Evolution

In accordance with site rules this thread is not an attempt to convince anyone of anything or tell anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong. It is merely an attempt to explain what evolution is or in this particular post, an attempt to explain one aspect of the theory of evolution. Thorpe had said the following about evolution in a post in another forum and I wish to comment. [i]"I know my family did not come from apes,by the way we still have apes and I do not see any other 'BONES' or living "missing links" walking around today... I guess evolution has a headache or maybe the flu..cause I see Entropy at work and not evolution...mmmm"[/i] We don't see any missing links walking around because homo sapiens became the dominant species and Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo floresiensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo rhodesiensis, and Homo cepranensis all went extinct. Only the species that are the reproductively most successful survive. Apes did not go extinct because they were more reproductively successful in their environments than homo sapiens. But in all other environments homo sapiens were so much more reproductively successful that they caused the other hominid species to go extinct.

I think the connection to be made here is that while the species of Apes share a lot of genetic traits with Homo sapiens, it does not mean that they are the same species. That is, humans did not come from Apes. The idea of species is a tricky one. Many people want there to be clear cut boundaries between species. This is not the case. There are a lot of genetic similarities. The groupings are not clearly demarcated. Imperfect groupings of species are the best descriptive tools we can hope for.

there was a debate once between a Christian and a evolutionist. it went something like this: in the debate, the evolutionist stated that the basic theory of evolution is time+matter+chance. after the Christian confirmed that the evolutionist believe this he said this. Christian: "so professor, how is vegas?" evolutionist: "what?" Christian: "you know, your luck at vegas?" evolutionist: "oh i don't believe in luck." [what the evolutionist did not know is that behind him displayed on the screen was 27 different versions of the dictionary of the definition of "chance". and on ALL of them underlined and in bold was the word luck, in all 27 versions.] Christian: "so let me get this strait, you don't believe in luck?" evolutionist: "no, there is no such thing as luck" [after he said this the crowd started laughing. then the evolutionist turned around and just stood there in disbelief. then the Christian simply walked off the stage and a riot nearly started between people who where cheering and the people the were booing in outrage.]

starting to crave a banana scratches armpit and swings away

perhaps the most common misunderstanding about evolution is that humans evolved from apes. that is not what the theory is. Humans and apes had a common ancestor many millions of years ago. Humans did not evolve from apes. Both humans and apes evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

It was also suggested, by Thorpe, that the "law of entropy" is somehow intellectually superior to the theory of evolution. This concept--that is, the steadfast nature of laws--has been challenged since Hume, who noted that "the sun may not rise tomorrow" and furthered by Russell who stated, "Every morning, the chickens used to come to my door, conditioned for feed, unknowing that one day I may reach down and snap their necks." Laws, as with anything else, are contingently held in place (see induction/critiques of objectivity). At one point, in the Newtonian scheme, gravity operated as a steadfast law. Einstein's theory of relativity, confirmed as early as 1909 by Eddington, showed that gravity worked differently than Newton imagined, adjusting relative to massive objects. While it is true that theories are underdetermined by the evidence. It should be noted, as Dawkins observed, "You can challenge a theory all you like, but I am pretty sure you won't be jumping out of a window tomorrow (re: The Theory of Gravity)." Further, the law of entropy is a fuzzy/noisy law based on generalizations. Contradictions to the law have been observed by those who study thermodynamics.

So the real question here is: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

i say the chicken.

This depends on what "counts" as a modern day chicken. Since the species have mutated over time, it would require somewhat of an arbitrary crossover threshold to determine when the first contemporary chicken was hatched. Since this is the case, we can successfully argue that eggs came before the modern day species of the chicken. However, if by egg, you mean specifically "modern day chicken egg" then you will likely end up searching about for an arbitrary threshold point. Since there really is no point, and there is overlap between previous chicken-like species and their contemporaries, it is difficult to pinpoint whether a clearly demarcated conception of modern day chicken came first, or the egg came first. But most theorists would argue that the egg developed before the chicken.

Paddlin, you should be a defense lawyer. I'm sure you could conhure up reasonable doubt on most subjects. As far as evolution and the history of man, that is knowledge I desperately crave. I'd love to know the entire history of man. Unfortunately most of it has been destroyed through war & natural disasters.

Most modern chickens lay eggs that are not fertilized. Thus, it's feasible that whatever laid the first egg that hatched to be a chicken would most likely have previously laid an egg that was not fertilized. This should support the idea that the egg came before the chicken. Also, regardless of mutation, the egg the chicken was in would have to have been considered a chicken egg due to the chicken hatching out of it. That egg existed prior to fertilization inside the mother, and would also have had to come first.

hey brewdog, i know this book that tells the history of man. i love to read it all the time and its so awesome.

I just noticed that this thread has the subtitle, "...not an attempt to convince anyone." Honestly, I am not even sure what it would mean to convince someone of evolution. You don't convince people that the Earth is round or that it rotates the sun. These are just things you don't get to doubt these days. Doubt requires complexity. For instance, you can doubt the precision of a 30 day weather forecast in a 5x5 square foot radius in the Willamette Valley (of Oregon). However, you won't doubt the sun, clouds, rain, etc. Those are things, as Wittgenstein says, that "stand fast" for us. In other words, someone might doubt the specific interplay of the complex genes making up the modern day chickens, but surely, we wouldn't doubt that there are chickens, that they are different than they were 30,000 years ago, and the like. If we are allowed to doubt things like this, then we would have to doubt a whole host of things that "stand fast" for us. This was one of Descartes' errors. He said he could doubt his desk, but he could not doubt that he was thinking (cogito ergo sum). Turns out, if you talk about desks, people know what you are saying. These are the sorts of things you don't get to doubt. Certainty is not mere logical tautology. This idea of certainty is confused. So, let's not allow for the idea that someone needs to be convinced of evolution, generally conceived. Rather, let's doubt the complex interplay of variables commonly associated with evolution. This requires us to dive into the empirical research. Here, we will have specific doubts about complex interactions. Not doubts about the evolution of species. Now, someone might argue that I am merely trying to convince people of evolution. This is not the case. I do not know what it would mean to convince someone of evolution, because I don't know how to doubt it. If there is no doubt, there is no need for convincing. If someone needs to be convinced over the specifics of "genetic drift" applied to the adaptations of chickens, then, well, grounds for doubt might be available.

wow you guys really have too much time on your hands and everyone knows that the rooster came first

Killrick states that without a doubt. If he does not doubt his statement, it must be true? @Paddlin: While dreaming two nights ago I observed the Earth depart the solar system. Although the passing and the appearance of enlargement of the moon was astounding to observe; I had no way to know that the events were just dream and not reality. It felt like it was real to me at the time. I have to consider that what I know as reality may just be an elaborate dream after all, or something else entirely that I am not able to comprehend. Thus, I doubt reality entirety and by association I doubt all things including evolution.