Recent peer reviewed paper overturns Neo Darwinian mathematical model

[ewohdrol]

I am sure niceatheist meant devolve wasn’t a thing in a biological sense. And he/she would be correct.

He/she wasn’t arguing the word didn’t exist.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The bottom line is we are devolving.

We’re pinheads all.
Jocko Homo.

 

[nightshade]

The bottom line is we are devolving.

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? I would say we are definitely devolving at the societal level.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? I would say we are definitely devolving at the societal level.

Yes! We should all go back to when women couldn’t vote, when slaves could be owned, and when one had to be part of the local church to participate in government! If that sounds too boring, I guess we can throw in some Roman-era sexuality to keep the times we’re not pelting slaves with rocks fun!

(Disclaimer: The above statement is not serious. If you thought it was, don’t be ashamed. Poe’s Law exists for a reason.)

 

[Rabbi]

Good, so it supports it. The rabbis spoke of evolution (to some degree).

 

[nightshade]

Woah easy there, chill with the sarcastic sound bytes. It’s great women can vote. I am not saying we should return to some bygone era of perceived hardships for women. I am just saying in my opinion we seem to be dumbing down on a mass level as a society.

Think Fast, Are We Really Getting Dumber?

Image credit: Wikipedia A new study suggests that people living today are considerably less intelligent than people living a couple centuries ago, to the tune of 14 fewer IQ points on average. The metric evaluated to reach this conclusion isn't one most would guess. Rather than comprehensive IQ...

www.forbes.com

 

[Rabbi]

“Reflection on wisdom manifest in G-d’s creation is the most accessible way of verifying His existence and the surest path of a true conception of Him.” - Rabbi Bachya Ibn Pakuda, Chovos HaLevavos, Sha’ar HaBechinah, Introduction.

He later said, “There are men who say that the world came into existence by chance, without a Creator Who caused it an formed it. I find this astonishing. How could any rational human being, in his right mind, entertain such a notion? If one who held such a view were to hear someone make a similar claim about a revolving water wheel – that it came about without the design of a craftsman who invested effort in putting it together, constructing it, and supplying all its parts so that it perform its intended function – he would be amazed by such a statement, speak slightly of the one who made it, consider him a total ignoramus, and be quick to expose him and reject his claim. Now if such a claim is rejected when it is made about a petty and insignificant little water wheel, which can be made with limited skill and serves a small plot of land, how can one allow himself to make the same claim about the celestial ‘wheel’ which encompasses the entire earth and all of its creatures; which reflects such an intelligence that its essence is beyond the grasp of all human understanding; which serves the well-being of the entire earth and everything in it? How can one say that it came into being without the intent of a Designer, without the planning of an omnipotent Intelligence?” - R. Bachya Ibn Pakuda, Chovos HaLevavos, Sha’ar HaYichud 6.

Note that William Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument was recorded, in its own Jewish way, 2,000 years ago in the Midrash Temurah, 5:

“A heretic came to Rabbi Akiva and asked, ‘Who created the universe?’ Rabbi Akiva answered, ‘The Holy One.’ There heretic said, ‘Prove it to me.’ Rabbi Akiva replied, ‘Come to me tomorrow.’ When the heretic came to him on the next day, Rabbi Akiva asked, ‘What is that you are wearing?’ ‘A garment,’ replied there heretic. ‘Who made it?’ asked Rabbi Akiva. The heretic replied, ‘A weaver.’ Rabbi Akiva said, ‘I don’t believe you! Prove it to me!’ ‘How can I prove it to you?’ replied the heretic, ‘How can you not know that a weaver made it?’ Rabbi Akiva said, ‘And how can you not know that the Holy One made the universe?’ After the heretic left, Rabbi Akiva’s students asked him, ‘But what is the proof?’ He said, ‘Just as a house attests to its builder, a garment to its weaver or a door to its carpenter, so too does the world attest to the Holy One who created it.’”

