Help on honest questions
A. Grace Haliburton
evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
doubt.
1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
further I could add please do tell me)
2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
"No")
3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
lab? (response: just you wait?)
6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
ancient Egyptians etc.?
7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
medicine just fighting natural selection?
Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
-Grace
Timberwoof
"A. Grace Haliburton" <kaos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
Various populations of our ancestors' species experienced different stresses, so
they evolved differently. Consider the many different breeds of dogs. Border
collies were bred from ... dogs ... and so were mastiffs and beagles. So why are
there still ... dogs? (And wolves, for that matter.)
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
Well, no, they're not. Imagine a mutation that caused some new color-sensing
protein to be formed in the eye, which gave its owner the ability to see the
color spectrum with better resolution than we can. For instance, one form of
dichromatism [red-green color-blindness] arises from a lack of one of the
color-sensing proteins. It stands to reason that there could be more proteins
than our three, and so we'd have more primary colors. (Well, some would see that
as a disadvantage because we'd have to redesign all our TVs, monitors, and film
and printing processes.)
Imagine a mutation that would make one able to run faster... That's good.
Imagine a mutation that makes men more sociable with other men. That's good for
the species. That's the difference between bonobos and chimpanzees, by the way,
and another answer to question 1.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Does he mean on Earth? A detailed study of the history of life on this planet
suggests that it took a remarkable confluence of existing species and changes in
environment to give our ancestors the final evolutionary kick into sentience.
One interpretation has it that we're lucky to be here.
And given how quickly we spread over the whole planet, and how we tended to
suppress or enslave any less-advanced people we met later, it stands to reason
that had humans met another species with intelligence like ours, we would have
seen them as competitors and probably eventually wiped them out. There is
speculation that that's what happened to Neanderthal: Cro-Magnon wiped them out.
(BTW, Neanderthal means "Neander Valley" and Cro-Magnon is the name of a hotel
and restaurant where some anthropologists ate dinner a lot.)
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
Well, there you go. Also consider that we've only recently been able to send
spacecraft there to look, and we haven't even come close to visiting any other
solar systems.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
We've been at it for only fifty years with maybe a hundred gallons of goo. The
Earth had the whole of its surface and millions of years to try. I suspect that
we don't understand it fully yet. Like you said; give it time. Nobody ever
pretended that science knows everything.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
Well, we do see things evolving, if slowly. Dogs evolved from wolves over the
past fifty thousand years or so; we've only written about them in the past five
thousand or so. Corn used to grow and spread by itself, but because of selective
breeding, the best eating corn is now incapable of spreading its own seed. And
bacteria have evolved under the stress of antibiotics into strains resistant to
them.
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
For both these questions, consider the time scale of evolution. It takes a long
time for a species to differentiate into another one. Have humans stopped
evolving? I dunno. Come back in half a million years and see. As for social
programs and medicine, absolutely they are affecting which humans reproduce.
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
I hope I have helped.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Stuart
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
If your friend came from his parents, how come his parents are still
around?
>
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
Indeed the answer is "no". Nothing more required. You should be aware
that in the mind of a creatobabbler, mutation = deformity.
For an example of a beneficial mutation in humans google A1-Milano.
>
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Why should there be more?
>
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
We don't that it hasn't. Mars is still a possibility.
>
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
Google "Sidney Fox microspheres"
>
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
They are. There are new species of vertebrates. Google "ring species
salamanders". Evolution is generally a slow process. You can't feel or
see the drifting of the continents. But move they do.
Its true that the basic groups of animals are still the same, but
species have come and gone over the past several thousand years.
However, if you expand your time horizon to 50 million years, there
were no ceteceans back then for example.
>
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving?
No. See A1-Milano above.
Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
No. They fight poverty and disease. Your friend is hopelessly confused.
Stuart
Cubist
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
country. Then ask him, "If your family came from [Nation X], why are
there still [Nation X]-ians?" Hopefully, this analogy will show him
that his question is based on somewhat skewed premises.
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
Nope. One thing you can do is show your friend the genetic code, the
table that summarizes which codon stands for which amino acid. In
particular, show him that most amino acids have more than one codon. If
Amino Acid X has (let us say) four different codons, a mutation which
swaps one of that quartet for another of that quartet isn't going to
make *any* differece *at all*.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Point out that he's pretty much *defining* "intelligence" as
"something only humans have". With that definition, *of course* humans
are the only "intelligent" species! Other species can and do exhibit
self-awareness, language use, and so on; the difference between us and
the rest of life, intelligence-wise, is really a matter of degree, not
a matter of kind. There's a wide range of levels of intelligence in
various critters, and *something* has to be in the #1 spot; it just so
happens that humans seem to be that "something".
