Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Almost as rare as the female physics PhD.

I'm not a Ph.D in English, but I don't "debate" or even talk with anyone who believes in the rubbish Shakespeare authorship conspiracies. I have better things to do with my time. Don't get me wrong, I have a sadistic streak and love laughing at ignorance, but in the end it's just not worth my time. I'm assuring you that experts in biology feel the same way "discussing" evolution with creationists. You feel sorry for them, laugh at them, but in the end it's just not worth the effort. 

[Vort]

Just now, zil said:

I can't get you an advanced degree (not a real one, anyway), but I might could get you some agar in a petri dish.  Then you can add your own wet stuff and put it out in the sun and watch the bacteria that was in your wet stuff grow.

Fun experiment: Get two Petri dishes. Rub one up against your toilet seat at home. Touch the other with your fingers. Put them in a warm, dark place and wait a week. Guess which one will show more growth?

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Fun experiment: Get two Petri dishes. Rub one up against your toilet seat at home. Touch the other with your fingers. Put them in a warm, dark place and wait a week. Guess which one will show more growth?

You know those rubber gloves you get at the pharmacy?  The ones everyone thinks are to keep the filth on your hands from getting all over the sick person / wound / bandaging / etc.?  Well, if you wash your hands roughly once per day, your hands will have less bacteria on them than those gloves fresh out of the box.  (Scientific fact, proven in the lab, by the person sitting 2 cubicles away from me.)

Those gloves are only good for keeping icky stuff off your hands.

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not a Ph.D in English, but I don't "debate" or even talk with anyone who believes in the rubbish Shakespeare authorship conspiracies.

The works attributed to William Shakespeare were not written by him, but by someone else of the same name.

[person0]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Give me my creationist with an advanced degree as an arguing buddy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists

[NeedleinA]

Oooh, here is one for you @NeuroTypical. If you have Netflix this something fun to watch: Is Genesis History?

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

Edited August 16, 2018 by NeedleinA

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

There is a raging debate on whether Neanderthals were "a lower order of species"?

Methinks you haven't the slightest clue about either Neanderthals or the nature of debate between real anthropologists.

I dont make this stuff up, go research it yourself.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

1 hour ago, Vort said:

There is a raging debate on whether Neanderthals were "a lower order of species"?

Methinks you haven't the slightest clue about either Neanderthals or the nature of debate between real anthropologists.

I dont make this stuff up, go research it yourself.

How about instead you just point me to someplace where anthropologists are debating about whether Neanderthals are "a lower order of species"?

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

How about instead you just point me to someplace where anthropologists are debating about whether Neanderthals are "a lower order of species"?

"It's been over 150 years since the bones first emerged from the Neander Valley—a time during which we've learned a vast amount about human evolution. Today, scientists can even scan the genomes of Neanderthals who died 50,000 years ago. And yet the debate still rages. It's a debate that extends beyond Neanderthals, forcing us to ask what it means to be a species at all." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-neanderthals-human.html

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

"It's been over 150 years since the bones first emerged from the Neander Valley—a time during which we've learned a vast amount about human evolution. Today, scientists can even scan the genomes of Neanderthals who died 50,000 years ago. And yet the debate still rages. It's a debate that extends beyond Neanderthals, forcing us to ask what it means to be a species at all." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-neanderthals-human.html

Sorry, I missed the "lower order of species" part. Can you point it out for me?

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sorry, I missed the "lower order of species" part. Can you point it out for me?

Im not going to spell out the Darwinian theory of evolution about lower irder of species. Science recognizes that Neanderthals werent as evolved as modern humans. Thus "lower".

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Science recognizes that Neanderthals werent as evolved as modern humans. Thus "lower".

Science "recognizes" nothing of the sort. Rob, you truly do not know what you're talking about. I mean that literally, not as a slam. Science doesn't divide ancestral humans into "higher" and "lower", or debate whether one organism is "more evolved" than another similar organism. That's the talk of people who do not understand science.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Science "recognizes" nothing of the sort. Rob, you truly do not know what you're talking about. I mean that literally, not as a slam. Science doesn't divide ancestral humans into "higher" and "lower", or debate whether one organism is "more evolved" than another similar organism. That's the talk of people who do not understand science.

