For the "scientists" here who believe in evolution: what will we evolve into next?

[Steve_Andersen]

Tom of Assisi:

Since so many people here seem to “belive in” evolution, my question is what do you think humans will evolve into next?

Gee, I go away for a few days and look what happens

(1) Evolution is not something to be “believed” it is both an observable fact and a theory to explain the mechanism for the observations. No belief required

(2) If you understood what evolution was you would realise that your question is meaningless. Evolution doesn’t have a predictable dirrection. It is a responce.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Steve Andersen:

Gee, I go away for a few days and look what happens

(1) Evolution is not something to be “believed” it is both an observable fact and a theory to explain the mechanism for the observations. No belief required

(2) If you understood what evolution was you would realise that your question is meaningless. Evolution doesn’;t have a predictable dirrection. It is a responce.

I don’t want to start an arguement, and for that reason I’m not going to respond to anything against this statement as I would imagine there are plenty of other threads about this, but evolution IS something to be believed or not to be. There is nowhere near enough evidence to say it’s an observable fact (or to discount it either), at least in the way people use it when refering to it’s religious implications.

This is why many a person, including scientists, have said that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

Even if you think evolution is true beyond a doubt, just the fact that a huge number of scientists (and non-scientists) disagree with it is enough to prove it is still something to believe or not to believe.

It is the same as whether a virus is alive or not: scientists disagree, so therefore anybody who takes an opinion is merely profesing a belief. It is an educated belief, but a belief nevertheless.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tom of Assisi:

Since so many people here seem to “belive in” evolution, my question is what do you think humans will evolve into next?

Despite the distortion of what Dante writes in Inferno, canto three (he says not a word about liberals) I’ll answer ​

If evolving into a phallic space worm is compatible with being human, I don’t see a problem - our likeness to God is in our souls, not in our bodies. IMO, the more difficult question is, since live beings will probably be around in 200 million years time, it is at least worth asking whether man will be around then. Is the extinction of man compatible with the faithfulness of Christ ? Why not ? Predicting the future even a century in advance is difficult enough - never mind the very distant future.

If the sun dies in a half-billion (UK standard of course) years, man is unlikely to survive. By then, we will probably be unrecognisable, if we still exist in any form at all. If Adam was some kind of simian creature, what’s to guarantee we would recognise him ? So maybe we would not recognise our remote post-anthropoid descendants. God is not - AFAICS - obliged to ensure we retain our present physical form. Lots of things happen which seem incompatible with the activity of a Loving & Faithful God - so we cannot take for granted that we are sure to remain as bipedal anthropoids endowed with speech, IMO

What I want to know, is what happens if the whole universe dies - how do we survive then ? Perhaps we will all be worms by then, crawling around on the interior of the globe. And that will be much later than a mere half-billion years from now. ##

 

[Philip_P]

Lazerlike42:

I don’t want to start an arguement, and for that reason I’m not going to respond to anything against this statement as I would imagine there are plenty of other threads about this, but evolution IS something to be believed or not to be. There is nowhere near enough evidence to say it’s an observable fact (or to discount it either), at least in the way people use it when refering to it’s religious implications.

This is why many a person, including scientists, have said that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

Even if you think evolution is true beyond a doubt, just the fact that a huge number of scientists (and non-scientists) disagree with it is enough to prove it is still something to believe or not to believe.

It is the same as whether a virus is alive or not: scientists disagree, so therefore anybody who takes an opinion is merely profesing a belief. It is an educated belief, but a belief nevertheless.

But everyone believes in the existence of viruses and the illnesses they cause. Now I suppose you could argue that sickness is a punishment from God, or a sign, or something along those lines, without changing in the slightest the fact that there is a connection between the virus and the sickness. Similarly, belief or disbelief in God really has no relation to evolution.

Personally, I believe in God, in fact I believe in a quite specific God (the Catholic one). Others may come from a different faith tradition or have no faith at all. None of that has the slightest bearing on whether or not evolution happens.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Philip P:

But everyone believes in the existence of viruses and the illnesses they cause. Now I suppose you could argue that sickness is a punishment from God, or a sign, or something along those lines, without changing in the slightest the fact that there is a connection between the virus and the sickness. Similarly, belief or disbelief in God really has no relation to evolution.

