/lit/ - Literature

Finally, and related to the last topic, he has an annoying catch phrase, "irreducable complexity". This he argues makes a transition by mutation or adaptation from a simple to more complex organism, no matter how slight, an impossibility. My response was that such an transition from simple to more complex forms must be possible; though, as we established before, complexity is not inherently (objectively) better, more fit, more evolved than simplicity of form. Any easily observable examples of evolution from simple to complex is welcome and appreciated. Rapid evolution, perhaps at the microbe level which is immediately provable (as opposed to transitions which require millions of years), are preferred.

The word "evolution" does seem an impediment to clarity at this point, doesn't it. "Transition" or "transformational theory" might be clearer as it doesn't imply objective improvement, does it. Or maybe "relative evolution" would be best. Anyway, thanks for reading and for any responses.

Next, he seems to believe that evolutionists of today argue that an ascendency is taking place which will lead the "fittest" to the highest most evolved form of life, establishing a kind of OBJECTIVE species hierarchy having one final god-like species on top. I explained to him that while early evolutionary theorists may have held such ideas (true?), evolutionists today recognize that the fitness of a species is relative to its particular environment. If hierarchies can be said to exist in nature at all they are SUBJECTIVE- subject to the conditions in which they are established and not necessarily anywhere else. Take the king of the beasts out of his environmental context in Africa and place him in the arctic and he will starve and freeze, his corpse lovelessly raped with the frigid popsicle-dicks of a polar bears. In procession. Long, hard, interspecies rape. A species' "fitness" is only relative to its environment and there is therefore no objective ascendency of life forms in nature, no true "evolution"- these are general beliefs among evolutionists today, are they not?

Double nigger.

tl;dr

>arguing with anyone
>nearly the end of 2012

Okay.

>>3274401
>four paragraphs "tl"
>"dr"
>on /lit/

>>3274393
tldr

>>3274445
>>3274401
>tldr
Where do you think you are?

>>3274542
The place where we don't care about your arguments with your dad.

>>3274551
The argument with my dad has larger social implications needledick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters

>>3274599
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters
Nope

A restatement of my questions for the lazy:

1. Does a belief in Natural Selection constitute a belief in a tenet of Evolutionary Theory, therefore making one an Evolutionist.

2.Early Evolutionists believed in an absolute, objective ascendency of species- a proper "evolution". Modern evolutionist understand that the "fitness" of a species is relative to its environment. Correct?

3. Is it true that a complex organism is not considered objectively fitter than a simpler one by modern Evolutionists?

4. What are examples of evolution from simple to more complex organisms which occur rapidly, ie, within the human lifetime.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time and everyone believes it.

>>3274604
if you think my father is the only Christfag that refuses to accept evolution you have lost your marbles.. and your penis.

>>3274393
Racism is against the rules >>>/b/

>captcha: religious pushef
Interesting.

>>3274664
This. There are far too many Christians that deny evolution.

This is Congressman Paul Broun. He is a chairman for the US Committee on Science and Technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo

Go to /sci/, you'll get a better response there.

>>3274672
hey, i needed to spice up my post. look at all the morons who couldn't bring themselves to read my post even with the comic relief offered by my mild racism. Christ we're hypersensitive.

I assure my off-color remark makes me no less deserving of an intelligent response to my legitimate questions

>>3274698
unprovoked racism is the salient indicator of unintelligence
/b/ is where you belong

also no one cares about your boring evolution dad

>>3274696
Already have:
>>>>/sci/5379495
We'll see.

I'd hoped that the /lit/ crowd would offer more eloquent responses then /sci/. I understand the subject in broad terms. The minutia isn't as useful to me as clearly articulated overarching concepts.

>>3274711

>>3274658

I'm not an expert but here goes my try

>Does a belief in Natural Selection constitute a belief in a tenet of Evolutionary Theory, therefore making one an Evolutionist?
Yes if you know how genetics work

>Early Evolutionists believed in an absolute, objective ascendency of species- a proper "evolution". Modern evolutionist understand that the "fitness" of a species is relative to its environment. Correct?
Yes, evolution as we understand nowadays doesn't mean that we are moving towards a higher being. An animal that is "strong" in todays habitat could have become extinct in the different habitat of 10000 years ago and would be considered "weak".

