Evolution (or, here we go again)

[Robert (2)]

I have never understood why one excludes the other.
I believe in evolution and the idea of God as "Prime Mover" that started the whole ball rolling.

One does not exclude the other. However, the theory you seem to be edging towards is that of 'the God of the Gaps'. So we understand evolution, which doesn't explain how life began, so you find god in that gap. When we close that gap god gets pushed to a smaller gap still (perhaps simply providing an initial spark for the process). It is a legitimate position but it is philosophicly unsatisfactory (god begins to look like a shorthand for not understanding something - interestingly read Job on that). Better, if you wish to take that approach is to move god to a different 'realm', so that it becomes a moral or spiritual reference (say like Buddhism, or Krishna Consciousness, or even liberal UK Anglicans). Thus it is no longer in competition with science as an explanation of the physical world but rather becomes complementary.

Robert

[latenight]

Funny you say that, because I have heavily studied Buddhism. I think God was the prime mover, or "spark as you say", but that the whole process after that was of devine intention.

[lochinvar]

Evolution: the genetic transference of acquired characteristics.

That's it. Seditious isn't it!

What you describe is more properly known as Lamarckianism, which was a competing evolutionary hypothesis in the 19th century.

The current understanding of evolution is the accumulation of genetic mutations which result in a fundamental change in the inheritable phenotype; phenotypes are then "selected" by natural competition--for food, mates, all the essential whatnot required to survive and pass on one's genetic inheritance. Successful phenotypic forms move forward in time; unsuccessful phenotypic forms die out.

Genetic transference of acquired characteristics, on the other hand, presuppose that it is possible to genetically inherit changes in phenotype that result from interaction between an individual and his/her environment--e.g., my father developed strong hands because he was a mason, and therefore I will inherit his strong hands without having to do any manual labor to get them. This has been shown to not be the case.

(This, by the way, is why I so thouroughly enjoyed the whole Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phenomenon--the idea that a mutagen can act on and change an individual whose genetic code has already been expressed is pure Lamarckianism.)

[Robert (2)]

Funny you say that, because I have heavily studied Buddhism.

Great or little vehicle?

Robert

[latenight]

Pure Land..................

[Robert (2)]

Pure Land..................

That is a Chinese Mahayana (Great vehicle) sect.

Robert

This, by the way, is why I so thouroughly enjoyed the whole Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phenomenon--the idea that a mutagen can act on and change an individual whose genetic code has already been expressed is pure Lamarckianism.)

Not quite. It is the basis of procedures such as gene therapy (but with Star Trek style genetics). Now if they had kids who weren't just ordinary turtles, that would be Lamarckianism. I only correct you because you corrected geezer's slightly sloppy understanding.

Robert

[latenight]

That is a Chinese Mahayana (Great vehicle) sect.


Robert

That is correct. I also delved briefly into Shin Pure Land, but did not find it suited me as it taught more that a person's own efforts do little to move them toward enlightenment.

So I pretty much stuck to Traditional Pure Land which I found most satisfying.

[grotto]

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. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. 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. We see a universe marvelously arranges and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.
--Albert Einstein

To think that God can not envelope the theory of evolution is hubris in my opinion. We know a speck of the truth of how we came into being. Every new revelation from amino acids, to apes, to H. Sapiens, is pretty awe inspiring.

[SouthPaw]

Evolution isn't the same as spontaneous generation. And spontaneous generation isn't getting life from NOTHING, it's getting life from non-life. And it was proven. You can get life under the right conditions from carbon and other stuff in the form of bacteria.

[keith]

Evolution isn't the same as spontaneous generation. And spontaneous generation isn't getting life from NOTHING, it's getting life from non-life. And it was proven. You can get life under the right conditions from carbon and other stuff in the form of bacteria.

um no you can't. You can generate complex organics by high voltage arcs across simple hydrocrabon etc mixtures but producing a few femtomoles of an amino acid is slightly different from generating a replicating entity.

[achilleus]

(This, by the way, is why I so thouroughly enjoyed the whole Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phenomenon--the idea that a mutagen can act on and change an individual whose genetic code has already been expressed is pure Lamarckianism.)

Funny. I loved TMNT because they were parodies of Frank Miller's work. Specifically Daredevil.

[Robert (2)]

Evolution isn't the same as spontaneous generation. And spontaneous generation isn't getting life from NOTHING, it's getting life from non-life. And it was proven. You can get life under the right conditions from carbon and other stuff in the form of bacteria.

It is important that we are reminded that the Christian right do not have a monopoly on ill-considered posts by people who haven't studied the problem.