Seriously? You dont understand evolution theory then.

 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Seriously? You dont understand evolution theory then.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

My thoughts exactly. Do you honestly believe, from scientists perspective, that modern humans and the Neanderthals scientists talk about were equal in intelligence?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

What results? There are no conclusive results regarding the Neanderthals.

If this is true and you know it - why is your opinion of it conclusive?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If this is true and you know it - why is your opinion of it conclusive?

 

The Traveler

My own opinion is that we have bones, DNA sequences, etc, from the past. There are both animals and humans. My belief is that neither existed much longer than 6,000 years ago on this earth.

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If this is true and you know it - why is your opinion of it conclusive?

 

The Traveler

My own opinion is that we have bones, DNA sequences, etc, from the past. There are both animals and humans. My belief is that neither existed much longer than 6,000 years ago on this earth.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

My thoughts exactly. Do you honestly believe, from scientists perspective, that modern humans and the Neanderthals scientists talk about were equal in intelligence?

No. If anything, judging by comparative cranial capacity, the Homo neanderthalensis were possibly smarter than the Homo sapiens of the time.

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Science "recognizes" nothing of the sort. Rob, you truly do not know what you're talking about. I mean that literally, not as a slam. Science doesn't divide ancestral humans into "higher" and "lower", or debate whether one organism is "more evolved" than another similar organism. That's the talk of people who do not understand science.

I would correct you just a little.  I am not sure it is just about not understanding science - perhaps there is more misunderstanding science.  It is my personal opinion that it requires as much misunderstanding of scripture as well.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Science "recognizes" nothing of the sort. Rob, you truly do not know what you're talking about. I mean that literally, not as a slam. Science doesn't divide ancestral humans into "higher" and "lower", or debate whether one organism is "more evolved" than another similar organism. That's the talk of people who do not understand science.

I would correct you just a little.  I am not sure it is just about not understanding science - perhaps there is more than misunderstanding science.  It is my personal opinion that it requires as much misunderstanding of scripture as well.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

"It's been over 150 years since the bones first emerged from the Neander Valley—a time during which we've learned a vast amount about human evolution. Today, scientists can even scan the genomes of Neanderthals who died 50,000 years ago. And yet the debate still rages. It's a debate that extends beyond Neanderthals, forcing us to ask what it means to be a species at all." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-neanderthals-human.html

 

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

No. If anything, judging by comparative cranial capacity, the Homo neanderthalensis were possibly smarter than the Homo sapiens of the time.

A larger cranial capacity doesn't equate with being smarter. The extinction of the Neanderthal should give evidence to their lack of being smarter than other Homo sapiens; however, we really can't say the Neanderthal went extinct as they bred with homo sapiens, thus a passing of genes/offspring (hybrids).

But that isn't my point, here is an article for @Vort, @Traveler, and @Rob Osborn to enjoy: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/it-wasnt-just-neanderthals-ancient-humans-had-sex-other-hominids/338117/

Leaves little to wonder why Homo sapiens are so messed up, too much breeding with other ancient human species. 😮

 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Science "recognizes" nothing of the sort. Rob, you truly do not know what you're talking about. I mean that literally, not as a slam. Science doesn't divide ancestral humans into "higher" and "lower", or debate whether one organism is "more evolved" than another similar organism. That's the talk of people who do not understand science.

Well I am not so sure this is correct @Vort. Primate order taxonomy seems to provide lower order primates and higher order primates.

Lower order primates are lemurs, lorises, tarsiers.

Higher order primates are monkeys, apes, and humans.

Thus it isn't illogical or irrational to say that within the higher order of primates there were lower and higher order of monkeys, apes, and humans. The former is scientific talk, and published communication.

Here is one statement from the National Association for Biomedical Research, "Many historic scientific breakthroughs have come from research on lower-order primates, including the discovery of Rh factor (from rhesus monkeys), which allowed safe blood transfusions, and the development of vaccines for polio and yellow fever."