Personally, I believe in God, in fact I believe in a quite specific God (the Catholic one). Others may come from a different faith tradition or have no faith at all. None of that has the slightest bearing on whether or not evolution happens.

The beliefs of many Protestant denominations require that evolution not happen. My point isn’t to say whether or not evolution is false or true, or whether it is compatible with God or not (it is). I’m just saying that it is still a question of belief or disbelief; it’s not anywhere near sufficiently proven or disproven.

You’re right that everyone agree viruses exist… they just disagree over the specifics of their existence: do they exist as life or don’t they?

Similarly, everybody (well most) believe in evolution, they just disagree over the specifics. Most of the Protestants who need evolution to be false believe that God plopped everything down a certain way (namely, the certain way from genesis), but that evolution can happen AFTER that (as has with several plant varieties for instance). Many Catholics believe that God used evolution even to reach mankind as it exists today.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Lazerlike42:

… but evolution IS something to be believed or not to be. There is nowhere near enough evidence to say it’s an observable fact ……

I just don’t know how to respond to statements like that.

While the “hows” of evolution are obviously constantly revised as new data are observed (that is what science is about after all) the fact of evolution is not at all debatable.

it is independently supported by a dozen different disciplines.

Anatomy, physiology, geology, and molecular biology (the real nail in the coffin for any doubters)

Lazerlike42:

This is why many a person, including scientists, have said that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

  Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true ;)

Lazerlike42:

… It is the same as whether a virus is alive or not: scientists disagree, so therefore anybody who takes an opinion is merely profesing a belief. It is an educated belief, but a belief nevertheless.

That is an opinion, not a belief. Opinions are based on observed data and can be changed based on set criteria for falsification. You can’t do that with beliefs.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BibleReader:

In Dragons of Eden, Carl Sagan has a pretty interesting statistical chart suggesting that human evolution has indeed ground to a halt. He argues that the brain can’t be enlarged anymore to increase average intelligence, women’s hips can’t be widened anymore to permit birthing of larger brain cases, and brain convolutions can’t be increased anymore to increase the average number of cerebral connections, without generating “dysfunction.”

Maybe that can be resolved by an evolution of the brain that retains its functions but alters its physiology - or dysfunction in some respects may be the price paid for some sort of evolution which has not yet taken place: which may in turn make good tne dysfunction, or make of it an evolutionary advantage. Who says women have to remain woman-shaped ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Orogeny:

Good ol’ George, that noted biologist!

Peace

Tim

Why are there still spiders ? They’ve been around for 300 million years - much longer than simians; and far far longer than Homo sapiens​

 

[Lazerlike42]

Steve Andersen:

I just don’t know how to respond to statements like that.

While the “hows” of evolution are obviously constantly revised as new data are observed (that is what science is about after all) the fact of evolution is not at all debatable.

it is independently supported by a dozen different disciplines.

Anatomy, physiology, geology, and molecular biology (the real nail in the coffin for any doubters)

  Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true ;)



 That is an opinion, not a belief.  Opinions are based on observed data and can be changed based on set criteria for falsification.  You can’t do that with beliefs.

OK first of all, some of the strongest anti-Evolution evidence is from molecular biology (and geography is introducing new anti-evolutionary evidence every day). If you don’t know this you really mustn’t read much on it.

Secondly, and opion is exactly the same thing as a belief. Opinions are based on whatever evidence we have availible to us and what it tells us. So are beliefs. They’re two words for the same concept.

“Opinions are based on observed data and can be changed based on set criteria for falsification.”

That statement is false. What you are talking about there is NOT an opinion it is a HYPOTHESIS.

There is a WORLD of difference.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tom of Assisi:

And yet you judge me…is it perhaps a case of monkey see, monkey do.

I only “judge” Sagan’s actions…last time I checked that was ok…or does our court system need an overhall.