Southpaw,

The experiments which have been performed use simulations of reducing atmospheres mixed with electricity. They produce amino acids and complex molecules. They do not produce anything even remotely like a primitive cell, not even close, no cell walls, no RNA, zip. Though there are some very good hypothesis the fact remains at present there is no adequate explanation for how life began (and some very serious problems). Saying otherwise just suggests that you have the same sort of unquestioning belief in science that those who want to teach intelligent design have in Christian doctrine.

Robert

To think that God can not envelope the theory of evolution is hubris in my opinion. We know a speck of the truth of how we came into being.

This is a fair and reasonable point. However it misses an important point. The God that Einstein (and Kepler before him) believes in is not the God Latenight believes in. Einstein once said of Quantum Mechanics 'God does not play dice with the Universe', I and everyone who has studied it knows exactly what he means. But why would he say that? Latenight's God would not care about a subatomic tool, he is a teleological god (he gives the initial spark and he plans for it to result in X) for whom any tool would do if it worked. No, what offended Einstein (and nearly destroyed Kepler's faith when he realised that the orbit of the planets is not circular) is that it is ugly. Einstein's god is really just a child-like wonder at our ability to describe the universe with incredibly simple models, mathematical models that have beauty.

It would be hubris to say that we know god does not exist, or that we understand everything. It is not hubris to say that we will try to understand and comprehend the universe without reliance on god. To do otherwise would be to use god as a sunonym for 'I don't know or can't be bothered to work it out'.

Robert

[Heraclita]

[QUOTE=Robert (2)]Heraclita,

You don't seem to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. Evolution (the dominant interpretation of which is called the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) is the belief that what is alive on this planet now is the modified descendants of what was alive in the past.




Thanks for clarifying

[geezer]

What you describe is more properly known as Lamarckianism, which was a competing evolutionary hypothesis in the 19th century.

Good grief...that's not even amusing! Darwin, Mendel, Gould...hello!
Lamarckian...Schmarckian...duh! You're home schooled, right?
Greater Purpose/natural selection vs Random Mutation/natural selection, Hello!

[lochinvar]

Good grief...that's not even amusing! Darwin, Mendel, Gould...hello!
Lamarckian...Schmarckian...duh! You're home schooled, right?
Greater Purpose/natural selection vs Random Mutation/natural selection, Hello!

?? You seem to be deliberately provocative, for whatever murky reasons you may purport to see in your feeble mind...but better home-schooling than wasting time in whatever babysitter/diploma-mill you received your alleged education...

You've never heard of Lamarck, right? Google him and see what you come up with.

Mendel and Gould have nothing to do with this particular discussion--I was responding to the phrase "genetic transference of acquired characteristics" (bold added). Any characteristics you "acquire" during your life are non-transferable. The only things transferable are any genetic mutations, and that happened during your mommy and daddy's zygote production.

So, sorry--you lose. Thank you for playing, and come again...

[geezer]

Nice try...

[Neil]

Any characteristics you "acquire" during your life are non-transferable. The only things transferable are any genetic mutations, and that happened during your mommy and daddy's zygote production.

Interestingly, recent research suggests that there might be exceptions to this general rule; e.g. link

[lochinvar]

Thanks for the link, Neil. That's very intriguing.

Geezer, take a lesson from Neil, here: Research and understand what you're talking about before you open your pie-hole.

[drippingwet]

I know this is a fairly old thread, but I'm a student of science and I'm interested to compare the results of a recent US telephone poll run by Gallup in 2001:

45% said something like... God created humans pretty much in the present form at some time in the last 10,000 years.

37% agree with the notion of divine initiative, followed by evolution as creative means (according to more than one papal pronouncement, this is compatable with Roman Catholic Dogma).

12% think that no God was involved.

There has been little change in the restults over a 20 year period.

Scriptural literalism and political activists against teaching of Darwin's/Wallace's theory offer a plausable explanation to the possibility that nearly half of all Americans will not accept the notion of evolution, despite the existance of massive evidence comparible in quality to kind of evidence that supports the notion of earth orbiting the sun, rather than vice versa. The latter theory once seemed to be against religious thought, but now how can it be refuted? Perhaps lack of knowledge and/or confusion resulting from poor information has another role to play.

This is not meant in an argumentative sort of way (I'm not saying where my views lie), but it would be interesting to hear from anyone who is against the teaching of evolution for religions reasons, what their views are on the apparent acceptance of evolution as the creative means, by Roman Catholicism.

I think I'll post my own poll of this and see what comes back.

If anyone is interested in hearing about some of the evidence of natural selection, I'll be happy to let on, and actually much of the evidence is stuff that you can see without needing a degree in biochemistry or genetics.