Evolution or Creation?

[Sneaksuit]

Evolution is a not a purpose driven process unless you count the purpose as being reproduction.

That certainly is science's understanding of evolution. It steers clear of recognizing evolution as something purpose driven because it essentially brings "God" into the picture, so it answers the "how" questions as opposed to the "why" questions. In its impotency, science reverse engineers the evolution of the universe with an understanding that it is series of impossibly small cosmic flukes - the only approach it's capable of. One must ask if that's any more convincing than evolution being purpose driven, especially since the former conception cannot explain other qualities of the universe, such as experiences of love, guilt, or joy, to mention only a few.

[Poindexter]

That certainly is science's understanding of evolution. It steers clear of recognizing evolution as something purpose driven because it essentially brings "God" into the picture, so it answers the "how" questions as opposed to the "why" questions. In its impotency, science reverse engineers the evolution of the universe with an understanding that it is series of impossibly small cosmic flukes - the only approach it's capable of. One must ask if that's any more convincing than evolution being purpose driven, especially since the former conception cannot explain other qualities of the universe, such as experiences of love, guilt, or joy, to mention only a few.

In it's impotency science used to reverse engineer?? I'm guessing you meant meant infancy and just made a Freudian slip.

Experiences such as love, guilt and joy (embarassment) are indeed the result of evolution. It's all about survival of the fittest and those "emotions" show up in animals that either rely on groups for safety or hunt in packs. A single wolf or white tail dear doesn't stand much of a chance alone so those animals have evolved characteristics through natural selection what we call emotions. Humans evolved as pack animals and developed these same characteristics but somehow through smuggness we believe we have a monopoly on them.

For example - the wolf that is socially accepted among the pack will have a better probability to pass on his genes through mating. Where as the wolf that was a loner stayed a loner and never reproduced so thier genes died off. So the next generation of wolves does the same and a couple hundred thousand years later we have dogs that have an incredibe range of emotion. Thats evolution, not hard to understand and nothing magical about it.

[zzontar]

.

Experiences such as love, guilt and joy (embarassment) are indeed the result of evolution. It's all about survival of the fittest and those "emotions" show up in animals that either rely on groups for safety or hunt in packs.

These show up in warm-blooded animals even though cold-blooded ones had a much longer time to evolve. The more an intelligent an animal is, the easier it is to see how they have the same personalities and traits as we would have if we were in their "vehicle," and also includes solitary warm-blooded animals.

[Sneaksuit]

In it's impotency science used to reverse engineer?? I'm guessing you meant meant infancy and just made a Freudian slip.

Poindexter, thanks for your challenging reply. Please quote me, "science reverse engineers the evolution of the universe". That is - science approaches evolution with its method to speculate the beginning (big bang) and how it has evolved to this point. It simulates everything from the big bang with computer models to creating life in laboratories. That is reverse engineering and science has done a great job of it.

Experiences such as love, guilt and joy (embarassment) are indeed the result of evolution. It's all about survival of the fittest and those "emotions" show up in animals that either rely on groups for safety or hunt in packs. A single wolf or white tail dear doesn't stand much of a chance alone so those animals have evolved characteristics through natural selection what we call emotions. Humans evolved as pack animals and developed these same characteristics but somehow through smuggness we believe we have a monopoly on them.

For example - the wolf that is socially accepted among the pack will have a better probability to pass on his genes through mating. Where as the wolf that was a loner stayed a loner and never reproduced so thier genes died off. So the next generation of wolves does the same and a couple hundred thousand years later we have dogs that have an incredibe range of emotion. Thats evolution, not hard to understand and nothing magical about it.

I agree with most of your simple explanation and again please quote me. I never said that emotions aren't the result of evolution. I said science cannot explain them, nor does it claim to. I also never mentioned anything about evolution being magical. If you believe that anything that science cannot explain is magical perhaps you subscribe to scientism. Check these out if you're interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRxxcsNdqkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_bv8UEyBlw

I will re-iterate. Science, admittedly, is impotent with respect to many aspects of our lives including experience.

Now then, since evolution is fact, the question this thread should really tackle is why is there evolution?

[Poindexter]

These show up in warm-blooded animals even though cold-blooded ones had a much longer time to evolve. The more an intelligent an animal is, the easier it is to see how they have the same personalities and traits as we would have if we were in their "vehicle," and also includes solitary warm-blooded animals.

Science has shown this not to be true, just because animals can't express emotions in our language doesn't mean they don't experience them, even the cold blooded.

[Poindexter]

Poindexter, thanks for your challenging reply. Please quote me, "science reverse engineers the evolution of the universe". That is - science approaches evolution with its method to speculate the beginning (big bang) and how it has evolved to this point. It simulates everything from the big bang with computer models to creating life in laboratories. That is reverse engineering and science has done a great job of it.



I agree with most of your simple explanation and again please quote me. I never said that emotions aren't the result of evolution. I said science cannot explain them, nor does it claim to. I also never mentioned anything about evolution being magical. If you believe that anything that science cannot explain is magical perhaps you subscribe to scientism. Check these out if you're interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRxxcsNdqkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_bv8UEyBlw

I will re-iterate. Science, admittedly, is impotent with respect to many aspects of our lives including experience.

Now then, since evolution is fact, the question this thread should really tackle is why is there evolution?