 

[Techno2000]

“Reflection on wisdom manifest in G-d’s creation is the most accessible way of verifying His existence and the surest path of a true conception of Him.” - Rabbi Bachya Ibn Pakuda, Chovos HaLevavos, Sha’ar HaBechinah, Introduction.

He later said, “There are men who say that the world came into existence by chance, without a Creator Who caused it an formed it. I find this astonishing. How could any rational human being, in his right mind, entertain such a notion? If one who held such a view were to hear someone make a similar claim about a revolving water wheel – that it came about without the design of a craftsman who invested effort in putting it together, constructing it, and supplying all its parts so that it perform its intended function – he would be amazed by such a statement, speak slightly of the one who made it, consider him a total ignoramus, and be quick to expose him and reject his claim. Now if such a claim is rejected when it is made about a petty and insignificant little water wheel, which can be made with limited skill and serves a small plot of land, how can one allow himself to make the same claim about the celestial ‘wheel’ which encompasses the entire earth and all of its creatures; which reflects such an intelligence that its essence is beyond the grasp of all human understanding; which serves the well-being of the entire earth and everything in it? How can one say that it came into being without the intent of a Designer, without the planning of an omnipotent Intelligence?” - R. Bachya Ibn Pakuda, Chovos HaLevavos, Sha’ar HaYichud 6.

Note that William Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument was recorded, in its own Jewish way, 2,000 years ago in the Midrash Temurah, 5:

“A heretic came to Rabbi Akiva and asked, ‘Who created the universe?’ Rabbi Akiva answered, ‘The Holy One.’ There heretic said, ‘Prove it to me.’ Rabbi Akiva replied, ‘Come to me tomorrow.’ When the heretic came to him on the next day, Rabbi Akiva asked, ‘What is that you are wearing?’ ‘A garment,’ replied there heretic. ‘Who made it?’ asked Rabbi Akiva. The heretic replied, ‘A weaver.’ Rabbi Akiva said, ‘I don’t believe you! Prove it to me!’ ‘How can I prove it to you?’ replied the heretic, ‘How can you not know that a weaver made it?’ Rabbi Akiva said, ‘And how can you not know that the Holy One made the universe?’ After the heretic left, Rabbi Akiva’s students asked him, ‘But what is the proof?’ He said, ‘Just as a house attests to its builder, a garment to its weaver or a door to its carpenter, so too does the world attest to the Holy One who created it.’”

Do you believe God used evolution to create animals and plants?

 

[FiveLinden]

I have said it before. Millions of others have said it before. Somehow, I feel I need to say it again: Evolution is a fact. We know this because genetic material is transferred, with very rare exceptions, through descent. Genetic material is shared by all living things. Therefore they are related by descent. Therefore species evolved. The theory of evolution is the attempt to explain the many processed by which this happened, and continues to happen. The link shows continued scientific debate. That is what science does. It has not dogmas. It has no faith. Even facts are subject to revision or rejection. But there is no sign, whatsoever, that the fact of evolution will be somehow overturned.

 

[niceatheist]

No matter how the blind watchmaker argument is formulated, it’s still a strawman.

 

[Rabbi]

No, it is a rationale conclusion. You have to explain to me why there is no G-d.

 

[Rabbi]

Yes, I don’t have the sources on top of my head, but there are places in the Talmud and Zohar which speak of evolution, long before Darwin was born.

 

[niceatheist]

No, it is a rationale conclusion. You have to explain to me why there is no G-d.

I don’t feel it’s my job, or even within my capability, to explain to you why there is no God. All I can do is offer up what I feel to be a rational counterargument. All i’m saying is the Blind Watchmaker argument, in all its formulations, is a strawman, because it misrepresents the alternative argument. It strips away nuance and explanation. It’s a form of mockery, but mockery bereft of any kind of understanding of the counterargument.

