Do you believe in God?

[TexRex]

Assuming we don't extinct ourselves, what would we develop into after another 3.5 billion years? If evolution is true then 1/2 way along our evolutionary scale, what shape were we? Fatter, taller, rounder, slower?

So you're assuming evolution occurs at a fixed rate?

There's nothing carved in stone regarding the theory of evolution because theories, as they are driven by the scientific method and subject to change should any theory be proven wrong, are only theories.

There's plenty carved in stone with regards to religion, however, because there is no accepting of change and is driven only by set beliefs with no proof or want for proof--"it is what it is, so shut up and kneel."

 

[x3ra]

So you're assuming evolution occurs at a fixed rate?

No, you can pick whether 1/2 as in time or in level of evolution, or 1/2 the complexity. The choice is yours.

There's nothing carved in stone regarding the theory of evolution because theories, as they are driven by the scientific method and subject to change should any theory be proven wrong, are only theories.

So if it's a theory then if you agree, then that's a belief.

There's plenty carved in stone with regards to religion, however, because there is no accepting of change and is driven only by set beliefs with no proof or want for proof--"it is what it is, so shut up and kneel."

There is no proof for evolution nor for God.

I find it interesting that some scientists believe in god and some religious types believe in evolution.

 

[Joey D]

There is no proof for evolution nor for God.

There is proof of evolution though. One example is the Peppered Moth and it's actually observable.

 

[x3ra]

There is proof of evolution though. One example is the Peppered Moth and it's actually observable.

Nice. And how do you know that God didn't do it? EDIT---> Does this mean that there were more white moths than black ones and then due to the dust, the black ones thrived better or does it mean that the white ones turned into black ones?

If a peppered moth evolved the ability to swim underwater, would we notice that it had been a peppered moth, or just see it as a different species?

I also think that both could be true, God and evolution.

 

[Joey D]

Nice. And how do you know that God didn't do it?

Because pollution did it.

EDIT---> Does this mean that there were more white moths than black ones and then due to the dust, the black ones thrived better or does it mean that the white ones turned into black ones?

The white ones didn't turn into black ones. The black ones were just better suited to a polluted environment and were more likely to survive because they weren't as visible to predators.

 

[x3ra]

There is proof of evolution though. One example is the Peppered Moth and it's actually observable.

Not proof of evolution, evidence of natural selection.

 

[TexRex]

So if it's a theory then if you agree, then that's a belief.


There is no proof for evolution nor for God.

Accepting a theory that's supported by empirical evidence is not the same as belief. I will continue to accept theories so long as they are supported by evidence, and will adjust my acceptance of said theories should evidence that no longer supports it, or supports an opposing theory, comes along...as dictated by the scientific method.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Belief, however, requires no such evidence.

As I said, there is plenty carved in stone (figuratively and literally) with regards to belief in a higher power, because there simply is no room for change in said belief spurred by experimentation, and there is no desire for such experimentation.

What is accepted and what is believed aren't mutually exclusive, either, and that's why individuals are capable of both accepting and believing.

I accept that the conditions for life to form existed on Earth at an early stage, however, given the complexity of life, I find it difficult to believe that it did so purely coincidentally, and have considered an outside force (that doubtfully is some bearded old guy in robes) may have had some influence on the process. I can't accept that that particular outside force has remained a presence and watches over us, because there is no evidence to support that as a theory and, as I've said, there is no motivation for those who do believe to propose and execute tests to prove/disprove the theory.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Assuming we don't extinct ourselves, what would we develop into after another 3.5 billion years?

An evolutionary process can take a few years, it doesn't have to take billions.

 

[TexRex]

Not proof of evolution, evidence of natural selection.

What's the difference?

 

[Joey D]

Not proof of evolution, evidence of natural selection.

Natural selection is currently accepted as the mechanism for evolution.

Since you're keen on proof, what proof do you have for the existence of a supernatural being? Or is it just all belief?

 

[Imari]

Not proof of evolution, evidence of natural selection.

Which is a mechanism of evolution. I think this is the point at which you need to go to Wikipedia and get yourself a basic education on evolution. You clearly don't know even the fundamentals of what you're talking about.

So if it's a theory then if you agree, then that's a belief.

Accepting a statement as soundly reasoned and logically supported requires no belief.

