Science/Environment Explaining evolution and natural selection.

[Father Jack]

Where did I say new species?

They have traced natural selection pressures as recently as 1700's. So thousands or tens of thousands is still the same point.

So are we talking about variations in a populations, and if so, why?

 

[Fryman]

So are we talking about variations in a populations, and if so, why?

My point is - that people love to stick the boot in to Christian Fundies for the belief in creationism.(Fair enough too).

But when evolution is taken to it's logical conclusion, that it is the cause of measurable differences between races of people, then we start to see some heavy backpedalling. i.e race is a social construct, all people are created equal, only difference is melanin count (noble sentiments - but not backed up by science).

You either believe in evolution, no matter what hard truths it throws up, or you don't.

 

[RupieDupie]

My point is - that people love to stick the boot in to Christian Fundies for the belief in creationism.(Fair enough too).

But when evolution is taken to it's logical conclusion, that it is the cause of measurable differences between races of people, then we start to see some heavy backpedalling. i.e race is a social construct, all people are created equal, only difference is melanin count (noble sentiments - but not backed up by science).

You either believe in evolution, no matter what hard truths it throws up, or you don't.

But you are not basing your argument on evolution, and if you chose a system of classifying people based on allele frequencies you will find this will not conform to the Blumenbach system of classification (Caucasian, ********* etc) and you will only be "socially constructing" a racial classification system that will confirm your biases.

 

[Fryman]

But you are not basing your argument on evolution, and if you chose a system of classifying people based on allele frequencies you will find this will not conform to the Blumenbach system of classification (Caucasian, ********* etc) and you will only be "socially constructing" a racial classification system that will confirm your biases.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.t...ence-says-about-race-and-genetics/?source=dam


Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.

 

[RupieDupie]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/?source=dam


Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.

I'm not sure that linking to an article that backs up everything I have stated helps your argument, the article clearly states that a genome can be used to track ancestry (check one for me) but that the allele frequencies do not help in differentiating the "races" (check two for me). Checkmate?

 

[Fryman]

Checkmate?

So when you said

The TLDR here is that there is no biological basis to racial classification

But the article states

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race

How is that agreeing with you?

 

[RupieDupie]

So when you said


But the article states


How is that agreeing with you?

Yes, but you have taken out the last sentence of my TLDR which agrees with the article, the biological basis for phylogenetic relationships, which does not equal the biological basis for race. If the author is stating that there is a biological basis for the classification of people the author is being self contradictory, incidentally "Africa" is not a race, and going back a couple of hundred thousand years we all find our ancestry there, if we look at the differential frequency of alleles after leaving Africa we find that the frequencies do not allow the classification of people into distinct subunits.

 

[M Malice]

Love reading your posts on this subject RupieDupie , have you got formal qualifications in this area of study?

 

[RupieDupie]

Love reading your posts on this subject RupieDupie , have you got formal qualifications in this area of study?

Thanks, I looked at it as part of Biology back in the day

 

[Total Power]

 

[FireKrakouer]

I largely accept evolution / natural selection, but as I've grown older and developed greater skepticism and a slightly spiritual side, I realise just how jaw-dropping it is to consider the transition from no life on earth to humans and consciousness.

Science hasn't reached a consensus on how life got kickstarted, known as "abiogenesis". I certainly don't buy into any mainstream religious explanations, but I question whether there could've been some 10-dimensional energy/essence/being or something that leant a helping hand along the way.

 

[Pessimistic]

What if there was never a 'before' or a 'start" and will never be an 'end' or an 'after'. Just changing and evolving.

Creationism doesn't have this either. It describes the creation of what we see and perceive, but in its own terms, there was something before: a "God"

 

[chelseacarlton]

I largely accept evolution / natural selection, but as I've grown older and developed greater skepticism and a slightly spiritual side, I realise just how jaw-dropping it is to consider the transition from no life on earth to humans and consciousness.

