor would I venture to guess that this is to always remain ours alone.

And I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point but I do not see how any amount of perception can change into a conception without possessing the initial ability to conceive. A picture is worth a thousand words but not a million stimuli. I'm not even sure what a rudimentary ability to conceive would be exactly. This is the half-pregnant sort of thinking I was talking about. Though I am sure there are precursors; there's no way one could quasi-conceive of some abstraction. At some point, you either do or you don't, poorly or well, very little or a lot- and it is always demonstrative, like it is in children. That is something we've not seen from other species yet, no matter how hard some of us wish it to be so.

The only other way to object to it (as far as I can conceive) is to reject its existence altogether; and that's a convoluted thing. Because if it is just a fancy version of something else, say an offshoot of a highly developed instinctual drive coupled with an overactive perceptual ability; then it is nothing more than a nonsense game. And if it is but a game, then there is no way to determine or distinguish whether saying it does or doesn't exist has any correspondence with the world whatsoever- like determinism, it ends up an empty concept.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
my dog gets a biscuit every time it does certain tasks - you should see the expression on its face when im out of biscuits, it might not be a conceptual "why" but then again its not complete ignorance of the situation either.
I once had a cat who could open doors. :D

I will never forget that cat and will forever appreciate that when my mother was diagnosed with cancer; she not only knew something was wrong but immediately became a comforter and caretaker for her when we were not around. Not only was it a deliberate change in behavior, it, as much as anything else helped my mother get through the whole ordeal. Her passing was a very sad affair for me, in part because I could never communicate how much it meant to me she was around during a very fraught time-- my mother didn't take the whole thing well, jumping from one existential crisis to the next; my siblings disappeared; and my father became extremely withdrawn. So between my mother's cancer, the break-up with a fiancee, school and severe money issues all roughly hitting at once....it was as if me and that cat versus the world.

...the funny thing? That cat never particularly cared for me. :lol:

At no point was there a 'why' from her either; life doesn't collapse without it. And not being able to ask it doesn't invalidate the personalities, inventiveness or intelligence of creatures.
we vaguely appear to be talking around simmilar points - this is probably lumper/splitter stuff. when you have an analog spectrum of black to white with infinite shades of grey in between, the hard catagories of "silver" versus "light grey" are always fun for humans but perhaps not as relevant as they think.


In the grand scheme of things, it is a minor detail. But our world is made up of minor details. Which is why I'm being so insistent about it, we are within the same ballpark but with a danger of talking past one another.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:i see no evidence for the uniqueness of human rationality nor the hard lines of species separation in the world around me.

its all matters of degree - we have more language/symbology and more tool usage than anything else but thats like saying an elephant has more nose.
I may agree with you about no hard line of species separatism but that is different from saying there are no lines, even if they are in flux in the scheme of things.

But as for conceptual thinking, it is most certainly not a matter of degrees.

Our symbol-deriving may not be as important as the physiological differences we possess from our joints and bipedalism to our dentition to our cranial capacities; we are most certain an animal species and not severed from the rest of earth's species. We also run on the same or similiar perceptions (including the deliberative ability to think imaginatively)/instinctual/emotional software as the other critters around us- and 99% of our lives runs on that alone. In this regard, we are indeed "more nose".

Yet, despite the best efforts of some to convince us all sorts of animals can do it too, I've yet to meet a squirrel who can ponder round-ness.

Tool making, (most) communicative behavior can be explained by imagination, instinct and habit; but conceptual thinking is a whole other kettle of fish. And one distinct to us as best as the evidence shows.

All the best press in the world couldn't defeat the skepticism that Koko couldn't really "speak" and was responding merely to her handlers signs coupled with her possessing keen perceptive and volitional abilities. But no one doubts Helen Keller getting the concept of "water" despite being deaf and blind or that humans as a species play around with concepts all the time. {see the math and physics departments. }

To say otherwise is more akin to saying that any precursor-respiratory hole on a body is a 'nose'; at some point you cross that threshold and you've either got it or you don't (or you may possess some sort of alternative- even then, you wouldn't say creatures who breathe through their skin possess all nose either.
You guys realize you are crazy.
So says the gentleman who finds a conspiracy behind every piece of sinew. ;)
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:
my dog gets a biscuit every time it does certain tasks - you should see the expression on its face when im out of biscuits, it might not be a conceptual "why" but then again its not complete ignorance of the situation either.
I once had a cat who could open doors. :D

I will never forget that cat and will forever appreciate that when my mother was diagnosed with cancer; she not only knew something was wrong but immediately became a comforter and caretaker for her when we were not around. Not only was it a deliberate change in behavior, it, as much as anything else helped my mother get through the whole ordeal. Her passing was a very sad affair for me, in part because I could never communicate how much it meant to me she was around during a very fraught time-- my mother didn't take the whole thing well, jumping from one existential crisis to the next; my siblings disappeared; and my father became extremely withdrawn. So between my mother's cancer, the break-up with a fiancee, school and severe money issues all roughly hitting at once....it was as if me and that cat versus the world.

