About Evolution

[kvn_m]

How exactly is evolution justified? Can anyone describe the more detailed overview of the theory of evolution? I only heard things like we're from monkeys, and stuffs like that so I'm afraid I'm not too clear about evolution enough to make any comments or judgements about it. Anyone?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by kvn_m

How exactly is evolution justified? Can anyone describe the more detailed overview of the theory of evolution? I only heard things like we're from monkeys, and stuffs like that so I'm afraid I'm not too clear about evolution enough to make any comments or judgements about it. Anyone?

Studying won't hurt.

Even Darwin never said anything about monkeys and man. Hetalked of APES and man. BOth are primates.

But Darwin did not say man descended from apes, he said man and ape descended from a common ancestor into divergent creatures. There's a wealth of nuance in there that gets ignored usually.

I believe man has always been man, but that's a spiritual truth, not necessarily a physical truth.

A human embryo recapitulates the development of all vertibrates. At one point the human embryo even has gills at one point in development.

Evolution is a mechanical tool, it makes no attempt to discuss how life came to be.

Regards,
Scott

[kvn_m]

And in the hypothesis given, haven't there been scientific researches done to disprove it? =/ Things like the skeletons found, things like it's against the law of this n that that are against the hypothesis?

What about the famous picture that I often see showing how from an ape, it slowly evolves into a human by time? That kind of process.

Because I imagine that if it happens in one out of billions, then there's one ape who evolved. This evolved ape will mate with the other apes who haven't evolved? So assuming that their genetic modifications will be similar to that of horse and donkey, and lions and tigers, that they can mate successfully, even though their species would have a hard time surviving... And all that. I don't know. So what next? This pool of new species roam around, getting bigger, somehow, and all.

I mean, I don't know. I'd be expecting those evolved species to still roam around, and the original species do not disappear. Either that, or all the apes would be humans. =/

So in the next billions of years, we'd be something else and all. ... Well, I don't know. I just don't find this theory a strong one, not with the backing of scientific evidence either, and obstructed with more scientific discoveries to disprove it. Oh well...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste kvn,

thank you for the post.

first... are you aware of the difference, in science, between a theory and a fact?

Originally Posted by kvn_m

And in the hypothesis given, haven't there been scientific researches done to disprove it? =/ Things like the skeletons found, things like it's against the law of this n that that are against the hypothesis?

nope, not a one. in fact, all the evidence points overwhelmingly to Evolution as the process for the diversity of species we see around us.

there is, of course, debate on the precise mechanisms of this. by the same token, we are still debating over the precise mechanisms of gravity, but apples aren't suspending themselves in mid air pending the outcome

What about the famous picture that I often see showing how from an ape, it slowly evolves into a human by time? That kind of process.

what can be said? it is an artists rendering of a process which takes place over a great period of time, in most cases. nevertheless, it is typically meant to give an indication of what is going on, in a visiual manner. the actual texts describe the process in more depth.

Because I imagine that if it happens in one out of billions, then there's one ape who evolved. This evolved ape will mate with the other apes who haven't evolved?

correct. and since the reproduce true, any mutations in one parent will be passed on to the offspring. if that mutation conveys a survival advantage, those creatures which have the mutation will have more offspring than those without. eventually, the population is dominated by creatures with the mutation.

generally speaking, it is populations which evolve, not individuals.

I mean, I don't know. I'd be expecting those evolved species to still roam around, and the original species do not disappear. Either that, or all the apes would be humans. =/

why is that? it is a matter of reproductive success. the more reproduction a species has the great any particular trait found in their genes will be passed on. generally speaking, this is called Natural Selection. however, that is a rather long process. we can see it much more clearly in Artificial Selection, which humans have been doing for quite some time now. to wit: canines ,felines and bovines.

however, if you have an interest in this subject, it would certainly be better to get your information from a reputable source other than from someone like me. this link should prove to be quite informative:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I just don't find this theory a strong one, not with the backing of scientific evidence either, and obstructed with more scientific discoveries to disprove it. Oh well...

like what, for instance?



metta,

~v

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by kvn_m

What about the famous picture that I often see showing how from an ape, it slowly evolves into a human by time?

I think you are speaking ofthis.

My understanding that this an artists conception representing many of the ideas found in the theory of evolution while elaborating some things not specifically known just incidentally.