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
Maybe life *has* evolved on other planets -- we just don't know yet.
We haven't found any life in those places we've looked outside of
Earth, to be sure... but we also haven't looked in very many
outside-of-Earth places.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
We're not omniscient. There are a number of things nobody knows yet,
and it just so happens that How Abiogenesis Happened is one of those
not-yet-known things.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
We do. Speciation is something we can and do observe happening in
realtime.
In all honesty, the Creationist notion of "variation within a kind"
isn't a bad description of how evolution works, as long as you accept
the notion that *all life on Earth* is the same "kind". Where
Creationists go wrong is their presumption that there's N different
"kind"s, each one comnpletely unrelated to all the rest.
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
No, we're still evolving. It's just that these days, our
reproductive success is less influenced by traits like "ability to
avoid being eaten by a predator", and more influenced by traits like
"ability to make money".
DrSpaceMonkey
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
There's been cases of benificial mutations. For instance, remember the
German boy who had a mutation that cause him to be extra-strong? He
had a mutation that caused him to have pretty much the exact opposite
of muscular dystrophy. In the wild, this would give him a MASSIVE
advantage. Right now, it's something to be studied.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Most of his definitions for intelligence are subjective. Hell, I could
probably find humans who don't meet the qualifications he's set out. I
can think of three in my own family.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
I know this is just answering a question with another question, but
here goes. Lets say a new species of reptile is discovered. How could
you tell the difference between a new species, and one that the
Egyptians just never encountered? I do know there's a new species of
elephant that has no tusks, most likely due to poaching.
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
We haven't stopped evolving - a lack of wisom teeth is becomming more
common, AFAIK. True, we've removed many of the natural selection
pressures, but there's still genetic drift. Hell, you want to talk
about fighting natural selection - 1,000 years ago, if you stabbed
yourself in the eye with something sharp, odds are you'd be laughed at
and shunned, doomed to die alone and blind. Nowdays, if you did the
same thing, you could sue someone and become rich beyond your wildest
dreams.
Richard Smol
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
Why wouldn't there be? We are just one of the ape species around.
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
And a very good answer indeed. Most mutations are neutral.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Who says we are? The problem already lies with the definition of
"intelligence". Are dolphins intelligent? I would say they are, but
opinions differ. Anyway, even if we were the only intelligent spedcies:
so what?
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
We don't know yet if it did or didn't. We are unlikely to find life
elsewhere in our solar system, but there are likely many more solar
systems which we haven't discovered yet. My guess is that life is
inevitable once the right conditions are right... and the universe is
big, so there is likely a lot of life around.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
We have. Keep up with the news.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
Because the evolution of new vertebrates takes a whopping long time.
Even then, speciation at vertebrate level has been observed.
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
No, human beings haven't stopped evolving. Or are you an exact copy of
your parents?
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
Go visit http://www.talkorigins.org if you're serious.
RS
TomS
>
>I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
>evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
>which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
>answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
>in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
>away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
>doubt.
>
>1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
>this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
>further I could add please do tell me)
This question seems to show a misunderstanding about evolution,
most likely the idea that evolution means some kind of progression
of individuals up a "ladder". Modern chimps and gorillas and other
apes are just as much a result of evolution from earlier kinds as
are humans. They're just different. They fit into their own
environment, with their own ways of living.
>
>2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
>"No")
Most mutations don't make any difference at all. And even a
harmful mutation may have only a minor effect.
>
>3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
>one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
>ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
>I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
>between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
One thing to consider is that oftentimes, a particular way of
making a go of it in life inhibits others from doing the same thing.
It is quite possible that when "intelligence" was tried out, there
was a competition among various intelligent species, and there was
room for only one intelligent species. Sort of like, there is room
for only one kind of giraffe-way of living.
>
>4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
>other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
We don't know the answer, as yet, as to whether there is life on
other planets. After all, we are still discovering the amazing variety
of places where life on earth exists.
>
>5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
>lab? (response: just you wait?)
>
>6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
>we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
>ancient Egyptians etc.?
Take a look at ancient cave art - you will see animals there which
are different from modern animals. And remember that evolution does not
mean only *progress* - extinction is an evolutionary process, too.
>
>7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
>medicine just fighting natural selection?
>
>Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
>no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
>
>-Grace
>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Patrick James
(in article <1135937802....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
Short answer: "If white Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there
still Europeans?"