...the funny thing? That cat never particularly cared for me. :lol:

At no point was there a 'why' from her either; life doesn't collapse without it. And not being able to ask it doesn't invalidate the personalities, inventiveness or intelligence of creatures.
we vaguely appear to be talking around simmilar points - this is probably lumper/splitter stuff. when you have an analog spectrum of black to white with infinite shades of grey in between, the hard catagories of "silver" versus "light grey" are always fun for humans but perhaps not as relevant as they think.


In the grand scheme of things, it is a minor detail. But our world is made up of minor details. Which is why I'm being so insistent about it, we are within the same ballpark but with a danger of talking past one another.
all true enough.

to be clear - im not against the idea that the higher order contemplation of properties and reasons is a human only feature, however i am preconditioned to being cynical about these claims of human uniqueness in the animal kingdown as most of the old chestnuts have fallen to modern observation and recording.

toolmaking, emotions, experimentation, intelligence etc.

as for what is *actually* going on in their heads, i cant speak for another human, let alone a cat :)

does mr p get the nuances of the unknown ? (j/j being cheeky)
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
wronger than a wrong thing dipped in wrong.

evolution believes penguins and ostriches lost their wings, it believes dolphins and whales lost their hair..

this is basic stuff, taught in atheist churches.

traits come and go based on whats working in the environment at that time - as the conditions change so too the traits required to breed successfully.
I've learned to be careful in the atheist Church. They have as much trouble keeping their stories straight as the theist ones.

For example, a whale and dolphins may indeed lose their hair, but they are still whales and dolphins. These traits can be bred out of all kind of animals, and they remain the animal. So it's not a phenomena that bears on evolution.

In order to become something other than a whale or dolphin they have to at some point start gaining traits. Still waiting for that to come in. Been waiting for almost 2 centuries, I wonder how much longer....
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
wronger than a wrong thing dipped in wrong.

evolution believes penguins and ostriches lost their wings, it believes dolphins and whales lost their hair..

this is basic stuff, taught in atheist churches.

traits come and go based on whats working in the environment at that time - as the conditions change so too the traits required to breed successfully.
I've learned to be careful in the atheist Church. They have as much trouble keeping their stories straight as the theist ones.

For example, a whale and dolphins may indeed lose their hair, but they are still whales and dolphins. These traits can be bred out of all kind of animals, and they remain the animal. So it's not a phenomena that bears on evolution.

In order to become something other than a whale or dolphin they have to at some point start gaining traits. Still waiting for that to come in. Been waiting for almost 2 centuries, I wonder how much longer....
the only time ive heard this crazy idea about evolution being about gaining traits is from creationists - ive never once even heard the concept from university or biology textbooks, i have no idea why you think its relevant.

evolution promises nothign, except that the creature thats offspring survive better will replace the creature who's offspring dont survive -its pretty simple.

the difference between feathers, hair and scales is but a small change in how it grows, fluffy, flat or long and thin.

australia has mammals with bird genitals that lay eggs, how does that work with neat species boundaries ? right or wrong evolution has a story that deals with these half/half creatures.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Ok. Does a worm have more or less traits than an elephant?

(hint: they DO leave a lot out of the secular creation myth at uni. Some of us have tracked those bits down though)
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

different critter on different fork of the evolutionary tree.

its less complex but their are more of them and they are less endangered than the elephant so probably the worm will be here long after the humans and the elephants are but fossils that confuse the parrot scientists.

their is no rule that says the worm will get more complex, its still here, its still a worm, its doing just fine.

sometimes creatures have gained complexity that makes them more likely to survive but thats not garunteed, nor required - the vast magority of life on this planet is not complex.

single cell critters and insects outnumber the rest of us by millions of orders of magnitude.

we might be but a blip on the radar, removed by the next asteroid strike, the worm will power onward.

hint: i did the university atheist education, you seem to have not learnt any of it, which is fine, but not relevant to what evolution is about.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Ok, I will give you 8 out of 10 for proper recitation of unprovable evolution talking points, but 2 out of 10 for rebuttal anticipation.

Every evolution bible I ever read said life started as something like a single celled organism that eventually became a brontosaur. Smoothing out the trend lines that is a story about gaining so many frikking traits.