Science hasn't reached a consensus on how life got kickstarted, known as "abiogenesis". I certainly don't buy into any mainstream religious explanations, but I question whether there could've been some 10-dimensional energy/essence/being or something that leant a helping hand along the way.

That’s cute.
But seriously, why is it so difficult to understand that life on this planet started 3.8 ish billion years ago, on a planet 4.5 ish billion years old.
That’s a helluva long time for shit to get rolling, even if that life was only single cellular for most of those 3.8 ish billion years.
I also don’t consider consciousness the be all and end all, like some do around here.
Many other animals are, so what’s the biggy?
We don’t need 10th dimensional beings for Jack shizen, the universe and everything in it, is more than enough to crank start life in any way it feels like.

 

[FireKrakouer]

That’s cute.
But seriously, why is it so difficult to understand that life on this planet started 3.8 ish billion years ago, on a planet 4.5 ish billion years old.
That’s a helluva long time for **** to get rolling, even if that life was only single cellular for most of those 3.8 ish billion years.
I also don’t consider consciousness the be all and end all, like some do around here.
Many other animals are, so what’s the biggy?
We don’t need 10th dimensional beings for Jack shizen, the universe and everything in it, is more than enough to crank start life in any way it feels like.

"A lot of time elapsed so of course life emerged". You may be satisfied with that, but not everyone is.

As for consciousness, try creating AI that is conscious. I'm not sure it's possible. Yet here we are, a collection of atoms that is somehow self aware.

 

[M Malice]

What if there was never a 'before' or a 'start" and will never be an 'end' or an 'after'. Just changing and evolving.

Creationism doesn't have this either. It describes the creation of what we see and perceive, but in its own terms, there was something before: a "God"

That is what I "believe" is the most likely, the Universe is eternal, wipes out all need for a religious creator or a creator of any sort. No need to ask the question "what happened before the big bang?"

 

[chelseacarlton]

"A lot of time elapsed so of course life emerged". You may be satisfied with that, but not everyone is.

As for consciousness, try creating AI that is conscious. I'm not sure it's possible. Yet here we are, a collection of atoms that is somehow self aware.

All the great apes, many whales and dolphins are self aware,as I said, no biggy.
I didn’t say what you quoted, but to some degree, given how vast our universe is, the elements in it and the forces available to these elements, life is a given, I agree.
Now, given that computational power continues to increase at exponential rates almost weekly and new and innovative ways of storing and transferring information, it is your view that at some point in time, we will never be able to create AI?
If you’d like my view, it is the same as my previous point about life and the universe.
It is a given.

 

[Snake_Baker]

What if there was never a 'before' or a 'start" and will never be an 'end' or an 'after'. Just changing and evolving.

Creationism doesn't have this either. It describes the creation of what we see and perceive, but in its own terms, there was something before: a "God"

The chemicals that make you will keep doing their thing whether you are aware of it or not.

 

[Total Power]

I largely accept evolution / natural selection, but as I've grown older and developed greater skepticism and a slightly spiritual side, I realise just how jaw-dropping it is to consider the transition from no life on earth to humans and consciousness.

Science hasn't reached a consensus on how life got kickstarted, known as "abiogenesis". I certainly don't buy into any mainstream religious explanations, but I question whether there could've been some 10-dimensional energy/essence/being or something that leant a helping hand along the way.

But evolution is not abiogenesis, this is precisely the point. The thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis. I certainly agree with you in regards to abiogenesis and i made countless posts here in regards to that, if you are into Buddhism/hinduism and most non-abrahamic religions, you should know what is states. "What needs a cause goes uncreated". This is called the law of dependent origination. The universe is guided by the law cause of effect, somehow the followers of abrahamic religions think god is doing everything and watching everything and setting everything in motion. This is not true and this is precisely why the eastern religions are atheistic in nature (yes including hinduism for those who understand it, it's way deeper than cow worshipping hindus with 33m gods) cause it realises that you must "seek" your OWN knowledge (through methods like meditation) and not read it in a book and "believe". Belief simply means "i don't know", however you sugarcoat it, it simply means, i don't know.