>Is it true that a complex organism is not considered objectively fitter than a simpler one by modern Evolutionists
No idea of what you are asking, sorry

>What are examples of evolution from simple to more complex organisms which occur rapidly, ie, within the human lifetime.
I recall reading about experiments with insects with short lifespans and high rates of breeding that involved manipulating their habitat (temperature, food available, etc) to kill the ones that didn't adapt and see if the different traits of the surviving ones became more pronounced within several generations, but I'm not going to search it for you.

>>3274743
first thoughtful response- thank you.

A belief in natural selection does not necessarily require a belief in the "evolutionary theory." The difference is that natural selection is a process and phenomenon we have observed within recorded history. Evolution is a theory on the origin of organic life, which a bible thumper is most likely going to substitute for a more biblical belief.

>>3274664
My point was your argument is irrelevant

>>3274810
I've read that the notion that evolution is a theory on the origin of life is a common misconception. See:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a1
first bullet.

"Natural selection" is a term coined by Darwin and presented as a tenet of his Theory of Evolution. If only on semantic grounds (though I don't think it's restricted to that), a belief in one necessitates a belief in the other...

>>3274853
Darwin never proposed the theory of evolution, and never used that word. They're two different things. The idea that they're one in the same is only pushed by people who are more concerned with being right about a theistic argument than using the theory for practical purposes (like the medical field does).

He was a catholic priest, and actually tried to harmonize his theory with the existence of god (his eyeball argument).

>>3274871
I definitely believe that the theory of evolution and religious belief are not mutually exclusive.

However, Darwin did use the word 8 times in The Origin of Species:
>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Darwin_use_the_word_evolution,

My question though is if Natural Selection, as it's defined falls under the broad theory of evolution. If it does then anyone who believes in Natural Selection, which is impossible for any reasonable person to deny, must also believe in certain evolutionary theories.

>>3274871
>He was a catholic priest, and actually tried to harmonize his theory with the existence of god (his eyeball argument).
He was a part of the Church of England, and remained theistic. He avoided the word evolution only because it was controversial.

Evolution doesn't imply God didn't make the world anyway. But he did suggest that all species came from a single ancestor, and speciation comes through natural selection, rather than God putting all the species on Earth in their current form.

tl;dr he was a theistic evolutionist who avoided a loaded term because he didn't want people to get butthurt but they did anyway

>>3274810
You have that completely ass-backwards, evolution was something biologists had already seen before Darwin came along and explained the how and why of it with the theory of natural selection.
Natural selection is the theory, evolution is the occurrence, Lamarck and other scientists had tried to explain it with faulty theories before Darwin.

Why can't evolution and Torah both be true? Is it really impossible to believe that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago in its current state? I mean, Adam was created as a full grown man, but that doesn't mean we can't believe in human birth and childhood.

>>3274908
>Is it really impossible to believe that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago in its current state?
This would directly contradict the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory because of its emphasis on the rate of mutation and adaptation across millions of years, not to mention it would completely deny the connection between chemical evolution and life processes, so no, they can't both be true, at least not how you mean it.

>I mean, Adam was created as a full grown man, but that doesn't mean we can't believe in human birth and childhood.
How are human birth and childhood examples of natural selection? Alone, they don't mean anything to evolution, that's like saying a star is an example of relativity, it's meaningless. Do you mean embryology, or what?

>>3274925
>This would directly contradict the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory because of its emphasis on the rate of mutation and adaptation across millions of years, not to mention it would completely deny the connection between chemical evolution and life processes, so no, they can't both be true, at least not how you mean it.

Why? G-d created the Earth at a certain point in its natural lifespan just as G-d created Adam at a certain point in his life span. G-d also created animals at a certain point in their evolutionary chain. Does it sound ridiculous? That's for you to decide, but is it contradictory? Nein.

>>3274907
That's an interesting way to view the two terms- "natural selection" as the broader and "evolution" as one result or occurrence.

The wikipedia page on "Evolution" has "natural selection" as one "mechanism of Evolution.

What do you make of my other questions?>>3274658
Any direct responses?