As I understand it some details like this that people might fixate on are not defined in the evidence - skin color, degree of body hair for example, are to my understanding just guess work. Overall skull shape is known but facial features like full or thin lips, rounded or pointed eye lids, all our "racial" features are guess work in these early hominds.

Thus the early hominids might have had significantly less hair but generally would have walked in the form shown. But it *looks* like the early homids portrayed were ape or monkey like. And perhaps they were in outer form - but such details that are reminiscent of apes and monkeys are just that. They are NOT apes and monkeys. Monkeys and apes have passed through evolution just like we have. They do not represent a less evolved form - just a different form - or so goes the theory of evolution anyway. And for that matter even earlier forms do not represent lesser forms somehow - the brain size of some hominids are actually larger than that of average modern humans - and the same goes for physical strength - some earlier forms were for more powerful than modern humans.

Specific instances of simple changes have been documented exactly within specific species (a specific moth changed colors because the industrial revolution changed the color of the landscape so much that the previous color scheme was easy to see for birds to eat so only the rare alternative scheme endedup surviving because it actually blended better.) There can also be little doubt that gradations of physical form can be seen in a variety of animals and hominids and plants. But it isn't exactly clear that species change into other species or if species just change their own forms. Over very long times new forms do seem to arise and others disappear and while some forms change drastically others change almost not at all.

The real problem I feel between religion and the science of evolution is that religion can only account for a few thousand years while evolution extends history into many millions, even billions of years and other sciences extend it to about 12 billion years. Religion seems to have little to say about that stretch of time, and religion seems like since it is so important to us it should have something to say about so vast a topic.

[kvn_m]

about the fossils? I don't know. I even heard things like it contradicts some scientific laws. I'm not familiar with those laws so I couldn't tell. Really.

But what do you have to say to those websites like http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html and http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationis...proved-001.htm??

[I, Brian]

Would you take critical advice on the nature of the Bible from a molecular biologist who had never really studied the Bible?

Perhaps I might not take critical advice on the nature of biology from Christians who had never really studied biology.

[Ratanya]

I think people (and animals too) are evolving all the time.

It is well known that the human jaw for example has become smaller and smaller. Scientists don't need to look 3 million years into the past to see this. This evolution has become more increasingly apparent just in the last couple of hundred of years in which there is plenty of specimens to use as evidence.

What causes this..? Changes in diet primarily.. brought about by the changes in our cultural enviroment. The way we cook and process our food has eliminated the need for what was once a far stronger and larger jaw.

Recently, a friend of mine came back from a dentist visit and told me that the dentist said he didn't have Wisdom teeth. He was surprised, but the dentist had told him that it was more and more common for people not to have Wisdom teeth these days. It was evolution.

Do apes and man have a common ancestor? It is certainly possible.. in my opinion.. I am however, no expert in the subject, so I keep an open mind.

[Hazratio]

Since there are folks here who know more about evolution than I do; and since there are probably other folks here that know more about the "intelligent design" position currently promulgated by those opposed to evolutionary theory; I have decided to post a draft of an essay that I am working on and I would greatly appreciate any feedback or discussion that results:

The objections that conservative Christian groups raise against the theory of evolution has less to do with scientific evidence than with what they perceive as its moral implications. If human beings are merely the result of the random adaptations of a carbon based life form that exists by shere happen-stance, then it is hard to argue that our individual behavior has any significance beyond its practical impact on our individual existence--beginning with our birth, perhaps, and ending at our death. Faced with these implications, conservative Christians have opposed the theory of evolution, tooth and nail.



As a young bible school student in the early 80's, I was exposed to the rather crude versions of "creationism" that were than current. By most accounts, however, todays "Intelligent Design" approach is more sophisticated. What is lacking, it seems to me-- and, admittedly, I am no expert on the subject --is a willingness on the part of conservative Christians to really engage evolutionary biology on it's own terms. The theory of evolution-- Darwinism and neo-Darwinism --attempts to account for a certain set of empirical facts. Intelligent design calls that account into question at every opportunity and offers, instead, an alternative account which leaves room, at least, for some sort of special creation (cf. creation exnihilo) and for an understanding of morality as a set of objective demands that the creator places on his creatures. The problem with this is that it is hard to take their biology seriously--driven, as it is, by their theological and moral concerns.

