Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

Redress said:

A calculation is only as good as it's starting assumptions and data being input into it.

Click to expand...

Lord Tammerlain said:

However when calculating complex probabilities that involve evolution understanding evolution should be a requirement,

Click to expand...

Goshin said:

There are scientists to disagree with that assumption, at least in part.

Click to expand...

Experiment

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[10]

As observed in all subsequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

Click to expand...

Barrow and Tipler [30] review the consensus among such biologists that the evolutionary path from primitive Cambrian chordates, e.g. Pikaia, to Homo sapiens was a highly improbable event. For example, the large brains of humans have marked adaptive disadvantages, requiring as they do an expensive metabolism, a long gestation period, and a childhood lasting more than 25% of the average total life span. Other improbable features of humans include:

Being the only extant bipedal land (non-avian) vertebrate. Combined with an unusual eye–hand coordination, this permits dextrous manipulations of the physical environment with the hands;
A vocal apparatus far more expressive than that of any other mammal, enabling speech. Speech makes it possible for humans to interact cooperatively, to share knowledge, and to acquire a culture;
The capability of formulating abstractions to a degree permitting the invention of mathematics, and the discovery of science and technology.


Barrow, John D.; Tipler, Frank J. (19 May 1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. foreword by John A. Wheeler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LC 87-28148. ISBN 9780192821478. The anthropic cosmological principle - Google Books. Retrieved 31 December 2009. Section 3.2

Click to expand...

Taylor said:

If you have a problem with the specific starting assumptions or data being used, please share. Try not to dismiss something out out hand simply because of a person's degree. Some of the most interesting work in science is cross-disciplinary.

Click to expand...

mac said:

I have a few questions that maybe someone more educated on biology and evolution than myself can answer.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so less genetically diverse as a species than is the species we are most closely similar too?

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so separate mentally and physically from all other species on earth? Species that share much greater physical and mental similarities to each other than we do to our closest relative.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so much more adaptable to our environment than any other species?

Click to expand...

mikhail said:

Einstein didnt believe in a personal god of any discription and used the term god basically as a tool can we please put this myth to bed.You need to read a decent book about evolution.I would reccomend anything by stephen jay gould something like the Panda's thumb is more of an easy read for someone who isnt to interested in just a strauight educational book.

Click to expand...

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Belief in God
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.

Rich Deem
1.Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3.Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4.Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
7.Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
8.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
9.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
10.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
11.Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
12.Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Click to expand...

Erod said:

So I suppose the many scientists who believe in God are just loonies in your mind?

Here's a historical sampling:



Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Well, I can't speak for all Creationists, but here's my opinion.

I don't discount that humans, and all species, have an amazing ability to adapt. I don't discount that over time, humans have changed in different ways as part of a "survival of the fittest" weening out process. I readily accept those conclusions.

What I don't accept - and I say this for effect, not saying you believe this - is that a paramecium turned into a fish thing, which turned into a salamander, which turned into a squirrel, which turned into a monkey, which turned into a human. I realize that is an oversimplification of the theory of evolution, but that aspect of it remains the most implausible and unproven aspect of the whole thing.

Evolution, or the changing and adaptation of the earth's species, is not in my mind at odds with Creationism. It is in itself, a "miracle" as you would prescribe the religious views on these things.

Whatever the process is not necessarily for us to understand, and it is certainly in the control of a higher power in my mind. Science and religion do not have to conflict with each other, which most Christians acknowledge.

Churches are not filled with just mindless idiots, as non-believers would like to think. Albert Einstein believed in God, and many of the congregation each Sunday are educated, successful people who have given this a great deal of thought. Don't let the over-the-top televangelists paint the stereotype for you.

Click to expand...

roughdraft274 said:

You'll notice how long ago most of these scientists lived, mostly before and idea of evolution. God made sense because they had no other way to explain the complexity of life without invoking a deity. We no longer have that need.

Click to expand...

Gray_Fox_86 said:

Erod is not that people like Einstein and myself don't believe in a God. We do. What we don't believe in is organized religion like christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddha, etc. Those religions are as fake as Jenna Jameson's breasts. However, you have to understand that we don't still understand the process of how a single celled organism turned into a complex being like a monkey, man, etc. Everything that exists is because of the evolution of those single celled organisms.

I believe in evolution and the sciences more then in a book written by a starving lunatic.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

You're right. I mean, they never witnessed the genius of American Idol or Oprah. Gimme a break.

Faraday, Kelvin, Mendel, Newton, Gallileo? Darwin couldn't hold their jockstrap.....as it were. LOL

Click to expand...

roughdraft274 said:

I didn't reference Oprah or American Idol.

They lived before the widespread knowledge of evolution. The idea of a God is much more common idea, and plausible idea, since there were no other alternatives at the time to explain the complexity of life. They made decisions based on the knowledge available.

If you go back far enough I'm sure you can find great minds that believed in spontaneous generation, flat-earthers, people who think the sun revolves around the earth etc.

The point remains the same, they lived in ignorance of evolution due to the time in which they lived.

It's telling that you would twist my post though. It was very intellectually dishonest of you.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Didn't mean to do so, my apologies.. My point is that a certain degree of evolutionary theory is, in fact, provable. Camouflage is a good example of why some species survived and other didn't. People have gotten taller over time. Migratory instincts have developed. I'm speaking in basics, but you get the idea.