Fine…you guys want to be the natural offspring of apes…what do I care…it is up to you to either believe in God or not. I cannot make you. If you choose darwin’s naturalistic explanation–what do I care and what can I do?

May Darwin have mercy on you on the last day…or whatever you atheists think will happen.

ISTM that being descended from a sinner is far more awkward than being descended from some simian creatures ​

Being a simian, is fine.
Being a sinner, is anything but fine.

As Calvin said, “God does not choose us because of our handsome faces” (which ought to comfort the Neanderthals ) - He chooses by sheer grace, not because of any inner loveliness in us sinners. It is man who judges by externals - not God.

So with the world of nature - which as much God’s as is the world of salvation: if it pleased God to choose the vole rather than the Diplodocus or Brontosaurus as our ancestor, that is His business. If both the vole and those other animals were descended from the amoeba, the choice of one rather than the other is even more clearly based wholly on grace: for what did voles or saurians (or simians) possess, that was not given to them out of God’s sheer grace ?

So the glory goes not to the vole or to the simian, or to any other creature, but to the God who becomes the Saviour of mankind by taking to Himself a nature derived from voles and simians: but what is really amazing, is that He takes on Himself a nature which is common to Him and to sinners. If our biological descent is from creatures we may think embarassing is a fact, why should we be embarassed by it, when He was not ?

ISTM that evolution shows the same God of grace at work, to Whom the Bible witnesses. ##

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Homo Superior!

 

[Donald45]

“If we evolved from apes and monkeys…how come we still have apes and monkeys?”

George Carlin

Because evolutionary theory does not, nor has it ever, stated that humans developed “from apes and monkeys.” Rather, evolutionary biologists hold that humans and pongids (apes) shared a common ancestor in the far distant past. This is why Mr. Carlin is a comedian, and not a scientifically informed one at that. Here’s hoping he keeps his day job, since, while his assumption about evolution may work as a joke, it makes for embarassingly inadequate science.

God bless,
Donald

 

[The_Barbarian]

OK first of all, some of the strongest anti-Evolution evidence is from molecular biology (and geography is introducing new anti-evolutionary evidence every day). If you don’t know this you really mustn’t read much on it.

I do science for a living. I would very much like to hear about the anti-evolution evidence.

 

[Orogeny]

Lazerlike42:

OK first of all, some of the strongest anti-Evolution evidence is from molecular biology (and geography is introducing new anti-evolutionary evidence every day). If you don’t know this you really mustn’t read much on it.

Geography? Really?

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

If he means biogeography that certainly supports evolution. It was probably one of Darwin’s main proofs since he didn’t have the fossil record of transitional forms that we have today.

By molecular biology, if he means Mike Behe, the guy is for all intents a theistic evolutionist since he accepts the 4.5 billion year old earth, and the macroevolution of plants, animals, including mankind. Sorry have to keep pointing that out. And the similarity of our DNA and pseudogenes with other primates strongly supports our own evolution.

Phil P

 

[Diddi]

Ghosty:

The reason that evolution has stopped in humans is that we control our environment to such a degree that our survivability is no longer greatly affected by minor genetic mutations. A sickly child can and will survive to breeding age, a dark skinned child who lives in a snowy climate will survive, ect. Without such selective elimination favoring certain mutations over others, evolution effectively ceases, while mutation in individuals may indeed occur.

The evolution of any population ceases when it is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Evolution is the failure of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html

The five forces that can cause Hardy-Weinberg to fail include: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, non-random mating and natural selection.

The Hardy-Weinberg principle (/law) tells us that the size of the interbreeding population is very important, the larger the size the slower the evolution. A population of six billion interbreeding members essentially ceases to evolve unless; 1) it is divided so that there are one or more very small populations that are effectively reproductively isolated from the main population, or 2) the whole population is placed under such a tremendous selection pressure that there would be a major reduction of population size.