>
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
The majority are neutral. Every living organism has several. Even negative
ones aren't necessarily fatal. And 'negative' can be in the eye of the
beholder; some people have, for example, a mutation which as a side effect
causes sickle cell disease. In areas where there is no malaria, this is a
uniformly bad thing, as the main thing that particularly mutation does is
fight malaria. In areas where malaria is endemic, those who have that
particular mutation benefit. Particularly as sickle-cell only pops up in a
limited (and easily predicted) subset of those who have the mutation.
>
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
'cause H. sap. killed the others, either directly or by out-competing them
or, most likely, both.
>
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
So far as can be seen, this particular ball of rock has the only _current_
life in _this_ solar system. However, as not everywhere has been checked, the
jury's still out. And given the number of stars in the galaxy the odds are
that there's life elsewhere. Finding it would be the problem. Space is big.
>
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
Because, in part, some religious nut politicians put roadblocks in the way of
research.
>
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
Firstly, 'complex vertebrates' have been observed evolving. Secondly, why
limit this to vertebrates? Why not include, for example, mosquitos? Or
plants?
>
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
No. This week's issue of _The Economist_ has a look at exactly that. It's
part of the survey article which made the cover of their year-end double
issue, and covers considerably more, and does it in layman's langauge. Have a
look at it.
>
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
>
> -Grace
>
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Ian H Spedding
[...]
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
We did not evolve from contemporary apes. We and the other apes are
descended from a common ancestor which, to our eyes, would have looked
more ape-like than human - which sounds like it is pretty much what you
said.
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
Mutations can be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. It depends on the
environmental context.
Imagine a brown bear growing a white coat as a result of a genetic
mutation. In its normal habitat, the bear might find the white coat to
be a disadvantage because prey could see him coming sooner. They would
escape and he wouldn't eat so well, possibly to the point where he
starved before he could reproduce. In this case, the mutation would be
bad for the bear.
On the other hand, the bear might still be able to catch enough prey to
survive and mate, perhaps not quite as well as other brown-coated bears
but good enough. In that case, we could say that the mutation was
largely neutral in effect.
But suppose the bear moved north or to higher ground where there was
snow for much of the year. Then the white coat would act as camouflage
giving the bear a better chance of sneaking up on prey. He would eat
better than any brown-coated competitors and have a better chance of
siring white-coated offspring who would also thrive. In this context,
the mutation would be clearly beneficial.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Anyone who thinks we're the only intelligent species should look first
at an incredible bird called the kea of New Zealand. In any event, it
all depends on how you define intelligence.
Besides, some species had to be the first to become a dominant
intelligence. It turned out to be us but there's nothing to say that's
how it had to be. If we hadn't been rear-ended by a giant meteorite 65
milion years ago, it might have been an intelligent dinosaur typing
this rather than a lucky ape.
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
Who says life hasn't evolved on other planets? In our solar system,
we're only just beginning to take a closer look at Mars. As for
beyond, we're beginning to get glimpses of extra-solar planets but
that's all. We simply can't say one way or the other yet.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
Give us a break, we've only been trying for a few decades. Evolution
took around four billion years to produce us.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
We do see small, short-lived things like bacteria and insects evolving.
But larger animals do it much more slowly. Human civilization has
only been writing things down for a few thousand years; large animals
can take millions of years to show obvious signs of evolutionary
change.
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
There's no reason to think humans have stopped evolving. Our genes
still mutate and we still exist in - and adapt to - various
environments. Social programs and modern medicine can be seen as
expressions of the intelligence which has been such a valuable trait in
enabling us to adapt and survive.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
A.Carlson
>
>A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
<Clip>
>> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
>> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
>> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
>> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
>> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
>
>Why should there be more?
Why should there be any?
WRT the TOE, this sounds like some sort of strawman argument as if
evolution must have an ultimate goal, a pinnacle so to speak, for it
to be true. Perhaps this is just because, like a true strawman
argument, it starts with a sort of statement being put forth as though
it were a condition that must be true for evolution to be true as
well.
That said, one might expect that, due to a predator-prey dichotomy, a
certain level of 'intelligence' would be bound to show up sooner or
later, and clearly has to a certain degree with a multitude of
species.
As asked, it strikes me as being more of a philosophical question than
anything else.
Shane
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
Natural selection does not require that a progenitor species becomes
extinct. Note wolves are still around in spite of all the variety of
dogs that have been bred from them. And as an added bonus on that point,
a number of creationists probably think that the dog *kind* that Noah
took on the ark was a pair of wolves.
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
No, and even some *bad* ones can be good. IIRC, sickle cell anemia
confers resistance to malaria.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
For the same reason the early IQ tests generally showed that white upper
class males were the smartest. Of course this had nothing to do with the
fact that white upper class males designed the tests. Your friends
definition has (subconsciously perhaps) automatically relegated every
other species to non-intelligence.