 

[Pessimistic]

Maybe life always was. They have found recently simple life forms from earth survive in space.
If you take that as a proviso, you are then only looking at how primitive life evolves into 'Intelligent' or complex

Simple life forms 'work' together to achieve survival, maybe that was the transformative force.

I could add that ‘complex’ life forms like humans contain and depend on thousands of simple life forms they host

Bacteria etc

 

[chelseacarlton]

In other words, if a universe can happen, a galaxy can happen, a star system can happen, why is it so darned unimaginable to suggest that life, from single cell, to fully functioning upright mostly hairless ape man creating fire etc, to happen?
We are the least evolved system in our universe, considering everything else out there.
Yes we are important, but please, some humility in regards to our actual place in the entirety of the universe is in order.
To believe we are the greatest achievement in this vastness simply because of “I think, therefore I am” is just laughable.
Good luck convincing me otherwise, “hit me with your best shot”
“Fire away”?

 

[M Malice]

We are just..... cc-

 

[FireKrakouer]

But evolution is not abiogenesis, this is precisely the point. The thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis. I certainly agree with you in regards to abiogenesis and i made countless posts here in regards to that, if you are into Buddhism/hinduism and most non-abrahamic religions, you should know what is states. "What needs a cause goes uncreated". This is called the law of dependent origination. The universe is guided by the law cause of effect, somehow the followers of abrahamic religions think god is doing everything and watching everything and setting everything in motion. This is not true and this is precisely why the eastern religions are atheistic in nature (yes including hinduism for those who understand it, it's way deeper than cow worshipping hindus with 33m gods) cause it realises that you must "seek" your OWN knowledge (through methods like meditation) and not read it in a book and "believe". Belief simply means "i don't know", however you sugarcoat it, it simply means, i don't know.

I apologise for not being up to date on this thread and others, I've generally avoided the religion threads. I studied Buddhism briefly, I always remember the Thai monks words "push out the belt, push out the belt" when doing abdominal breathing.

I think in the west we take for granted that the east were ahead of us in some respects. Mindfulness is all the rage right now in schools and businesses, while China is like "welcome to 3 thousand years ago".

Some answers still feel like a cop out to me though, such as belief = I don't know. But I'll get back into reading about these religions, cheers.

 

[Chief]

For the "but we've never seen evolution in action" crowd.

'It's an interesting evolutionary process we're watching': Brolgas and cranes 'crossing the dancefloor' in northern Queensland

An "evolutionary dance" is taking place in the Gulf Country of northern Queensland as two similar, but separate, species of bird are crossbreeding to produce a new hybrid species.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Snake_Baker]

For the "but we've never seen evolution in action" crowd.

'It's an interesting evolutionary process we're watching': Brolgas and cranes 'crossing the dancefloor' in northern Queensland

An "evolutionary dance" is taking place in the Gulf Country of northern Queensland as two similar, but separate, species of bird are crossbreeding to produce a new hybrid species.

www.abc.net.au

They can use computers?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

maybe, discussions do get rather heated and personal on occasion.

holding on to science?- the same holding on claim could be made for the creator believers?

i could not bring myself to base my life around an institutionalized religious doctrine that has not provided any evidence of a creator, on the other hand i have met many people who say they are "spiritual" ie. they say they have a deep connection to the land, animals, other people, their community but churches, priests, rabbis, judgemental deities don't come into it. i can understand that, they embrace their very existence and the environment in which they live and respect it immensely.

I probably fall into that group. All matter is part of the same flow of energy and we are included in that. I would never proclaim to be so arrogant as to say I know the answers to all of existence (where did the universe come from etc) but I can confidently say that none of the theistic religions have got it right. They make sense in a "ancient civilizations trying to explain their role in the cosmos" type of way but I think we've evolved our ideas far beyond that at this stage.

And like most organisations as soon as ideas become codified and heirarchies built up around them they become stale and all about preservation of the status quo which breeds fundamentalism.