I can well imagine, and even appreciate the argument for a Prime Mover. To me, it makes assumptions about the earliest moments of the Universe, in particular, in asserting that causation must apply to the beginning of the universe, while at the same time insisting that the Prime Mover must be the exception to that very argument. It is that which I have a hard time grasping, how the Universe must have a Maker, but that Maker is excluded from that train of logic. Or as some would say, “Is it turtles all the way down?” (in reference to Hindu cosmography).

All my arguments here have not been to convert anyone, but merely to suggest that there is an alternative, no more provable in the epistemological sense, but no less supportable in the rational sense. Surely, understanding and appreciating, even if continuing to disagree with a well-argued alternative point of view, is the highest form of conversation, no?

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is a fact.

Micro-evolution aka adaptation is a fact.

 

[buffalo]

It has no faith. Even facts are subject to revision or rejection. But there is no sign, whatsoever, that the fact of evolution will be somehow overturned.

Sure there is. Please be aware of the latest scientific findings.

 

[niceatheist]

Yes, I don’t have the sources on top of my head, but there are places in the Talmud and Zohar which speak of evolution, long before Darwin was born.

Evolution is various forms, has been around since at least the Classical Age. The difference between Darwin’s notion of evolution and precursors is the difference between Lamarckian evolution and descent with modification. In earlier evolutionary theories, there was the notion of a goal, of some direction to evolution. In those formulations, giraffes grew longer necks to reach the taller branches on trees, in Darwin’s theory, in the ancient giraffe population there were members of the progenitor species who had varied sized necks, and those with slightly longer necks had a slight reproductive advantage, and over time, that advantage favored longer necks (although there is a close cousin of the giraffe, the okapi, that clearly found its niche on grazing on grass and shorter shrubs).

That’s the critical difference. Before Darwin, there was very little recognition that every population has variation, and while Darwin himself didn’t know the precise cause of that variation (seeing as he didn’t have a biological explanation of heredity), he knew that there were some sort of units of selection that passed traits from parents to offspring, and that selection was not perfect, that it fueled variation, and variance that had reproductive advantage would be selected for within an environmental niche (hence his critical observations of the Galapagos swallows).

This is why Origin of the Species is a watershed moment in modern science. Not because it made the argument for evolution (even Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had formulated some evolutionary ideas). It went beyond a sort of Classical notion of biology and reproduction and inserted a very novel concept, that heredity is not perfect, is not consistent, and it is that inconsistency that is the engine of evolution.

 

[niceatheist]

FiveLinden:

It has no faith. Even facts are subject to revision or rejection. But there is no sign, whatsoever, that the fact of evolution will be somehow overturned.

Sure there is. Please be aware of the latest scientific findings.

None of which overturn evolution. This is a game Creationists have been playing for over a century, and every time it just turns out to be quote mining and willful misinterpretation of research. As much as anything is a fact in science, evolution is a fact. We know it happened, we even have a very good idea of how it happened and when it happened for the major branches of life. If your religious beliefs insist evolution is false, then I’m sorry, but your beliefs are wrong.

 

[niceatheist]

FiveLinden:

Evolution is a fact.

Micro-evolution aka adaptation is a fact.

Micro-evolution and macroevolution are the same thing. The attempt to make a dividing line between the two indicates a complete lack of understanding of what biological evolution is. It’s nothing more than Creationists admitting evolution happens, but desperately trying to hang on to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[HopkinsReb]

In other words, “macro-evolution” just means “micro-evolution for a long time.”

Micro-evolution is a step, and macro-evolution is a ten-mile walk. Take enough steps, and you get a ten-mile walk. Good luck taking a 10-mile walk without taking any steps.

 

[niceatheist]

A rather good analogy. In technical terms, microevolution is evolution within a species, but that’s always a problematic definition simply because the species concept itself is fuzzy. Examples like ring species, or somewhat more complex cases of gene flow like genus Canis, where there remains some reproduction between various members of the genus, means finding demarcations isn’t always that easy.