If we are able to discuss lower order primates, in comparison with higher order primates, then it wouldn't be unscientific, nor would it be talk of people who do not understand science, to say that within the higher order of primates (particularly humans) that there were lower orders of humans, lower orders of apes, etc...

It really becomes semantics, for if one species of human was smarter and it is discovered a significant difference science could easily create a new order classifying this human species of a lower order than our human species.

 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

A larger cranial capacity doesn't equate with being smarter.

In a literal reading, this is absolutely true. I can find a big-cranium guy who is much dumber than some small-craniumed genius. And if cranial capacity were the sole determiner of intelligence, elephants would be making rockets and whales would rule the earth.

But when you compare related species, you see an interesting trend that holds true almost without exception: The bigger the brain, the smarter the species. You see it in rats vs. mice. You see it in large-breed dogs vs. toy breeds. You see it in wolves vs. domestic dogs. You see it very obviously in humans with their bulbous heads vs. all other primates.

This is no guarantee that Neanderthals were smarter than other human species, but it's worth considering.

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The extinction of the Neanderthal should give evidence to their lack of being smarter than other Homo sapiens

Not really. The observation about which species survive is encapsulated in the phrase "survival of the fittest". This is really a definition of "fittest". Which species is most fit? That which survives. So various types of bacteria are by far the most successful species on the earth -- yet they aren't intelligent.

Compared to domestic dogs, wolves are geniuses. They are bigger, far more aggressive, and generally much better at figuring out puzzles and taking care of themselves. But dogs vastly outnumber wolves. Why? Because the dog's strategy for survival isn't to get really really really smart. Rather, they glom onto humans, who then ensure their survival.

(There is a lesson here for those who think their own brilliance will save them rather than turning to the Lord for spiritual and temporal salvation.)

Suppose for a moment that the Neanderthals really were significantly more intelligent than other species of humans. Why might they have died out? We can easily come up with dozens of possible reasons: They were not sufficiently genetically diverse. They were not well-adapted to the climate. They did not form extensive societal networks like other human species, leaving them vulnerable to group attacks. They invested themselves in a technology path that ultimately didn't pan out well for them. They warred among themselves until the surviving group was too small to fend off outside attacks. A local influenza infection wiped out 96% of them, while killing only 40% of other nearby human species, who happened to have an advantageous genetic mutation that made them more resistant to that strain of influenza. And on and on and on. Any number of things could have led to the extinction of a more intelligent Neanderthal race and the survival of a less intelligent race, all because natural selection doesn't really care how smart you are per se, but only with how well you manage to respond to changing conditions.

13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

however, we really can't say the Neanderthal went extinct as they bred with homo sapiens, thus a passing of genes/offspring (hybrids).

So say the latest conjectures. I'm not sure how such a thing could ever really be demonstrated. Even if you find genetic similarities between Neanderthals and modern European humans, that could simply point to a common ancestry between the two races rather than an ancestor/descendant relationship.

15 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

But that isn't my point, here is an article for @Vort, @Traveler, and @Rob Osborn to enjoy: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/it-wasnt-just-neanderthals-ancient-humans-had-sex-other-hominids/338117/

I guess what surprises me most is that anyone would be surprised by this. In a recent post, I pointed out that the natural man is an animal, and acts like one. Why wouldn't we assume that ancient humans would have sex with whatever they could manage to overtake and restrain, including (especially) other humans, even of different species?

For that matter, the whole question of "speciation" is open. By one rather obvious definition, two individuals who can mate and produce fertile offspring are by definition of the same species. So these would not be separate human "species", but something much more like what we would call separate human "races". Neanderthals are now classified not as Homo neandertalensis, but as Homo sapiens neandertalensis. I read an anthropologist's comment that, really, modern humans should simply be called Homo erectus, because we're just the modern version of the ancient creature, much how modern Italian might simply be considered Latin rather than its own different language. It's just a matter of perspective and where you draw the lines.

