The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Harbal]

Maybe a thunderbolt explains everything and that's all.

I think that's the sort of thing we're expecting from you when you eventually pluck up the courage to disclose your alternative to natural selection. How much longer are we going to have to wait?

[Londoner]

Ok. So remind me; why two stories (in Genesis)?

'Why?' in what sense? I'd say because nobody is looking for consistency. If I turn on the TV and watch a couple of dramas, I do not feel the need for them to be consistent with each other. The dramas follow internal rules and I expect them to be realistic in some senses, but I do not think of the stories as facts.

There seem to have been more than two creation myths in Israel; we get echoes of others elsewhere in the Bible. They were stories about very ancient times; nobody was in any position to decide which was true or which was false. I just don't think this bothered anybody.

The thing about the bible is that the interpretation says more about the interpreter, than it does about the text. The people who interpret it most favourably, are the ones who wish that it were true.

What seems to be the case with the Bible is that you have a basic narrative, then layers of commentary. For example, the account of some lost battle and then an added explanation that the reason they lost was because they had been neglecting some rule about where to do sacrifices.

Nor does this stop with the written text. The stories are still continually being reinterpreted, 'explained'. But I do not see this as peculiar to the Bible or scripture. The same is done in conventional histories, and in today's newspapers.

Well, that's your interpretation. Tho Old Testament does not say that there is only one god, it just insists that the Israelites only worship Yahweh.

It is usually suggested that 'Jahwists' are one of these layers of commentators. I would say that if you need to insert something telling readers 'this is the meaning of that story' it is a sign that some people were choosing to read it in a different way.

Everybody wants to claim that their own reading of the Bible, Koran or whatever is the only possible one, that there has only ever been one form of Judaism. This seems to me to be total nonsense, it defies history, it just does not fit with the character of the scripture. Like every work of literature or philosophy, what we take from it reflects what we bring to it.

Again, that is your interpretation (of the 'Eden' story). Most churches interpret it as the source of original sin, the only escape from which just happens to be whatever that particular church says. The fact that there are so many denominations, is evidence that even the experts can't agree.

Indeed, and it isn't as if they are arguing about facts. Our understanding of what the story means depends on what we already think about God and the human condition generally. This is also true for the radical atheist; if the word 'God' is associated with lots of negative things, they will read the story as meaning something bad.

Me: And also of the problem for God, in that he has created something that he wants to worship him, but do so by free will, which means that he may not do what God wants. (The same paradox you see in Sartre plays.)

You can see where the religious get their narcissism from.

I do not see it like that. I think we all have an urge both to be loved unconditionally - but also to be loved for our qualities.

It doesn't follow from the range of interpretations that a story is subtle; rather, in my view, it demonstrates the vanity and eccentricity of the readers.

But that suggests that there are some un-vain and un-eccentric readers, and that these people have absolute certainty about life, the universe and everything. I would suggest that this sort of certainty is only possible if you don't understand the question!

Suppose we were discussing poetry. Can poetry be translated into clear and ambiguous prose? And if it can't, does it mean the poet must be confused? I don't think so. I do not think anything has a single meaning, so any description that was only capable of having a single meaning would be unrealistic.

[Greta]

[...] much and possibly most of evolutionary change is pure accident that does not involve natural selection,

This is getting better. So, now natural selection isn't needed any longer. Just accidents.

Accidents are necessary. Natural selection is contingent (but helps, of course).

I disagree with David there. If evolution was accidental then we would all still be microbes. If things were designed humans would have been present 3.8 billion years ago, not long after the Hadean Era.

The key here is deep time. Selection - be it galactic, planetary, chemical, geological or biological - over deep time is inevitable. Luck and chaos of course are involved but, over time, the more iterations of a dynamic, the less influential luck becomes.

[Harbal]

I disagree with David there. If evolution was accidental then we would all still be microbes.

Doesn't he just mean that any mutation that occurs is accidental, rather than whether or not that mutation is selected in or out is accidental? Or is that what you disagree with?

[thedoc]

Great. That's jumping or small, perhaps imperceptible, changes, as it's more convenient on a case-by-case basis.

Pity that the fossil record jumps from unicellular forms to beings 1.000 or more cells.

Geology doesn't help, indeed. I'm sure Evolutionauts think those missing fossils will come, and this argument is scientifically irrefutable as usual.