>>3274925

>>3274932
>Why?
Life being created a few thousand years ago wouldn't account for the vast amounts of allele (two different types of the same gene-- think a gene for blue eyes and a gene for brown eyes, both are genes, but each is one allele) generation that has happened. It wouldn't be a suitable explanation for the diversity of life both in macro- and micro-evolutionary scale. "A few thousand years" would directly contradict all supporting evidence (carbon dating, genome mapping, etc) for evolutionary occurrences, things like the late precambrian diaspora and the human genome bottleneck roughly hypothesized about 100,000 years ago.
If the earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of natural selection as we understand it today is almost entirely incorrect. The converse position is also true.

>>3274946
>natural selection as the broader
No, you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying it's the broader. It's the theory. The causal explanation which accounts best for the available evidence.
Evolution is not "broader" or "narrower" than natural selection. It's what happens. Natural selection is the theory which explains how and why it happens.
Now, if you want to talk about mechanisms, you're still not saying evolution is "broader," you just have other ways of explaining how evolution happens, like artificial selection, which still is simply a distortion of the underlying premise of natural selection, the passing on of genetic information to offspring through meiotic/mitotic reproduction.
I'll get to your questions in a second, eating dinner.

>>3274967
Yes it would. G-d created such a diverse Earth becomes he's infinite.

>>3274970
What in the world are you talking about? I'm not trolling, I just don't seem the contradiction. The ridiculous of it, I can see? But the contradiction? G-d, being an All Powerful being can create what ever He wants in what ever stage of its life.

>>3274989
Interested to hear them.

>>3275000
Oh wait, let me expound on this with the alleles.

People fuck a lot in the Torah. I mean, a lot. In a few hundred years, Jacob fathers a nation of over 2 million people. Even Genghis Khan only has about 1.6 million direct descendants. Again, is it insanely implausable? That's for you to decide, but it isn't impossible.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/238,162/How-does-Judaisms-claim-that-the-world-is-about-5-700-yea
rs-old-coincide-with-science.html

>>3274970
Maybe I've just lived in the American south too long, but I take shit like this at face value because I regularly encounter people who say they don't believe in evolution.

>>3274658
1. Yes. Accepting that natural selection is a fact is the acceptance of evolution for numerous reasons, but the most obvious is that evolution happens through the passing on of traits to offspring: natural selection is the theory that adaptations which survive are those which reproduce, and those which reproduce are those more likely to survive, therefore evolution of genotype is determined by adaptations of phenotype.
2. Well, no, not really. Survival of the fittest was actually a phrase coined by an American philosopher (I always forget if it was Herbert Spencer or James Dewey, pretty sure it's the former) but in Darwin's theory the point was that environment determined evolution anyhow: the organism adapted to environment because the organisms that didn't adapt died. That simple.
3. Yes, this is true. Complex organisms pose some problems at times. Dawkins, for all the flack he gets here, was a pretty big mover and shaker in this debate, and many of the biologists he cited for his "selfish gene" work were pioneers in pointing this out.
4. No idea, that's a really specific context and I can't think of anything.

>>3274989
I see a couple points of possible confusion here:
1. Evolution can refer to a process taking place in nature or to a broad scientific theory about the natural world.

I am referring here to the broad theory of evolution, not the actual process of it in nature. My interest has more to do with how we define evolution as a theory and where natural selection as a related theory fits in relation to it.

>>3275000
>Yes it would. G-d created such a diverse Earth becomes he's infinite.
Yes, great, I understand that, but it would directly contradict evolutionary theory because one of the most fundamental, basic points of evolutionary theory is that the earth is several million years old.
>This belief depends on the earth being 5700 years old.
>This belief depends on the earth being 4.5 billion years old.
"Depends on" is a very, very key point in these statements. I don't see how you can look at them and say that they are not contradictory.
>This pier is 50 feet long.
>This pier is 25 feet long.
They're contradictory, and if I were person A, I wouldn't want to put my money where my mouth is and strap myself to a bicycle and be forced to pedal 50 feet if I'm not absolutely sure there's 50 feet.