However, evolution as a theory is very, very sketchy at best when it comes to certain creatures morphing into entirely different creatures over time.

Click to expand...

And in the end, whatever the scientific truth of it is, it does not have to conflict with the existence of a higher being. And I don't know how anyone can honestly not consider that a real possibility, unless you're hell-bent on poking a stick at "churchy" people that you don't agree with politically. (Not you necessarily, but in general).

Click to expand...

I have observed this: some of the most testy, grouchy, condescending, and unsocial people I've met in life are atheists. They tend to be overly argumentative, petulant, crabby, and negative about darn near everything.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Click to expand...

roughdraft274 said:

...
They lived before the widespread knowledge of evolution. The idea of a God is much more common idea, and plausible idea, since there were no other alternatives at the time to explain the complexity of life. They made decisions based on the knowledge available.

If you go back far enough I'm sure you can find great minds that believed in spontaneous generation, flat-earthers, people who think the sun revolves around the earth etc.

Click to expand...

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

Click to expand...

Religious views

Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion.[50][51] He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings)[52] to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. His ex-wife, Jane, however, said during their divorce proceedings that he was an atheist.[53][54] Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."[50] Hawking compared religion and science in 2010, saying: ""There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."[55]

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Didn't mean to do so, my apologies.. My point is that a certain degree of evolutionary theory is, in fact, provable. Camouflage is a good example of why some species survived and other didn't. People have gotten taller over time. Migratory instincts have developed. I'm speaking in basics, but you get the idea.

However, evolution as a theory is very, very sketchy at best when it comes to certain creatures morphing into entirely different creatures over time.

And in the end, whatever the scientific truth of it is, it does not have to conflict with the existence of a higher being. And I don't know how anyone can honestly not consider that a real possibility, unless you're hell-bent on poking a stick at "churchy" people that you don't agree with politically. (Not you necessarily, but in general).

I have observed this: some of the most testy, grouchy, condescending, and unsocial people I've met in life are atheists. They tend to be overly argumentative, petulant, crabby, and negative about darn near everything.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so less genetically diverse as a species than is the species we are most closely similar too?

Click to expand...

Why are we so separate mentally and physically from all other species on earth? Species that share much greater physical and mental similarities to each other than we do to our closest relative.

Click to expand...

Why are we so much more adaptable to our environment than any other species?

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Click to expand...

Religious views

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein’s position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in God, or in a god. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[87] In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do Not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”[88]
In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish."[89]

Einstein had previously explored this belief, that man could not understand the nature of God, when he gave an interview to Time Magazine explaining:

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
—Albert Einstein[90]​

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so less genetically diverse as a species than is the species we are most closely similar too?

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so separate mentally and physically from all other species on earth? Species that share much greater physical and mental similarities to each other than we do to our closest relative.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Why are we so much more adaptable to our environment than any other species?

Click to expand...

mbig said:

You say you don't like/agree with evangelicals yet you post a website that is clearly Religous/Creationist and Rely on Their self-interested characterizations rather than more neutral ones.
Evidence for God from Science
For just one.

Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So perhaps you should add the big-chip Einstein to the other side.. indeed add him to those "nasty, condescending" atheists.

Click to expand...

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

However, evolution as a theory is very, very sketchy at best when it comes to certain creatures morphing into entirely different creatures over time.

Click to expand...

Anarcho-fascist said:

I'm no expert, but I'd like to think I keep up OK with major developments that area.

The idea that the super-volcano "Toba" caused a near extinction has been getting a bit of popular press lately. There have been some studies that suggest that the total human population might have been at a very low level relatively recently.

All our closer relatives are extinct. Some species share a lot in common, but slugs, leopards, and giant redwoods are more separate compared to each other, than we are compared to chimps.

Well, we are smarter than any other thing on the Earth (that's what I like to think at least). Water bears can survive freezing, boiling and the vacuum of space, although technically I don't know if you'd really call that "adaptable" or just "tough".

Click to expand...

Redress said:

First: No evolutionary scientist is claiming that humans descended from monkeys. That is a fallacy and simply not true. Humans did share a common ancestor with apes about 5 to 8 million years ago, and that ancestor diverged into two lines, one becoming apes, one human eventually. Sorry, pet peeve.

Chuz, the genetic difference is evidence of part of the process of evolution. If the shift continues far enough and leads to speciation, it would be a complete step in the process of evolution. It seems to me that speciation would be unlikely.

Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:

I'm not sure I follow. I don't believe that Neaderthals had been mapped out genetically in order to make a determination like that.

I do know that mitochondrial DNA was looked at and showed that it is highly likely that Homo Neandertalis and Homo sapiens are separate species (as opposed to the "same species" arguments made in the past), thus making them ourt "closest" known relative species.

If you mean closest living relative species, I'm pretty sure that Bonobos are less genetically diverse than Humans.




Again, not sure I follow. Neanderthals weren't very different from modern Humans in mentality and physicality. We know that they buried their dead with flowers and made musical instruments, and physically the biggest dsifference is that we are more gracile.



We aren't more adaptable to our environment than other species are, we are simply more likely to adapt the environment to suit our needs. Clothing, houses, the use of fire, etc are examples of this adapting the environment.

As far as inherent adaptabilty goes, it's pretty hard to beat the common rat.

Click to expand...