-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Theism, Religion and Lack thereof
- Thread starter Aisling
- Start date
hopeandjoy
yan ya yan ya yaa iii yaaa
Isn't that the way all of the debates go here? Everyone agrees and then one person comes in who doesn't so it's everyone vs one person?
And wasn't the first evolution thread here an offshoot of either the first homosexuality thread or the first religion thread?
If this is such a big deal, I'll just delete the thread.
And wasn't the first evolution thread here an offshoot of either the first homosexuality thread or the first religion thread?
If this is such a big deal, I'll just delete the thread.
Karkat Vantas
Virile God-Snake Tower of Masculinity
Evolution could happen regardless of God's existence. They're two different things.
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
Yeah, but if God exists in a classical theistic perspective, he would definitely have an effect on evolution. Hence its relevancy.
- Pronoun
- he/him
Hello guys, it's Evolutionary Theory Lesson time. I'm not sure if Pwnemon is still reading, but even if he isn't, some other posters seem a little confused, so!
Point the first: evolution doesn't believe anything.
Let's talk about human evolution. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Nor did we evolve from apes. Rather, humans share a common ancestor with apes, another common ancestor with apes and monkeys, and so on and so forth. This is important: no extant species has evolved from any other extant species, rogue populations of Tube-dwelling Londoner mosquitoes notwithstanding.
That said, there is a terrible misconception at work here, so let me correct it. When we say that a species evolved into another species - let's say species A evolved into species B - what does that mean? Most importantly, it does not mean that an individual of species A gave birth to an individual of species B. This brings me to my first point: species are not a true biological construct. The only reason we can talk about species is because the lineages connecting two different species have all gone extinct. In other words, no one population of a single species will ever in its existence split into two species*. That's not how speciation works. Let me re-iterate a previous point: populations evolve. All the individuals of a population will, over time, exhibit changes in their characteristics. Take a sufficient length of time, and many of these changes will all be going in the same direction, so that eventually the entire population has acquired a new characteristic. However! This is important: at no point in this process did any of the individuals belong to a different species. Any individual could reproduce with any other individual in the population.
So how does this apply to our species A and B? Suppose we observe a population at two points in time, X and Y. If we collected specimens at point X, we would say they belonged to species A. If we collected specimens at point Y, we would say they belonged to species B. But at no point in between is the distinction clear - there is a gradient of populations between points X and Y, and each successive generation is a further step in the direction of species B. But we cannot call one generation A and the next B - after all, they still belong to the same species! The only reason we can call A and B separate species is because we don't see these intermediate steps.
So! Let's apply all this to the matter at hand, specifically that Noah's ark comment. Yes, all humans alive today are descended from two individuals (who were not necessarily human, I should point out). However, the difference between this situation and that which would obviously have followed the great flood - i.e., seven individuals per species - is that those two universal ancestors of humanity lived in a large population. The fact that they are universal ancestors is incidental, as the descendants of all the other individuals in that population died out at some point in the past. But the point I'm making is that there was a population, and there was genetic exchange between its individuals. The descendants of that one pair didn't possess only that pair's genes, in other words - there was a broad gene pool. On the other hand, those seven post-flood individuals would have shared a very small gene pool, and that's why their descendants would likely have suffered from genetic disorders.
Though that's hardly the best argument against the story of the flood. Seven individuals is probably enough to ensure the survival of a species. Issues such as "amount of water on Earth" and "skills needed to make ark to hold so many animals" are much better.
*Unless it does**. But that is complicated and not really relevant.
**If you would like to take issue with this, I would like to point out that this is how biology works: "x is impossible, except for when it happens".
I'm a bit tired, if anything is unclear let me know.
Point the first: evolution doesn't believe anything.
Let's talk about human evolution. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Nor did we evolve from apes. Rather, humans share a common ancestor with apes, another common ancestor with apes and monkeys, and so on and so forth. This is important: no extant species has evolved from any other extant species, rogue populations of Tube-dwelling Londoner mosquitoes notwithstanding.
That said, there is a terrible misconception at work here, so let me correct it. When we say that a species evolved into another species - let's say species A evolved into species B - what does that mean? Most importantly, it does not mean that an individual of species A gave birth to an individual of species B. This brings me to my first point: species are not a true biological construct. The only reason we can talk about species is because the lineages connecting two different species have all gone extinct. In other words, no one population of a single species will ever in its existence split into two species*. That's not how speciation works. Let me re-iterate a previous point: populations evolve. All the individuals of a population will, over time, exhibit changes in their characteristics. Take a sufficient length of time, and many of these changes will all be going in the same direction, so that eventually the entire population has acquired a new characteristic. However! This is important: at no point in this process did any of the individuals belong to a different species. Any individual could reproduce with any other individual in the population.