Your welcome..

I beg to differ that science can't explain emotion though.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/emotion/Damasio.html

Self awareness is the real hurdle but even that's being challenged with dolphins who are able to see a reflection of themselves and know it's not another animal.

[zzontar]

[quote="Poindexter"]

Science has shown this not to be true, just because animals can't express emotions in our language doesn't mean they don't experience them, even the cold blooded.


Thanks, but it's an hour long, is there a point in that video where they mention it?

[Glacier]

Evolution is a not a purpose driven process unless you count the purpose as being reproduction.

That is an interesting statement, and hits at the crux of the idea. Correct me if I'm wrong... Both positive and negative mutations occur, but the positive or beneficial ones are the ones that largely propagate through because they increase the likelihood of reproducing, adapting, and surviving. ie. it's not that evolution is smart enough to grow hair in cold weather, but rather, the animals with more hair survive the winters better.

[hobbyguy]

The research is ongoing, but "jumping genes" could explain quite a bit about our emotions.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-each-brain-unique

I'm speculating, but it is possible that "jumping genes" are behind mankind's great leap forward in evolution by creating a wider range of talents in our ancestors.

[Poindexter]

Thanks, but it's an hour long, is there a point in that video where they mention it?

In a nutshell? That even the cold blooded can show parental care and tenderness.

[Poindexter]

Regarding reverse engineering, at least science or scientism uses facts, evidence or physics to explain things. Religion uses reverse engineering and says, "well I'm stumped, must be an all knowing being that made it." Now that's a real leap of faith.

I'd even go as far to say that "faith" or the ability to believe in a higher power is an evolutionary advantage. Pit a tribe that will fight to the death for a god against a tribe that fears death and the outcome is fairly obvious. So in a sense your believing in a higher power is just another example of evolution.

[Sneaksuit]

Regarding reverse engineering, at least science or scientism uses facts, evidence or physics to explain things. Religion uses reverse engineering and says, "well I'm stumped, must be an all knowing being that made it." Now that's a real leap of faith.

That's true and here's another leap of faith - the universe sprang from nothing for no reason. As Terence McKenna once said, it's not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed. It's one's limit test of credulity and is in fact no different than a religious person saying, "and God said let there be light".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_9W9PllucA

I'd even go as far to say that "faith" or the ability to believe in a higher power is an evolutionary advantage. Pit a tribe that will fight to the death for a god against a tribe that fears death and the outcome is fairly obvious. So in a sense your believing in a higher power is just another example of evolution.

According to Dan Dennett that's the case and one could also say every phenomenon in the universe serves evolution's purpose in one way or another.

IMO, it's best not to fall into the trap of thinking that evolution represents science and if you don't believe it then you only have one other choice - religion. One day we will know much more about our origin thanks to the tool of science but also to the human experience which uses it.

[Necro]

That's true and here's another leap of faith - the universe sprang from nothing for no reason.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

~Stephen Hawking

the conflict between science and religion doesn't and never has stemmed from the scientific point of view, but rather the close-minded religious zealots who are scared that scientific provable fact debunks and proves beyond doubt the bible, and all religious texts and creation myths are works of laughable fiction at best, and fantastic fantasy at worst.

and btw, McKenna, for whatever reason, reminds me of cheech and chong...

[zzontar]

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

~Stephen Hawking

If there was nothing to begin with, there wouldn't have been gravity either.

[Poindexter]

Amen Stephen.

That's true and here's another leap of faith - the universe sprang from nothing for no reason. As Terence McKenna once said, it's not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed. It's one's limit test of credulity and is in fact no different than a religious person saying, "and God said let there be light".

Another way to phrase the question "how did something come from nothing" is to ask, "how did the laws physics, time and space come into being"? To me this is the real question since these laws explain the universe that currently exists. One theory from the author of A universe From Nothing explains that these laws are a result of the evolution of time.

IMO, it's best not to fall into the trap of thinking that evolution represents science and if you don't believe it then you only have one other choice - religion. One day we will know much more about our origin thanks to the tool of science but also to the human experience which uses it.

I don't understand how you can say evolution isn't a science, it's based on evidence and is measurable. I do know science has been wrong but it's always been science that has proved it wrong. For example many now question our current understanding of how the sense of smell works. Science at one time thought smells come in jigsaw type shapes and there is a receptor in the nose that it fits and viola. Now that science is advanced enough they say that simply doesn't explain how powerful the sense of smell can be. Many now theorize that our sense of smell may actually be the result of quantum mechanics. That every molecule has a different vibration or frequency due to the energy of the atoms and our noses sense this frequency. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12827893

So yes science can be wrong but thats why I believe in it. It evolves with our understanding of the universe and has to admit when it's wrong due to evidence. I just don't see that evolution with religion, if it's in the book, it's true and will always be true regardless of evidence.

I do appreciate your side of things too though, my sister who is very Catholic and also very educated tells me it's a choice. You either want to believe in god or choose not to. For her it's not about evidence or whether it's even true, for her it's about the benefit she receives from her relationship with god. The proof is in the pudding and she'll smile and say look at all this. You're view may be different from hers but either way it's points out why these debates, while enjoyable, are somewhat fruitless.

To be honest, I'll admit at times I wish I had a bigger faith muscle, because I have seen the personal benefits to those who keep it flexed.