A number of years ago I read an article by Asimov about this type of
argument, and he used walking as an example. From memory, he arbitrarily
claimed the humans were the only species that walked. He then defined
walking as *habitual bi-pedalism by an animal with a recurved spine*,
which neatly eliminated all the other animals and proved his case. So no
matter how gracefully and efficiently another animal may have moved, it
was by a method other than walking.
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
How does he know it has not? This is his claim, ask him to support it.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
What is his definition of life?
What does a failure to do so mean? There are millions of things we
cannot do, what is so significant about this one thing.
Ask him if he will change his opinion about evolution if life is created
in the lab. If he says no, what is the significance of his point? If he
says yes, ask him what he actually knows about such experiments, and how
much short of life they must be for him to accept the principle.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
4,000 years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
Do we really have all of them around? Mammoths for example (although I
doubt the Egyptians wrote about them). Other ancient cultures write
about dragons, sabre tooth tigers etc. and they are not in evidence
today. Giant humans, ditto.
Why are the writing of ancient Egyptians taken as evidence of animals
from 4k years agoand yet the actual remains of animals of which there
are no living examples to be found today, are ignored.
The ancient Egyptians wrote about, at a guess, 100 different animals,
(it would make no difference if it was 1,000) are we to assume that any
animals not mentioned by the ancient Egyptians have evolved since?
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
No, we like all other lifeforms that successfully reproduce, are still
evolving. No they are not fighting natural selection, they have merely
added new artificial selection parameters into what is natural
selection.
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
>
> -Grace
Good luck.
--
Shane
Robert J. Kolker
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
Speciation often occurs when one portion of a population is
geographically isolated from the other. So the original population just
keeps on going (conditions permitting) and the modified populuation also
keeps on going in its isolated environment. Evolution is not
necessarilty replacement.
>
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
>
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
We may have killed off our closest cousin species the Neanderthals about
30,000 years ago. Or the abilities of homo sapien to organize hunts
efficiently during the last ice age may be been sufficient to lead to
the extinction of Neanderthal. Food was scarce during those times.
Bob Kolker
josephus
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
the problem is that creationistic persons find it abominable that we are
apes. so they tend to discount any evidence to the contrary. If you
have a genteel friend he will be more reasonable.
>
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
because deleterious mutations are selected out. they cause the fetus to
fail. No viable descendants is a consequence of a bad mutation. we
actually see miscarried and such failures. If you are a viable human you
really dont have any BAD mutations and you can have children.
>
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
The problem is that most people define intelligence as something humans
do. but if we define intelligence as a positive interaction with the
environment. you get almost any vertebrate(that is mammals and birds),
and many, many insects. Intelligence has to do with how problems are
solved. It is not strictly a human attribute.
>
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
>
We really dont know that. No one has thoroughly searched Mars,
Jupiter, its moons, Saturn. We really dont know that is true.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
There is always ongoing research. I have recently seen things about
membranes. It is just one tiny little part, but research is continuing.
>
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
Well partly because 5000 years is a blink of the eye in deep time. but
we have many examples of speciation that has been documented in the past
30 years. We have multiple observation of speciation. mosquitoes,
moths, birds , plants for examples.
>
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
>
that is not true. part of the problem is the length of our generations.
It usually take some 100 generations to show any minimum devotion.
That is 2500 years. we would expect some very, very minor changes.
Look at the adaption of eskimoes and europeans and africans. Why are
they "different" Each one is adapted to their environment.
but they are clearly All the same species.
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
>
> -Grace
>
ok
<talk.origin.archive> has lots of useful information and should be a
big help to you
josephus
Alexander
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
Will do - well I'll try and add to those bits I'm vaguely qualified to
respond to anyway.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
>
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
>
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
It's already been pointed out that this is essentially cultural
determinism on his part. That we have a differentiated aspect to our
survival doesn't mean anything particularly special. I presume you've
pointed out chimps and gorillas using tools for things like crossing
rivers and eating termites and that this is clearly learned behaviour.
If he is moving the goalposts by claiming that isn't the 'kind' of
intelligence he means then you should ask him to explain what
specifically would prevent the evolution of intelligence as we define
it in another species such as chimps. Any statement that maintains we
have evolved to a level that might be considered 'beyond' chimp
intelligence is a bit like saying that an Emu is less evolved than a
Crow because a crow can fly.
There is nothing in evolution that says the descendants of the Emu will
not evolve flight but that would depend on environmental factors over
millions of years. In the meantime the Emu has adopted it's
environmental niche accordingly.