>>3275052
the earth is several billion* years old

>>3275052
>Yes, great, I understand that, but it would directly contradict evolutionary theory because one of the most fundamental, basic points of evolutionary theory is that the earth is several million years old.
No, the basic points of evolutionary theory is that animals are not static creatures that stay the same forever, that they evolve. The evolutionary theory does not make any claim on how old the Earth is or when life began. Now, people who accept the theory may use evidence of fossils to make evolutionary trees and such, but there is no necessity to claim that the Earth is billions of years old. However, a biologist might say something along the lines of "Based on the data that we have, this species popped up around 100k and 500k years ago." The Biologist is saying, based on the data he has and based on the scientific evidence, that the species appears to be X years old. No scientist however today has lived before the 19th century.

>>3275077
Continuing on this, even if the evolutionary theory said that the Earth appears to be millions of years old (and this is not evident within the theory itself), it is still only based on an appearance. This isn't first hand proof, this is an extrapolation of observable phenomenon. It's like saying Nihilists are crazy when some say, "We're all part of some child's video game!"

>>3275077
>but there is no necessity to claim that the Earth is billions of years old.
>Life being created a few thousand years ago wouldn't account for the vast amounts of allele...generation that has happened.
>It wouldn't be a suitable explanation for the diversity of life both in macro- and micro-evolutionary scale. "A few thousand years" would directly contradict all supporting evidence (carbon dating, genome mapping, etc) for evolutionary occurrences, things like the late precambrian diaspora and the human genome bottleneck roughly hypothesized about 100,000 years ago.
All you've done is re-stated what I already said, and my point still stands:
>If the earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of natural selection as we understand it today is almost entirely incorrect.
>Almost entirely incorrect.
>Almost entirely.
>Almost.
>Entirely.
>Almost.

The part you're talking about is only the core portion, and a reductive misunderstanding (I hope, otherwise it's a willfully reductive misrepresentation) of what /modern/ evolutionary theory is today. There's a reason it's called neo-Darwinism today, and it's not just for shits and giggles, it has been thoroughly revised to account for physical evidence, evidence like carbon dating and genome mapping.

>>3274393
You're wrong. And it's really easy to see that, because your projecting a term to sit in as the whole theory. So either you don't understand the theory of evolution very well, or the real argument is that you just want everybody to think in your accordance.

>>3275101
>Life being created a few thousand years ago wouldn't account for the vast amounts of allele...generation that has happened.
See:
>>3275022

I mean, we believe the Arabs all came from one man (Ishmael) who had a lot of kids who also had a lot of kids.

>>It wouldn't be a suitable explanation for the diversity of life both in macro- and micro-evolutionary scale. "A few thousand years" would directly contradict all supporting evidence (carbon dating, genome mapping, etc) for evolutionary occurrences, things like the late precambrian diaspora and the human genome bottleneck roughly hypothesized about 100,000 years ago.
G-d created all this diverse life in its current state. Again, pretend a man pops out of no where one day and he goes to the doctor. The doctor says, "What's your age?" The man says, "I am one day old." The doctor replies, "One day old? From what I'm seeing, you'd have to at least be 20 years old." The man is telling how the doctor how old he really is and the doctor is telling the man how old he appears to be.

>If the earth is only a few thousand years old, the theory of natural selection as we understand it today is almost entirely incorrect.
G-d has the ability to create anything half way or partially into its life. He doesn't have to start it from scratch. Stop thinking on such narrow grounds, this is G-d we're talking about. He can create an infinitely complex universe in zero time.

No scientist has ever observed evolution occur. Real scientists are called quantum physicists these days, and they believe in a creator, or as Einstein said, the hand behind "Spooky action at a distance".

>>3275120
Yes, I understand what you're saying, but that would still mean WE, people who believe in the modern-day interpretation, are WRONG about evolution. We would have to correct all of the information we've gathered. We would be wrong. There is a contradiction. If there wasn't a contradiction, then there wouldn't be anything to correct.

>>3275122
I'm not going to say Biologists aren't real scientists. They've collected a group of observable evidence and made a theory out of it. Are you going to call geologists non real scientists because they believe in the theory of tectonic plates?