[Traveler]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

In a literal reading, this is absolutely true. I can find a big-cranium guy who is much dumber than some small-craniumed genius. And if cranial capacity were the sole determiner of intelligence, elephants would be making rockets and whales would rule the earth.

But when you compare related species, you see an interesting trend that holds true almost without exception: The bigger the brain, the smarter the species. You see it in rats vs. mice. You see it in large-breed dogs vs. toy breeds. You see it in wolves vs. domestic dogs. You see it very obviously in humans with their bulbous heads vs. all other primates.

This is no guarantee that Neanderthals were smarter than other human species, but it's worth considering.

Not really. The observation about which species survive is encapsulated in the phrase "survival of the fittest". This is really a definition of "fittest". Which species is most fit? That which survives. So various types of bacteria are by far the most successful species on the earth -- yet they aren't intelligent.

Compared to domestic dogs, wolves are geniuses. They are bigger, far more aggressive, and generally much better at figuring out puzzles and taking care of themselves. But dogs vastly outnumber wolves. Why? Because the dog's strategy for survival isn't to get really really really smart. Rather, they glom onto humans, who then ensure their survival.

(There is a lesson here for those who think their own brilliance will save them rather than turning to the Lord for spiritual and temporal salvation.)

Suppose for a moment that the Neanderthals really were significantly more intelligent than other species of humans. Why might they have died out? We can easily come up with dozens of possible reasons: They were not sufficiently genetically diverse. They were not well-adapted to the climate. They did not form extensive societal networks like other human species, leaving them vulnerable to group attacks. They invested themselves in a technology path that ultimately didn't pan out well for them. They warred among themselves until the surviving group was too small to fend off outside attacks. A local influenza infection wiped out 96% of them, while killing only 40% of other nearby human species, who happened to have an advantageous genetic mutation that made them more resistant to that strain of influenza. And on and on and on. Any number of things could have led to the extinction of a more intelligent Neanderthal race and the survival of a less intelligent race, all because natural selection doesn't really care how smart you are per se, but only with how well you manage to respond to changing conditions.

So say the latest conjectures. I'm not sure how such a thing could ever really be demonstrated. Even if you find genetic similarities between Neanderthals and modern European humans, that could simply point to a common ancestry between the two races rather than an ancestor/descendant relationship.

I guess what surprises me most is that anyone would be surprised by this. In a recent post, I pointed out that the natural man is an animal, and acts like one. Why wouldn't we assume that ancient humans would have sex with whatever they could manage to overtake and restrain, including (especially) other humans, even of different species?

For that matter, the whole question of "speciation" is open. By one rather obvious definition, two individuals who can mate and produce fertile offspring are by definition of the same species. So these would not be separate human "species", but something much more like what we would call separate human "races". Neanderthals are now classified not as Homo neandertalensis, but as Homo sapiens neandertalensis. I read an anthropologist's comment that, really, modern humans should simply be called Homo erectus, because we're just the modern version of the ancient creature, much how modern Italian might simply be considered Latin rather than its own different language. It's just a matter of perspective and where you draw the lines.

Thank you for taking the time to post this - it is very insightful.  There are lots of problems in science and it often appears as thought the entire landscape of understanding is shifting but since you and I have scientific background I believe we can converse and learn from each other.  However, not everyone in the world is willing to attempt to navigate a shifting landscape and thus filters out any possibility of acquiring new understanding.   For myself it would seem that a thousand new questions arise with any old question answered.  Mostly I am aware that the glass slipper is not fitting any of the ugly stepsisters very well and the Cinderella seems to remain elusive.  But it also seems obvious to me that some of the stepsisters are a lot less ugly than others and the shoe seem to fit them a little better - just not quite.

I believe the whole idea of evolution fits the LDS theological model of eternal progression much better that everything commanded and controlled by G-d.  That intelligence is distributed and though independent is linked by light and truth or the opposite.  One thing for sure - there is a lot more to this planet in in this solar system and full of life.  Something very unique and unusual.

 

The Traveler