As have we, and the chimps
>
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
Sounds good to me - but of course we are still looking for life on some
of the planetary bodies (I can't remember whether it's Europa or Io
that is the next decent candidate for some sort of bacterial/microbial
life after Mars).
>
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
There's some nice responses to this in the thread I started 'Molecular
biology ... crash course or little help?' as I'm having a similar
discussion elsewhere.
>
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
>
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
He'd need to explain why this is an actual obstacle to natural
selection. From the way it's phrased I'm assuming he's confusing the
introduction of technology and modern institutions such as a health
service with the idea that this somehow creates an artificial
environment that eliminates selection as a 'natural' process.
Ask him if the existence of dating agencies has improved or reduced our
chances of meeting with someone who we find attractive, desirable and
therefore eventually reproducing with.
Once he has a date via the agency you could also ask him whether he
would choose to go out in sub-zero temperatures to his first meeting
without adequate clothing.
Does this demonstrate our ability to adapt by utilising technology and
actually improving chances of survival or is it somehow 'unnatural' to
want to develop technology that both enhances our quality of life and
which prolongs health? So through entirely artifical clothing, health
practices and regimes and institutions we improve our chances of
getting to that date on time and in good health as provided by the
equally artificial dating agency. Once we have found a partner then we
use those institutions to decrease infant mortality and extend the
productive life of the parents through treatment of illnesses and
accidents. You will note that we are less likely to die at around
30/40 and can therefore bear more children, over a longer periods and
input into the social environment for longer periods. This seems to be
a good thing for the population as a whole.
None of the artificiality involved however doesn't seem to prevent the
process (or the extraordinary lengths we go to) in order to find that
date and suitable partner. Which is, when it comes down to it, what
natural selection is all about.
CreateThis
'investigative inquiry' reserved for science?
CT
CreateThis
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species?
Why didn't God create more?
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets?
Why didn't God create more?
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab?
Why haven't we been able to *poof* it into existence like God?
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving?
Why don't we see things created?
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving?
Why has God stopped improving us?
In other words, why doesn't the same critical curiosity apply to faith?
CT
Richard Forrest
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
If multi-cellular organisms evolved from single-celled organisms, why
are there still single-celled organisms?
Evolution has neither direction nor purpose.
>
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
"Bad" or "Good" are value judgements. Mutations can be beneficial or
detrimental depending on the circumstances. A mutation which causes
sickle-cell aenemia is detrimental unless it occurs in an area where
malaria is prevalent.
>
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
What evidence is there that we *are* intelligent? Dolphins are not
hell-bent on destoying every eco-system on the planet. Perhaps they
are more intelligent than we are.
>
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
>
So far we only know that life did not evolve on our moon. For the rest
of the solar system, let alone the inconceivably vast number of other
solar systems, we simply don't know.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
Life is a complex phenomenon. It's hard to define what life is. We've
built living organisms from individual genes. It's just a matter of
time until we do the same from scratch.
>
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
>
We do see living organisms evolving all the time, most obviously
bacteria and viruses. Speciation events have been observed in plants
and animals. Evoloution below the level of speciation has occured in
humans - high-altitude populations have evolved adaptations to low
oxygen levels.
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
They are simply differnt kinds of selective pressure.
>
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
>
> -Grace
RF
Ye Old One
>I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
>evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
>which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
>answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
>in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
>away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
>doubt.
>
>1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
>this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
>further I could add please do tell me)
Humans and the other great apes evolved from a common ancestor which
sadly is no longer with us. But use dogs as a comparison, the wolf
(from whom all domestic dogs are descended) is still around.
>
>2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
>"No")
Correct. In fact most mutations are neutral, many take place in parts
of the genetic code that isn't even being used (there is one hell of a
lot of redundant code in there) or in places that self correct because
other genes duplicate the altered one.
>
>3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
>one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
>ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
>I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
>between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Ah! Now that does of course depend on your definition of intelligence.
I think there are many intelligent species, including some of the
other great apes and of course whales and dolphins.
I think if we left the Earth then it would not be long before another
rose to take our place.
>
>4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
>other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
Everywhere we look on earth we find life - from the coldest to the
hottest every extreme still supports life. As yet we have not been
able to investigate other planets well enough to determine if life
exists or not - we need a few more years to answer that question.
>
>5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
>lab? (response: just you wait?)
Mmmmmm. It took a very big lab (the early earth) and several million
years to develop life. I think we will do it in time, but I would not
think it will be soon.
>
>6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
>we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
>ancient Egyptians etc.?
You are looking at a very short period of time.
>
>7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
>medicine just fighting natural selection?