This is why creationists say, "show me the traits", and the evolutionists have no response.

And I think we will never ever ever get one.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: So says the gentleman who finds a conspiracy behind every piece of sinew. ;)
Lol. No.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Ok, I will give you 8 out of 10 for proper recitation of unprovable evolution talking points, but 2 out of 10 for rebuttal anticipation.

Every evolution bible I ever read said life started as something like a single celled organism that eventually became a brontosaur. Smoothing out the trend lines that is a story about gaining so many frikking traits.

This is why creationists say, "show me the traits", and the evolutionists have no response.

And I think we will never ever ever get one.

that traits can be gained is not the same thing as saying traits must be gained, you are being very confused in your statements, earlier you where demanding that evolution must have trait creation in it, yet you still believe worms and algae and insects exist.

very confusing.

we have trapped bacteria in our cells that produce energy (mitochondria) - lichen is bacteria and algae joining together to form a new creature, dna crosses over creature boundaries all the time via things like viruses.

scientists are currently copy and pasting bits of dna from all sorts of creatures into other creatures and it works fine, their is absolutely no reason to believe the boundaries are fixed or the "traits" of the classical animal boundaries mean much at all.

im still waiting for a creationist to explain monotremes - half mammal, half bird creatures.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote: that traits can be gained is not the same thing as saying traits must be gained, you are being very confused in your statements, earlier you where demanding that evolution must have trait creation in it, yet you still believe worms and algae and insects exist.

very confusing.
Nice evasion. For a cell to become either a brontosaur or an algae, enormous gains have to be made. Enormous. Evolutionists can never demonstrate this ever occuring. That is why as a part of scientific inquiry creationists ask for evidence, as any scientist would. Observation. Lab results.

After 200 years none are offered.
we have trapped bacteria in our cells that produce energy (mitochondria) - lichen is bacteria and algae joining together to form a new creature, dna crosses over creature boundaries all the time via things like viruses.
Sure. And they are much more complex than the original single cell.

Anything observable in nature on how that happens?
scientists are currently copy and pasting bits of dna from all sorts of creatures into other creatures and it works fine, their is absolutely no reason to believe the boundaries are fixed or the "traits" of the classical animal boundaries mean much at all.
Yeah, I;ve heard about that. Hasn't resulted in any new species yet, at all. I wonder why people talk about it as if it did.
im still waiting for a creationist to explain monotremes - half mammal, half bird creatures.
God did it.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote: that traits can be gained is not the same thing as saying traits must be gained, you are being very confused in your statements, earlier you where demanding that evolution must have trait creation in it, yet you still believe worms and algae and insects exist.

very confusing.
Nice evasion. For a cell to become either a brontosaur or an algae, enormous gains have to be made. Enormous. Evolutionists can never demonstrate this ever occuring. That is why as a part of scientific inquiry creationists ask for evidence, as any scientist would. Observation. Lab results.

After 200 years none are offered.
we have trapped bacteria in our cells that produce energy (mitochondria) - lichen is bacteria and algae joining together to form a new creature, dna crosses over creature boundaries all the time via things like viruses.
Sure. And they are much more complex than the original single cell.

Anything observable in nature on how that happens?
scientists are currently copy and pasting bits of dna from all sorts of creatures into other creatures and it works fine, their is absolutely no reason to believe the boundaries are fixed or the "traits" of the classical animal boundaries mean much at all.
Yeah, I;ve heard about that. Hasn't resulted in any new species yet, at all. I wonder why people talk about it as if it did.
im still waiting for a creationist to explain monotremes - half mammal, half bird creatures.
God did it.
no evasion. just clear language based on the facts to clear up your gas lighting obfuscations.

we dont have definite proof of how single cell became multicell, we have examples of things on the boundary like slime molds or lichens but still, no definitive lab driven proof.

their is no belief in it having to happen, just an assumption it probably happened and if evidence arrives that makes it certain it didnt happen, then, it didnt happen.

i think the chances of it happening are reasonably high but i wont lose any sleep if it didnt - surprises in life are nice.

the only thing im certain of is that their will be no evidence that god did it because if their was, then god is just an alien and part of the creation like the rest of us.

panspermia is just shuffling the problem around.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Bringing it back around: as far as I'm concerned, by the time you get to that point in the story (first man to many men) you've already determined how your going to receive it. From there it is rationalization on down: Oh course God/Nature provided the means and ways for mankind's propagation.