>>3275131
You're not wrong. We are evolving. Did we evolve from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees? That thought conflicts with Torah. Now based on the observable phenomenon, does it appear that we evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees? Yes, the fossil records, genes, et cetera show that is what is seen. Based on what we know, we can draw conclusions that this probably happened if the Earth is billions of years old. In a million years, will the human species evolve and branch out? That is certainly a possibility, but that doesn't conflict with Torah.

The theory of evolution is not necessarily wrong. It is perfectly acceptable to accept a theory that explains that species are not static animals. That's what the theory basically says.

>There is a contradiction. If there wasn't a contradiction, then there wouldn't be anything to correct.
I once had a science teacher back in high school that explained to us (and he was not religious at all, he was a scientist, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity would require us to ditch or completely remodel Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and that's one of the reasons why it is still a theory. It would require us to rewrite a lot of what we learned." There is no need to be scared of having to rewrite a lot of stuff in the scientific text books.

>>3275162
he was an atheist)*

Thanks for the serious responses. Getting some good info now.

>>3275162
>That's what the theory basically says.
>and a reductive misunderstanding (I hope, otherwise it's a willfully reductive misrepresentation) of what /modern/ evolutionary theory is today.

>>3275173
There is a theory based on how old the Earth is, there are hypotheses on the origin of life, the theory of evolution uses these theories as support but the evolutionary theory within itself does not make a claim that the Earth is X years old and that Earth came about from Y.

>not understanding why the evolutionary theory came about and making it fit into your super special beliefs of what the universe is

Evolution was a response to ideas that life on Earth was static and non-evolving. Not that life on Earth was only 6000 years old. I'm no Historian (my cousin is), but I'm pretty sure they have documentaries about this on the History channel.

>>3275162
Look, again, I understand what you're saying.
I understand what you're saying, ok? Really. I do.
My point is much simpler and more pragmatic than what you're getting at. You're up in the rarefied ether of epistemology and metaphysics here.
If the earth is only a few thousand years old, then the massive amounts of evidence that we have only reflect an appearance, and not the reality, and there is a certain (a certain, this is not true of ALL science EVERYWHERE about EVERYTHING, it's just a particular) aspect of scientific research which attempts to ascertain the actual and not the apparent.
If the actual is that God created all that diversity, etc. etc. etc. then the actual that is understood now is incorrect.
If the apparent is that all this stuff took billions of years to naturally occur, etc etc etc, then the apparent that is understood now is correct whether a deity did it 6000 years ago or a deity did it billions of years ago or no deity did it at all.
But the first premise is the scientific one. The second premise is a philosophic interpretation, the rarefied ether of epistemology and metaphysics.
I'm done quibbling with you over this, especially because I fully comprehend what you're saying, I just don't agree with it, and you seem to think I'm incapable of understanding it when it's a simple proposition... as is mine, which is why I think you fully understand mine as well, and you're arguing just to argue.

>Arguing with your family about religion
>Expecting it to go anywhere

>>3275202
See, now you're relying on Occam's Razor. I am not saying that my believe in Genesis is superior in your acceptance of certain scientific theories on the origin of life and the universe. What I am saying is that it is not contradictory to accept evolution and be a creationist. Nice job backing up the goal post.

>he believes in transformist evolutionism instead of recognizing the materialization of primordial archetypes/ideas

Disgusting.

>>3275210
Where did I say anything about superior or inferior?
You're right by a certain way of thinking.
I'm right by a different way of thinking.
Hell, "right" hardly even fits into the context where you've been going with it, and frankly I'm not philosophically educated enough to argue with Berkeley's successor, so I'm giving up, that's what I just said.

>>3275224
>Where did I say anything about superior or inferior?
You're saying it's simpler and I'm assuming you're using Occam's Razor. I never made the claim that creation was correct, but that it didn't conflict with evolution. Read my original argument in my original post and then read your post against it and now see what you're arguing. You backed up the goal post without realizing it.

>>3274672
>>3274711
>getting upset about racism, on 4chan of all places
>caring about worthless rules that even the janitors don't give two shits about

>>3274658
Why dont you study the Cambrian Explosion and then rethink your position on evolution. Im surprised people still try to argue evolution from an 1800's pov ...