>
No, we are still evolving, it is just the we ourselves now have more
control.
>Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
>no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
>
>-Grace
--
Bob.
Kleuskes & Moos
Stuart schreef:
> You can't feel or see the drifting of the continents. But move they do.
Ummm.... Earhquakes?
Zachriel
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
<snip>
>
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the best*
mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
* 'Best' can be defined in various ways, but in humans usually includes
physical health, sexual dimorphic characteristics, displays of
affluence, and social grace; but can also include more intangible
qualities, such as loyalty or compassion.
Richard Forrest
Zachriel wrote:
> A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> > medicine just fighting natural selection?
>
>
> Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the best*
> mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
>
I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
bloody-minded.
The family gathering at Christmas gets *very* noisy at times. I need
the rest of the year to recover.
RF
Zachriel
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Zachriel wrote:
> > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
> >
> >
> > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the best*
> > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
> >
>
> I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
> five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
> this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
> suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
> bloody-minded.
At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
;o)
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Inez
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> further I could add please do tell me)
As I understand it, both us and the other apes evolved from previous
apes. I do not believe these previous apes are still around, if that
makes him feel better, although he should check under his bed before he
goes to sleep at night.
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> "No")
I think "no" is a good answer. Pithy, direct, and to the point.
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
Gorillas can learn some sign language. Many other animals are
self-aware. Why should we expect other animals to do what we do?
>
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
>
How does he know it hasn't? How many planets has he visited?
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
And why hasn't Jim Carrey been able to star in a good movie?
Is his opinon that we've done everything possible there is to do?
>
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> ancient Egyptians etc.?
Evolution is slower than that?
>
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving?
No, I don't think so.
>Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
>
They probably are.
Stuart
I thought about that too, but earthquakes don't give you a sense the
continents are in motion. Translating ground shaking into increasing
the distance between new York and Paris is not obvious. We've known
about earthquakes long before anybody was able to piece togethar the
evidence for plate tectonics.
Stuart
Richard Forrest
Zachriel wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Zachriel wrote:
> > > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> > > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
> > >
> > >
> > > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the best*
> > > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
> > >
> >
> > I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
> > five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
> > this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
> > suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
> > bloody-minded.
>
>
> At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
>
My word! How original. I've never seen *that* pun before!
RF
Ken Shackleton
Zachriel wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Zachriel wrote:
> > > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> > > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
> > >
> > >
> > > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the best*
> > > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
> > >
> >
> > I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
> > five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
> > this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
> > suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
> > bloody-minded.
>
>
> At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
Assuming of course that his kids are sons......
Punster
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1135972156.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> Richard Forrest wrote:
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>> > > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
>> > > <snip>
>> > > >
>> > > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and
>> > > > modern
>> > > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the
>> > > best*
>> > > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
>> > five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
>> > this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
>> > suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
>> > bloody-minded.
>>
>>
>> At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
>>
>
> My word! How original. I've never seen *that* pun before!
Wood that it were so.
username_...@yahoo.com.au
Ken Shackleton wrote:
> Zachriel wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > Zachriel wrote:
> > > > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> > > > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the best*
> > > > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
> > > five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
> > > this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
> > > suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
> > > bloody-minded.
> >
> >
> > At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
>
> Assuming of course that his kids are sons......
I understand that tree of them are.
Shane
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
> news:1135972156.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Zachriel wrote:
>>> Richard Forrest wrote:
>>> > Zachriel wrote:
>>> > > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
>>> > > <snip>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and
>>> > > > modern
>>> > > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the
>>> > > best*
>>> > > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
>>> > five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
>>> > this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
>>> > suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
>>> > bloody-minded.
>>>
>>>
>>> At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
>>>
>>
>> My word! How original. I've never seen *that* pun before!
>
> Wood that it were so.
Oaky-dokey you guys, I have twigged what is going on here, this thread
is going to branch off into a pun cascade isn't it?
explainer
GH
explainer
GH
Michael Voytinsky
> evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> doubt.
The defenders of ID/Creationism have been very good at bogging people
down in specifics. Most non-biologists simply do not have the detailed
background to provide a thorough answer to all the ID/C "objections".
But if you friend is reasonably good at abstract reasoning, perhaps you
can try this thought experiment on him:
Imagine a world like our own, but with no theories of evolution. For
whatever reason, the concept did not develop.
In this world, if someone says "Some unknown designer created the
world" what evidence can you provide for this claim? Does this
statement help explain anything? Does it allow us to predict anything
about the world? Why is this statement better than "The world just
came out of nowhere, complete as it is"? Can the question "Where did
the designer come from?" be answered in this world?
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species?