For my part, I don't question for a moment the role of intelligent design in the creation of the universe. On the other hand, I don't feel at all threatend by the possibility that the human species evolved, over time, from some other, non-human species. I consider that to be a strictly empirical question, while the question of creation and morality pertains to metaphysics and ethics. And in my opinion, the concerns of conservative Christians are best addressed, not by stubbornly attacking evolution a priori, but by emphasising the primary ontological distinction between Reality (which is Transcendent) and appearances (which are emmanent). The theory of evolution-- whatever its shortcomings --may, in fact, constitutute a good first attempt at describing the natural history of life on this planet. But even if that is the case, it tells us nothing at all about the ultimate source of our existence. And in my opinion, it is only a Transcendent source which can ultimately account for our sense of morality and which can also provide our life with a profound sense of meaning and purpose. Apart from such a source, existence is absurd and moralty an illusion.

Briefly put, the Divine Reality is the source of all that appears. The same power which created the universe also sustains it. But the very structure of human consciousness both reveals and conceals its transcendent source. Those structures re-present the Divine Reality as the spatio-temporal universe experienced from the perspective of an empirical subject. On the one hand, we can honestly say that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handywork, but on the other hand, he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning... As such, it is easy for us to forget the One with Whom we have to do and to conceive of ourselves merely as discrete individuals whose truth and being is coextensive with the duration of our physical existence. Instead, we would do well to think of ourselves as incarnations of God--spiritual beings having a human experience (not vise-versa). This both explains and enhances our sense of meaning and purpose in life, as well as our sense of moral obligation to one-another (that which appears seperate and distinct, is joined together in the One with Whom we have to do--in [Whom] we live and move and have our being!). This truth is revealed to us in the life of Jesus--and in the lives of others who, Christ-like, exemplify an extraordinarily intimate relationship with God and a sacrificial love for their fellow human beings.

Of course, the question quickly occurrs to us, Why? Why does God choose to create-- or somehow permit --this slaughter-bench of history, this veil of tears? The answer would seem to be that God is intrinsically incarnate--Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Somehow, it is part of the perfection of the Divine Reality, which is ultimately One, to re-present itself as an empirical reality (i.e. to appear as many). Depending on your point of view, the process of representation can also be thought of as creation and/or incarnation. Perhaps it is by virtue of incarnation, suffering, and death (in time and space) that God is present to himself (in eternity). And it is up to each of us, as individuals, to follow Christ's example and begin participating in His Divine life today!

Finally, from this stand point, anything that exists in time and space will quite naturally appear to be the result of a (complex) series of empirical causes which brought it into existence--and will quite naturally dis-appear as result of some other series of (complex) empirical causes by which it will eventually be distroyed. The human body is one example of this and so, too, is the human species. But the One with Whom we have to do IS eternally--and we, too, insofar as we recollect that Divine Reality as our ultimate source and destiny.

Your comments are invited!



All the best,

Hazratio (aka Wayne)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Hazratio, and welcome to CR!

morality within evolution

This link to another extensive thread may help provide you with some answers, since you touch on morality. I think you will find that not only does morality have a religious component, but there would also seem to be a biological component as well. In other words, morality in the raw sense is not limited to humans only. It does create quite a dilemma...enjoy!

[Hazratio]

Thanks for the link--I will check it out. I am familiar with Evolutionary Ethics and with Emotivism two (overlapping, IMO) empirical approaches to morality. I even wrote a paper on the topic in Grad School:

Taking Emotivism Seriously Enjoy!

I think there is a lot of truth in biological/sociological/psychological approaches to ethics (Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals used to be my favorite book). However, it also seems to me that such accounts do not adequately or exhaustively account for the whole spectrum of moral phenomena. See also, The Call of Conscience.

Thanks again!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Hazratio, and welcome to CR!

morality within evolution

This link to another extensive thread may help provide you with some answers, since you touch on morality. I think you will find that not only does morality have a religious component, but there would also seem to be a biological component as well. In other words, morality in the raw sense is not limited to humans only. It does create quite a dilemma...enjoy!

[kabir]

There are many theories about evolution. Charles Darwin's is perhaps the most
famous, but the concept had been around long before him. Meher Baba wrote an exhaustive detailed account of His perspective on evolution and involution titled, "God Speaks; The Theme Of Creation And It's Purpose"

Here's a decent (though extremely limited) thumbnail retelling of what Baba says about evolution in "God Speaks" from a website dedicated to Him:

http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/meher-baba-life-4.php

"Meher Baba said that he had come not to teach but to awaken, nonetheless his various messages and books, particularly God Speaks and the Discourses, present a definite and coherent cosmology. God, as he explained, is the sole Reality, and the created universe exists only in dream or imagination. The dream of creation originated in the Whim of God to know Himself. This precipitated an evolution of consciousness in which the “drop-soul” (or jeevatma), identifying with innumerable physical forms and thereby growing in experience, progressed from stone and metal through varied species of the vegetable, worm, fish, bird, and animal kingdoms.