So how does this apply to our species A and B? Suppose we observe a population at two points in time, X and Y. If we collected specimens at point X, we would say they belonged to species A. If we collected specimens at point Y, we would say they belonged to species B. But at no point in between is the distinction clear - there is a gradient of populations between points X and Y, and each successive generation is a further step in the direction of species B. But we cannot call one generation A and the next B - after all, they still belong to the same species! The only reason we can call A and B separate species is because we don't see these intermediate steps.
So! Let's apply all this to the matter at hand, specifically that Noah's ark comment. Yes, all humans alive today are descended from two individuals (who were not necessarily human, I should point out). However, the difference between this situation and that which would obviously have followed the great flood - i.e., seven individuals per species - is that those two universal ancestors of humanity lived in a large population. The fact that they are universal ancestors is incidental, as the descendants of all the other individuals in that population died out at some point in the past. But the point I'm making is that there was a population, and there was genetic exchange between its individuals. The descendants of that one pair didn't possess only that pair's genes, in other words - there was a broad gene pool. On the other hand, those seven post-flood individuals would have shared a very small gene pool, and that's why their descendants would likely have suffered from genetic disorders.
Though that's hardly the best argument against the story of the flood. Seven individuals is probably enough to ensure the survival of a species. Issues such as "amount of water on Earth" and "skills needed to make ark to hold so many animals" are much better.
*Unless it does**. But that is complicated and not really relevant.
**If you would like to take issue with this, I would like to point out that this is how biology works: "x is impossible, except for when it happens".
I'm a bit tired, if anything is unclear let me know.
Flora
local hellion
- Pronoun
- they/he/it/neos
Speaking of Noah's Ark, while, IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there's evidence of a flood that occurred in the present-day Middle East, it's most likely that it only occurred there. If that's the case, the reason the Bible said that it was a worldwide flood was that the writers believed that Palestine was the entire world. It's not entirely unheard of (hell, prior to the Crusades Europeans believed that they occupied the whole world, at least according to history textbooks).
- Pronoun
- he/him
Given that the ark was meant to have finished its journey at Mt. Ararat in Turkey I'm not sure this explanation holds water.
Aisling
Super Moderator
The main reason I have for thinking the story of Noah's Ark is bunk is basically that whole Gilgamesh flood story that was written much earlier and is pretty much the same.
That article is actually in defense of the Noah version, but it doesn't give any reason to not think that it's a modified version, because it only compares and contrasts the two. Of course some parts would be changed because it would've been much too obvious if they left all the "important details" (like which birds were released in what order at the end and which mountain it wound up on) the same. Doesn't mean it wasn't based on it at all.
Perhaps both stories are referring to that same flood, but... well, it's not like that makes it any more likely that it was a god's doing.
That article is actually in defense of the Noah version, but it doesn't give any reason to not think that it's a modified version, because it only compares and contrasts the two. Of course some parts would be changed because it would've been much too obvious if they left all the "important details" (like which birds were released in what order at the end and which mountain it wound up on) the same. Doesn't mean it wasn't based on it at all.
Perhaps both stories are referring to that same flood, but... well, it's not like that makes it any more likely that it was a god's doing.
dude, don't make it so obvious that you haven't done any research.
if time and space came with the Big Bang, there's pretty much no way we could know what caused it.
besides, if a god can be causeless, so can the universe. where did God come from?
Saith
New member
I can't remember the exact argument, but the universe can't be causeless, because if it were causeless, it wouldn't have began. Instead it would have always been. Due to knowledge of the Big-Bang, we know the universe began, and therefore we must assume it had a cause.
If we decide against the Big Bang, that would mean we believe the universe is infinite, which it cannot be.
If we decide against the Big Bang, that would mean we believe the universe is infinite, which it cannot be.
it could have "caused" itself ... but that's not the point. its cause, if any, is irrelevant because time and space came along with the Big Bang -- we likely wouldn't be able to understand or comprehend what had "caused" it.
(note, I am not a goddamn physicist)
- Pronoun
- he/him
And why can this same principle not apply to the universe?