It might help to understand that the Earth is approximately 4.7 billion years old not 6,000. The "Jumps" of evolution could have taken millions of years, hardly the "jumps" that you imply. It would also help to understand how rare fossilization is, not every species becomes a fossil, but creationists still claim that we should find a complete record, even though very few fossils are found.

[Londoner]

Pity that the fossil record jumps from unicellular forms to beings 1.000 or more cells.

It isn't clear what is meant here. At what point do a collection of individual cells turn into a 'being'?

If you have a mass of individual cells in the same place, then the environment of each cell will be affected and as a consequence the role of the individual cells will be affected. Does that make it a 'being'? If so, then we need not look at fossil records, we can see the 'jumping' regularly taking place with bacteria.

[Belinda]

Londoner wrote:

It isn't clear what is meant here. At what point do a collection of individual cells turn into a 'being'?

This merits a discussion all to itself. Not because individuation and intention are irrelevant in the context here, they are relevant, but because it's complex and quite important as to how we understand what we know and understand.

[davidm]

[...] much and possibly most of evolutionary change is pure accident that does not involve natural selection,

This is getting better. So, now natural selection isn't needed any longer. Just accidents.

This is another example of why taking to you is a waste of time. Go back and read my sentence that you quoted. Where in that sentence did I write "natural selection isn't needed any longer"?

[PauloL]

This is another example of why taking to you is a waste of time. Go back and read my sentence that you quoted. Where in that sentence did I write "natural selection isn't needed any longer"?

It's your time to read yourself again. You said it implicitly. Need to rephrase that?

[PauloL]

Pity that the fossil record jumps from unicellular forms to beings 1.000 or more cells.

It isn't clear what is meant here. At what point do a collection of individual cells turn into a 'being'?

If you have a mass of individual cells in the same place, then the environment of each cell will be affected and as a consequence the role of the individual cells will be affected. Does that make it a 'being'? If so, then we need not look at fossil records, we can see the 'jumping' regularly taking place with bacteria.

This is a mass of individual cells in the same place.

[davidm]

Here’s a great video to show evolution in action — and how, for the vast majority of life’s existence on earth, it did pretty much nothing.

The creator of the video ingeniously converted units of time into units of space. Specifically, he reconceived the history of the earth, 4.6 billion years, as the distance between Los Angeles and New York City — 2,450 miles. IOW, “today” is New York City, and the earth was formed 2,450 miles “ago.”

Nothing much of any interest happens until 324 miles “ago” — when history’s timeline is in Pennsylvania! This is when multicellular organisms first emerged. That it took so staggeringly long for this to happen suggests that it was an extremely unlikely occurrence, and possibly purely an accident not involving selection. It’s only when these organisms arose that that power of natural selection kicked in.

The utter insignificance of humans is stressed by the fact that modern humans evolved 570 feet ago!

http://www.businessinsider.com/animated ... ry-2015-11

[davidm]

This is another example of why taking to you is a waste of time. Go back and read my sentence that you quoted. Where in that sentence did I write "natural selection isn't needed any longer"?

It's your time to read yourself again. You said it implicitly. Need to rephrase that?

No, A-hole, I wrote that there is a body of thought that "much" and "possibly most" of evolution is pure accident not involving natural selection. This is NOT the same thing as saying "natural selection isn't needed any longer." I did NOT say that, nor did I imply that anyone else says it either!

Of course if you had been paying attention and really wanted to learn something (you weren't and don't) you would have noticed I posted a link way back upthread to a blog in which this very issue was discussed -- and in which the owner of the blog, a biochemist, and Richard Dawkins himself debated the topic in the comments section! Of course you remain opaque to all of this.

[davidm]

You're just a creationist troll. Since I have already posted several examples of natural selection, it is quite obvious I am not claiming that "natural selection is not needed." To others who are not trolls: This debate over natural selection vs. genetic drift and neutral evolution is really quite interesting. As Darwin himself observed, he did not think that selection alone was sufficient to explain evolution.

[davidm]

Evolution by Accident

Excellent arguments have been advanced to prove that most of evolution is due to random genetic drift and that's the position I take.

Random genetic drift does not involve selection.

[Londoner]

This (picture of a fly) is a mass of individual cells in the same place.

Indeed it is.

No individual cell in that fly thinks; 'I am part of a fly, my purpose in life is to keep this fly flying'.