In human form, which is the terminus of evolution, consciousness is fully developed, but now the soul experiences the accumulated impressions of evolution rather than its own, native God-state. This ignorance necessitates further births and deaths in human form in the round of reincarnation. Still impelled by the God’s original Whim to know Himself, at length the soul turns inward and embarks upon what Meher Baba called the process of involution. This involutionary journey leads out of the gross or physical and on through the subtle and mental spheres (that is, the spheres of energy and mind), spanning seven planes of higher consciousness. The spiritual path culminates on the seventh plane with the experience of Divine Union or God-Realization, wherein the soul acquires direct and incontrovertible Knowledge of itself as God, the sole Being and infinite Reality."

I don't know if you're asking whether evolution is justified, or whether you mean "Has evolution been proven?"

My answer to both would have to be that the truth doesn't have to be justified, it is what it is no matter who believes or disbelieves it.
What the truth is about evolution in particular has yet to be proven or disproven (if it ever can be conclusively.)

[DrFree]

Originally Posted by kvn_m

How exactly is evolution justified? Can anyone describe the more detailed overview of the theory of evolution? I only heard things like we're from monkeys, and stuffs like that so I'm afraid I'm not too clear about evolution enough to make any comments or judgements about it. Anyone?

If you really mean what you imply by the words "How exactly", then you don't want a sound bite or a quick answer. You want some real details in language that is neither arcane nor oversimplified.

I suggest you check out In Search of Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Miller is both a biologist (evolutionist) and a Christian, and goes to great lengths to explain how he reconciles the two.

BTW, having a forum on that book might be a great way to have a meaninful dialog.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by kvn_m

How exactly is evolution justified? Can anyone describe the more detailed overview of the theory of evolution? I only heard things like we're from monkeys, and stuffs like that so I'm afraid I'm not too clear about evolution enough to make any comments or judgements about it. Anyone?

Evolution theory started life in its most broadly recognised form with the publication of Charles Darwins 'The Origin of Species' in 1859. Darwin was not the only person at that time wrestling with the same ideas, ( another case of history throwing up convergant ideas). Darwin himself was a devout christian and was at pains to stress that his theory was incomplete and that there were mechanisms at work in evolution theory that he could not understand or describe.
What he was proposing was that the diversity of species we see came about through chance mutations over large timeframes in which the mutations that had the best adaptations to thier enviroment would survive and flourish and the weaker, less well adapted ones would die out. This became known as 'survival of the fittest'.
As any given species adapted over time the number of mutations would increase and cause it to lose breeding potential with its ancestor population and so a new species would have formed. In the case of Man we are not descended from any ape alive today but all apes including man do share a common ancestor. This, in terms of the history of life on earth, was a relatively recent branching which can be seen easily when comparing the DNA of man and the chimpanzee. Our DNA is 99.4 % identical. Even the most primitive bacterias we can find share over 40% of our DNA code.
Anyone who doubts that evolutionary forces are at work need only study the development of the human foetas which goes through the history of our evolution as it grows. Each and every one of us had webbed feet and hands and a pair of gills in utero.
So in answer to your question the 'principle' of evolution theory is justified by mountains of empirical research. However we do not yet have a definitive knowledge of all the mechanisms at play. My own favourite explanation is something down the lines of what is proposed in Gaia Theory, that all life on earth is actually a single organism.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

... broadly recognised form with the publication of Charles Darwins 'The Origin of Species' ....So in answer to your question the 'principle' of evolution theory is justified by mountains of empirical research. However we do not yet have a definitive knowledge of all the mechanisms at play. ...

But we must not forget the one thing missing from his book and the 'mountains' of data is the origin of any one species. While the discoveries are deduced to show mutations and improvements inside a species, not one species change has been accurately accounted...each has the missing link...and then a miracle happens. Same with fingers, eyes, and organs...we see vestiges but we cannot go like the alphabet a-z on the creation or disolution of any of them, it is currently conjecture....

Um, you can't question the evidence or the authors...you must just believe....where have I heard that before?

the primordial being in me salutes and recognized the primordial being in you.