One major problem with the theory of evolution through natural selection is that it is too time consuming. Evolution through natural selection needs a large interbreeding population to accumulate the (potentially) beneficial genes needed for evolutionary change because 99.9+% of all inheritable mutations (those found in the germ-line cells) are not beneficial. But, as was stated above, a large population ceases to evolve.

Thus evolution must, out of necessity, occur in spurts. During the good times, the population grows and beneficial genes accumulate but are not effectively selected for. Then reproductive isolation or environmental catastrophe occurs, the population size is drastically reduced, and only those with the best genetic combination survive to reproduce.

This is very time consuming and the earth hasn’t been around long enough to account for the amount of evolution that has supposedly occurred if natural selection is the whole story. There has to be something else; another mechanism for gene flow, seeding from outside the solar system, intelligent design, something. (Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t really count because it is just “science of the gaps,” a hypothesis without a mechanism.)

 

[Diddi]

ByzCath:

This is a false statement for three reasons.

1. Evolution is a theory, it is not a proven law.

You know not what you say!

When a non-scientist says "I have a theory,” they mean they have a guess or a hunch, or what a scientist calls a hypothesis. This is why non-scientists do not have much respect for theories.

In science, however, a theory is a generalized statement supported by a tremendous amount of empirical evidence gained by observations and experiments. Theories command respect in the scientific community.

One of the myths about science, perpetuated by so many nasty little textbooks (even some unfortunately at the college level), is that theories routinely get elevated into laws when they are “proven.” Scientific laws don’t really come about this way. Laws usually fall out relatively early in research and are called “laws” because of their exact, tight, often mathematical formulation. The gas laws of chemistry/physics, for example, are equations.

shodor.org/unchem/advanced/gas/

The best laws in biology are in genetics, such as Mendel’s laws and the Hardy-Weinberg Law, and these too, have exact formulation.

The following are called Laws by some naturalists but they are not real laws. They are actually just generalized rules of thumb.

Gloger’s Law is the tendency of races from moist areas to be darker.
Bergmann’s Rule is the tendency to have a larger body in a colder climate (but mostly if you don’t migrate).
Allen’s Law is the tendency to have shorter beaks, wings and legs than others of your species if you’re from a colder climate.

Ecologists who try to come up with ecology laws are just experiencing “physics envy.” There are just too many variables in ecology to allow for the mathematical exactness needed for a scientific law.

The same is true for evolution. Darwinian evolution isn’t and will never be a law. There are too many variables. It is as high as it can go, not because it isn’t proven but because it is too general a statement.

For the record, scientific laws are not “proven” either. Many laws have had to be modified when new evidence shows they are not exactly correct. The gas laws, for example, did not hold up when the temperatures got so high the gases turned to plasma.

 

[SamCA]

If I were a betting man, I’d wager the following:

If we survive the next few hundred years, and if our technological advancement continues as it has so far, standard biological evolution will cease to govern our species, and be replaced by intentional modification of the body and mind.

I suspect you’ll see biotechnology and the integration of computers into our bodies – which has already progressed to an astonishing degree – result in a sort of controlled evolution, if you’ll pardon the term, into a variety of posthuman subspecies, as well as a baseline humanity who refuse modification for religious or philosophical reasons.

 

[buffalo]

SamCA:

If I were a betting man, I’d wager the following:

If we survive the next few hundred years, and if our technological advancement continues as it has so far, standard biological evolution will cease to govern our species, and be replaced by intentional modification of the body and mind.

I suspect you’ll see biotechnology and the integration of computers into our bodies – which has already progressed to an astonishing degree – result in a sort of controlled evolution, if you’ll pardon the term, into a variety of posthuman subspecies, as well as a baseline humanity who refuse modification for religious or philosophical reasons.

Intelligent design anyone?

 

[SamCA]

buffalo:

Intelligent design anyone?

Sure. I’m unconvinced by the arguments that our evolution up until now has been guided by intelligent design, but unless we destroy ourselves, I will be extremely surprised if we don’t begin intelligently designing ourselves from here on out.

(I’ll grant that “If we don’t destroy ourselves” is a pretty big “if,” though.)