Why are penguins the only animals that can survive a winter in the
Antarctic without any protective equipment?
Many species have unique characteristics.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
We have not been able to create stars in the lab. Does it follow that
God created star?
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
Natural selection is dictated by environment. Humans live in an
environment with social programs and modern medicine. In that
environment, being a diabetic is not much of a drawback.
Matthew Isleb
If it bothers you, perhaps you should leaf.
-matthew
explainer
A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
> I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
Arent you glad you asked here? I have nothing scientific to offer,
only opinion.
> 1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Ask one, they are puzzled why there are still humans, as am I.
> 2. Aren't all mutations bad?...
No, only after six martinis
> 3. Why are we the only intelligent species?...
Cite your evidence.
> 4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets...
That question assumes there is life on other planets.
> 5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> lab? (response: just you wait?)
My lay reading suggests the first single cell life occurred about one
billion years after conditions were "favorable". We've been working in
the lab for fifty years. It's simple math.
50/1,000,000,000/50=1/50,000,000 of the time. Throw in the amount of
"soup" on earth versus that in the labs. Are you surprised? Anyone
who suggests it should have happened may be terminally silly.
> 6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving?...
It's a time thing again. ToE has been around 150 years. Who was
watching before then?
> 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> medicine just fighting natural selection?
Based on the controversy surrounding ID, yes. I would say humans are
regressing. My limited reading suggests that the greatest chance for
evolution exists in small populations. You'll have to get a better
explanation for a learned biologist on why. I tried to write
something, but exceeded my knowledge quickly.
> Please help? I need to somehow give solid, accurate answers in language
> no more complicated than the wording of the questions.
Don't know if this helps, but it is less complicated than the wording
of the questions. In fact I had to ask my smart wife to explain the
questions.
Good luck. You may want to find another friend who knows a lot about
biology and have them both over for dinner.
All the best, Gordon Hill
rja.ca...@excite.com
Ye Old One wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2005 02:16:42 -0800, "A. Grace Haliburton"
> <kaos...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >I'm having a discussion with a friend about the origin of life,
> >evolution and natural selection. He's asked several honest questions
> >which I don't seem to be able to answer very effectively; I know the
> >answers but don't know how to make them convincing and understandable
> >in spoken dialogue. Some are common cretinist questions, but he's miles
> >away from being a cretinist so please give him the benefit of the
> >doubt.
> >
> >1. If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? (think I got
> >this one with the common ancestor explanation, but if there's anything
> >further I could add please do tell me)
>
> Humans and the other great apes evolved from a common ancestor which
> sadly is no longer with us. But use dogs as a comparison, the wolf
> (from whom all domestic dogs are descended) is still around.
Apparently we domesticated dogs so the example is not pure, i.e. partly
they're what intelligent humans chose to make them. But the point is
good, of course. In our case, it's reasonable to suppose that
different communities of proto-apes specialised for different habitats
in different ways, one community ending up as us. The details are not
as clear as we'd like. I have something to say under "Why are we the
only intelligent species".
> >2. Aren't all mutations bad? (only answer I could come up with was flat
> >"No")
>
> Correct. In fact most mutations are neutral, many take place in parts
> of the genetic code that isn't even being used (there is one hell of a
> lot of redundant code in there) or in places that self correct because
> other genes duplicate the altered one.
Try this metaphor.
Think of a simple video game where you work out an effective way to
play and you are awarded the highest score. If you play again with the
same strategy, then you'll be equally successful. If you vary your
strategy, it may be more successful or less successful. But the more
people there are who have already played, the less likely is it that
you'll invent a strategy that works better than all of theirs; you'll
probably do worse - it's harder to beat the high score, but not
necessarily impossible.
Present-day DNA is the strategy that gets you onto the high-score
table, and there are four billion years of previous players... although
of course the rules of the game keep changing, because part of the game
is dealing with the other players.
Nevertheless, most mutations are not improvements.
> >3. Why are we the only intelligent species? (when I pressed him on this
> >one, it seems he meant mostly self-awareness, high-level language,
> >ethics, philosophy and such; I had no response, since most discourse
> >I've read on the evolution of intelligence focuses on the relation
> >between bipedal locomotion and toolmaking)
>
> Ah! Now that does of course depend on your definition of intelligence.
> I think there are many intelligent species, including some of the
> other great apes and of course whales and dolphins.
>
> I think if we left the Earth then it would not be long before another
> rose to take our place.
That depends if it's actually useful.
My layman's vote goes to the idea that we mostly have as much conscious
intelligence as we do in order to equip us for dealing with other
intelligent beings - members of our species, and members of other
intelligent species. It's widely believed that Neanderthals in
particular had a lot of our kind of intelligence compared to most other
species besides us. They aren't around any longer, which implies that
they lost the game and we won.