I think you may need to educate yourself on the scientific method while you're there. It's specifically designed not to require belief on the part of the participants.

 

[Scaff]

Has anyone written a computer simulation for evolution?

Yes.

It was done to test one very specific (and flawed) argument used by creationists against evolution called the 'Blind Watchmaker', it supports the theory of evolution rather well.



Oh and before you cry foul the author of the program has made it available (with the code) to anyone who wants to check it.

He's also made others.



However you do seem to be mixing up Evolution with Autobiogenesis.

 

[BobK]

Assuming we don't extinct ourselves, what would we develop into after another 3.5 billion years? If evolution is true then 1/2 way along our evolutionary scale, what shape were we? Fatter, taller, rounder, slower?

There is no way of answering those questions other than waiting 3 1/2 billion years. There is no way of knowing what direction(s) if any evolution will take us in; the theory of evolution makes no predictions in that area. To ask such questions shows a lack of understanding as to just what evolution is, I'm afraid.

Has anyone written a computer simulation for evolution?

Many have been written. @Scaff cites one, a more general program is Tierra. I've dabbled with a few of them myself a while back. They're not particularly hard to write, if one cares to create their own.

 

[Touring Mars]

If evolution is true then 1/2 way along our evolutionary scale, what shape were we? Fatter, taller, rounder, slower?

As alluded to already, the phrase 'half way along our evolutionary scale' doesn't really make any sense, but for what it's worth, have a quick look at this diagram which illustrates the 'tree of life' and how all modern day species (on the outer edge of the tree) evolved from earlier forms of life, with an approximate timescale. Note that 'half way' for humans would be about 1750-2000 million years ago, when all life on Earth was single celled organisms from which every other living thing around today also evolved.

Assuming we don't extinct ourselves, what would we develop into after another 3.5 billion years?

In another 3.5 billion years time, the planet could be completely populated by a myriad of species that all evolved from us, each one as different from each other as all living animals are today; but whatever happens, if Earth still supports life in 3.5 billion years time, all of it will have arisen from what survives the next mass extinction event (e.g. maybe only 5% of species around today will survive the next mass extinction, but from that 5% the next wave of new species will arise.) So, as far as humankind goes, we'll either end up as a dead end or a few of our descendants will go on to evolve into any number of new species - it will largely depend on what happens in the future with regard to mass extinction events - humans are unique insomuch as we are the first species in the history of Earth to use science to understand our environment and our origins, giving us a unique advantage that could make the difference between some of our number surviving beyond the next mass extinction and becoming yet another evolutionary dead end.

 

[Danoff]

So, as far as humankind goes, we'll either end up as a dead end or a few of our descendants will go on to evolve into any number of new species

Does genetic engineering count as evolution? Because... you know that's happening at some point.

 

[Touring Mars]

Does genetic engineering count as evolution? Because... you know that's happening at some point.

That's a major point - we are the first species in our planet's history (that we know of anyway) that can intelligently design new organisms (or at least varieties of existing organisms) that could end up providing the basis of all future species on the planet, one of which may re-invent the internet just to debate whether they evolved or whether they were intelligently designed, only this time the latter answer would be correct. Of course, in order to avoid any confusion, the designer(s) could leave something (like a genetic hallmark) to unequivocally prove that their evolutionary offspring are the result of actual design, as opposed to creating an entire panoply of organisms that look precisely like they have evolved... just a thought.

 

[Dotini]

Does genetic engineering count as evolution? Because... you know that's happening at some point.

No. Genetic engineering, or genetic modification, is very different from evolution. But that doesn't mean it's not a useful or even a necessary thing to do.

 

[TexRex]

I see a lot of intelligent responses--as well as my own responses--but what are the odds they're responded to at all, let alone with a modicum of reason?

 

[Danoff]

That's a major point - we are the first species in our planet's history (that we know of anyway) that can intelligently design new organisms (or at least varieties of existing organisms) that could end up providing the basis of all future species on the planet, one of which may re-invent the internet just to debate whether they evolved or whether they were intelligently designed, only this time the latter answer would be correct. Of course, in order to avoid any confusion, the designer(s) could leave something (like a genetic hallmark) to unequivocally prove that their evolutionary offspring are the result of actual design, as opposed to creating an entire panoply of organisms that look precisely like they have evolved... just a thought.