...that's not to suggest that one should be equally skeptical of both sides. Personally, I am not invested or interested in that part or what people should think about it. I also don't think the two narratives are within the same scope or have the same interests however antagonistic it can become- this is not a science vs religion thing as far as I'm concern (nor is it a suggestion that science is in one corner and religion in the other, and never the twain shall meet.) It's a historical event that different people speculate upon using different criteria which may very well be commensurable (or not) but not with current interests or present understandings....so I just think it's a weak argument, is all.

Not to seem so noncommittal, my personal opinion is that there was certainly a real Adam and a real Eve and a real Fall. We are not in the state of our creation, as a consequence of our original, ancestral sin.

But considering that, as we are not in that state; I am not sure how much we can comment on what exactly that state was. I am partial to the idea that St.Maximus the Confessor and physicist Stephen M. Barr's promote that the whole of the cosmos was torn in such a way we will never fully apprehend on this side of the veil. But talk about being speculative! I would not dream of advancing that as any kind of argument. Additionally, it does not conflict with a scriptural confidence that God provided a uniformity to nature for our sake, to benefit us. That we can measure and deduced patterns from it, biologically included, is a certainty. And as the text suggests, the land, sea and air draws forth the creation; there is an inherent, perceptible pattern of a second-order causation. I do believe very much that God, to put it simply, is the first cause behind that. How the two go together I do not know but like I've said before, while I know what it means for a man to design something; it is presumptuous to project that up the chain.

As I see it there are two distinct battles for people invested in this: the first is from Biblical literalists who believe it their duty to defend their understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis from almost all of the scientific community. The second is a debate over Neo-Darwinism and its along the lines of a philosophical/scientific conflagration. That both overall and are confused with each other is because of the type of nerves it hits.

When it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis, while I believe in a real first man and woman; I am not sure how Genesis relates to them. My skepticism of reading it literally isn't concerned so much with evolution but anthropology. The first three chapters read very much like theological tracts and not historical documents. The first chapter is a rebuke of the near east cosmology popular right around the same timeframe the Babylonian captivity would've occurred. Marduk or Amun or name your chief deity would masturbate and a whole cosmos would be created that had some good, some bad and a pantheon of gods and creatures who divvied it up and the chief God sort of putz's around. Genesis 1 insists on not only a good, purposeful cosmology but the sovereignty of the Most High over that creation.

Genesis 2&3 reads like African folklore about first parents. African first parent stories are always presented as mission statements for a caste of people. In this regard, it sheds some light on what follows in Genesis: Gen. 4 & beyond is an account of a caste of ruler-priests, their lineage of intermarriage to preserve bloodlines and expand their territory and the mission statement between something akin to the Christian understanding of the Messianic Promise in Genesis 3. [I would say they are one in the same, but then again, I would say that.] Like any king-lists of antiquity, we do not know how of much of it is chronologically linear or how big the gaps are between rulers. But preserving a decent memory of lineages of rulers and families (we want to remember) is a very ancient practice of most human groups, and one we know could reasonably have some some accuracy. Anyway, in all of these first parent stories, the veracity of the parents are of secondary importance to whatever mission for the caste is presented. (Though the land of origin and its physical boundaries may be a true enough folk-memory.) To the writer(s), Cain and Seth on down are righteous to rule because of the Adam and Eve of their caste. Whether or not the Adam and Eve of 2&3 should be interpreted literally, figuratively, allegorically or metaphysically (or maybe all/none of the above) is a question for intra-Christian communal self-understanding about its own special revelations and the promise of Christ. How this relates to those outside communion is God's concern, not mine. But I believe it an unfair burden to place on non-Christians that they accept every Christian understanding of her own texts, speculations and sacred books while they remain outside of her traditions and understandings.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

thats fine, lots of folks have lots of worldviews with different perspectives.

the current thread is basicaly assert rubbish, declare folks that argue against the rubbish butt hurt for not accepting the rubbish, rinse and repeat.

its just absurdity all the way down from my perspective and i cant triangulate my way out of gibberish, its just gibberish.

clean and simple. we know some things, we dont know other things, we have a best effort explanation that includes the things we know, we research into the bits we dont.

its all it can be, unless you want to not look at the unknown and just say "god dunnit" .. which is fine, but has nothing todo with evolution, or science.

--

to be fair their is this new atheist thing with a butthurt approach to religion and antagonistic attacking attitude to all the old cultural ways, i get that some folks are defensive on all that.

its still got nothing todo with what evolutionists believe, its what popular culture celebrities believe and is neither here nor there.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Evolution

Post by Simple Minded »

Mr. Perfect wrote: You guys realize you are crazy.
squirrels can't contemplate roundness..... some humans don't realize they are crazy.....

I'm giving the win in this round to noddy!
Post Reply