> >4. Why hasn't life evolved on other planets? (explained that the only
> >other planets near us are hostile to life as we know it)
>
> Everywhere we look on earth we find life - from the coldest to the
> hottest every extreme still supports life. As yet we have not been
> able to investigate other planets well enough to determine if life
> exists or not - we need a few more years to answer that question.
The conditions for life to get started may be different for conditions
that life can evolve to exploit. We don't really know what those are,
and we have limited knowledge about other planets, but it seems likely
that liquid water with its particular chemical properties was important
for getting life started on Earth, and the planets we see don't seem to
have liquid water at the moment.
Most of the history of life on earth is nothing but microbes, and it
seems that a good deal of that is only microbes that convert carbon
dioxide to oxygen. That may not be the kind of life that your friend
is interested in. In terms such as that, Earth has not had life -
multicellular life - for most of its time of existence, about four and
a half billion years.
> >5. Why haven't we been able to create life (read: abiogenesis) in the
> >lab? (response: just you wait?)
>
> Mmmmmm. It took a very big lab (the early earth) and several million
> years to develop life. I think we will do it in time, but I would not
> think it will be soon.
> >
> >6. Why don't we see things (read: complex vertebrates) evolving? Why do
> >we have the same animals around now that were written about by the
> >ancient Egyptians etc.?
>
> You are looking at a very short period of time.
...and evolution takes a long time. Extinction doesn't; the Arabian
emu, for instance - I think that is the one in the bible - is not
around any more. There's another bible verse that in the seventeenth
century was translated as including dragons amongst local wildlife...
> >7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and modern
> >medicine just fighting natural selection?
>
> No, we are still evolving, it is just the we ourselves now have more
> control.
It's unclear what we're evolving to. Social programmes and medical
provision are relatively new. If, for instance, a lengthy old age of
infirmity, requiring labour-intensive personal care, is how we end up,
and if it makes it harder for our offspring or their offspring to find
their own mates and breed because they're busy looking after us, then
what will evolution do? Who will win the game? Either the more
heartless offspring who just walk away and leave us and do what they
have to do will make it (and they got that from us), or early death may
become a more effective evolutionary strategy - set the loyal offpsring
free that way. A number of species use death as part of their game
plan; some male insects and spiders are eaten by the female they mate
with, and there are species where offspring start their life by eating
the mother.
But I think our lives are sufficiently sophisticated overall that it's
very difficutl to use the theory of evolution to make definite
predictions about our future. We can compare specific hypotheses and
say that one is more likely than another, but we have such wide options
that it's very hard to say that this or that definitely is the road
that we'll take.
Timberwoof
Shane <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote:
Only until a Forrestall.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
Shane <rema...@Netscape.net> wrote:
No, you've just been shingled out for mistreatment.
Now I'm board.
explainer
buns are the lowest form of wheat."
Forrests are the highest form of trees.
GH
Kleuskes & Moos
Stuart schreef:
True. But ultimately what you feel _are_ continents in motion. The fact
that you do not generally recognize it as such, does not diminish the
fact that it actually is.
As an aside, the prime piece of evidence for plate tectonics can be
found in the town of Pozzuoli. It is (in fact) a roman marketplace
called the 'Serapium'.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozzuoli.
Daniel Harper
>
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
> news:1135972156.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Zachriel wrote:
>>> Richard Forrest wrote:
>>> > Zachriel wrote:
>>> > > A. Grace Haliburton wrote:
>>> > > <snip>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 7. Haven't humans stopped evolving? Aren't social programs and
>>> > > > modern
>>> > > > medicine just fighting natural selection?
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Visit a high school dance. You will find the competition for the
>>> > > best*
>>> > > mates is fierce. Evolution is alive and well.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I should add that I've done my bit for human evolution, having fathered
>>> > five children - well above the average for my generation. I hope that
>>> > this will make the human race marginally more intelligent, more
>>> > suspicious of authority, more argumentative, more musical, and more
>>> > bloody-minded.
>>>
>>>
>>> At least the Earth will be more "Forrested".
>>>
>>
>> My word! How original. I've never seen *that* pun before!
>
>
> Wood that it were so.
>
>
Keep on pining for the better puns. I'm not sure Rich is maple to cedar
wonderful puns we can produce on his name, oak else he wouldn't complain
about it.
(Whew, I'm out of practice.)
<snip rest>
--
Get it in libraries. Let the public decide.
danielharper.blogspot.com
(Change terra to earth to email)