Nice, I'd never thought of the intelligent design tie-in. I agree with what I think you're saying, that genetic engineering is not evolution, it's intelligent design. I think also that nutritional and environmental impacts on our existing biology is not evolution either. If a rat grows bigger or taller or fatter or whatever when you feed it certain things, that's just part of its existing biology. So the only way evolution continues to act on the human species is if we rediscover natural selection, which doesn't appear to be likely.

I suppose I could see it if we switched entirely from biological generation of offspring to donor DNA. It's a form of natural selection if lots of people are picking donors with certain traits. But if the DNA that people are selecting from is engineered DNA, it's out of the realm of natural selection again, and so it's not evolution.

I think humanity has pretty much transcended evolution at this point. For much of the world there is no natural selection, and I think very soon it will all be engineered.

I see a lot of intelligent responses--as well as my own responses--but what are the odds they're responded to at all, let alone with a modicum of reason?

At this point I think we're just having fun with our own discussion.

 

[Dotini]

At this point I think we're just having fun with our own discussion.

In the Boy Scouts we called it circle-jerking.

 

[Danoff]

In the Boy Scouts we called it circle-jerking.

On the internet we call it a message board.

 

[TexRex]

I think also that nutritional and environmental impacts on our existing biology is not evolution either.

As in the choices we make, be they positive or negative, affecting what traits carry to subsequent generations? I'd file that under evolution...who says stimulus has to be natural for it to be part of "natural selection" aspect of the evolutionary process?

Edited to more properly convey the thought.

 

[Danoff]

As in the choices we make, be they positive or negative, affecting what traits carry to subsequent generations? I'd file that under evolution...who says stimulus can't be natural for "natural selection" to be a part of the evolutionary process?

I'm not talking about anything that affects genetics. Just things that affect our development with our current genetics. For example, supposing a million years from now we reduce the effect of gravity on ourselves and have outstandingly perfect nutrition and grow to be an average of 15 feet tall. That's not evolution if it's not a change in our genetic makeup, it's just us knowing how to grow ourselves really well.

 

[Dotini]

I think also that nutritional and environmental impacts on our existing biology is not evolution either.

I think it's completely true that changes in environment and diet are intimately linked with evolution.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's completely true that changes in environment and diet are intimately linked with evolution.

They can be when they play into natural selection, they can also be entirely separable (as is basically the case with humanity at the moment).

 

[Dotini]

They can be when they play into natural selection, they can also be entirely separable (as is basically the case with humanity at the moment).

Explain, please.

 

[Danoff]

Explain, please.

Right now our nutrition as a species is better than it was 1000 (or even 100) years ago. Partly as a result of that, we live longer, grow taller, stronger, faster, and maybe smarter than we used to. However, since just about everyone (especially in the developed portion of the world) that really wants to procreate does, natural selection is not really occurring. So even though we have changed a bit physically over the years, it's a factor of our environment (nutrition), which is separated from genetics due to a lack of a natural selection forcing function.

If we returned to the nutrition of 1000 years ago, we'd probably turn out very much like they did.

 

[Dotini]

If we returned to the nutrition of 1000 years ago, we'd probably turn out very much like they did.

Maybe so, but what about the nutrition of 25,000 years ago?

Human teeth have changed in their appearance and function to reach their present form. In the examination of archaeological teeth, distinct changes are evident, which leads to hypotheses about people living long ago.

Tooth fossils tend to remain remarkably preserved, which enables researchers to have an illuminating glimpse into the teeth of bygone eras. Humans today display smaller teeth and smaller jaws when compared to people who lived 25,000 years ago. The canine teeth of some people living long ago were much larger than current human teeth. Molars also differed in size depending on the era of the teeth and the geographic location.
https://www.miamicosmeticdentalcare.com/teeth-human-evolution/

 

[Danoff]

Maybe so, but what about the nutrition of 25,000 years ago?

Might count.

They can be when they play into natural selection

 

[Dotini]

Should our species, due to eating plastic, become infertile and threaten itself with extinction, maybe we can become parthenogenic like the self-cloning, feces-eating crawdads of Madagascar?

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/02/mutant-self-cloning-crayfish-are-taking-over-madagascar/