Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    EVOLUTION, WHAT IS IT?

    Quite some time ago, I was asked a question, is it possible for a fully functioning jumbo jet to emerge from the jumble of scattered components if the components were thrown together by some chance?

    The main problem here was the understanding of the scientific concept or views. Many a time people who talk about science do not really understand what the scientific view is about energy or matter and the properties of these or their behaviour and how they control or decide all aspects of all things, events or their aspects that give rise to any phenomena whatsoever.

    The simple fact is, if I know what something or some-one is or is capable of then I have no problem in accepting or rejecting the possible outcomes that are attributed to that something or some-one. If I know that one is not capable of lifting a ten ton truck then it would not be right for me to assume or expect that one can. However, if I know that one is quite capable of carrying two kilograms in weight then it too would be wrong for me to assume that one cannot. On the other hand, if I knew nothing about one then whatever I assume about one or attribute to one would only and only be imaginary and absurd or meaningless. This is why studies about matter and energy are necessary not only in sense of their existence but in sense of their capabilities, characteristics and behaviours as well so that we become more and more aware of them, their characteristics and behaviours. It then helps us to see how they could have given rise to the universe and the things, events or phenomena in it. As I said that if we know a person then because we know his capabilities, we can accept what one is capable of doing or accomplishing eg an engineer could be capable of designing a mechanism that could lift ten ton truck. Likewise, nature could design something that then could design other things eg jumbo jets or even the space-shuttles.

    Now just as you and I have capabilities and signatures so do all the existing things regardless living in biological terms or not, intelligent in biological and psychological terms are not. For example, the earth quake when it happens and whatever it causes (eg destruction etc as we see it) depends on the factors that determine all its aspects. Each earth quake therefore will only do what has been decided by factors it is dependent upon creating a pattern and scene of its own. It is therefore clear that all earthquakes are controlled phenomena not by any intelligent designer and his determination but by nature of their very existence ie that is the way things are or happen by natural mechanism or set up. It would be absurd for us to say, why the earth quake destroyed things rather than building them? In this village or city instead of that? Why it created this pattern rather than that, or why it happened this way or that way or was not more or less forceful? And so on and so forth. The case is exactly the same if we talk about storm, lightening, thunder or rain etc etc etc. Each and every event in the natural world is controlled by the natural factors in the nature itself. The cause and effect mechanisms for phenomena are clearly obvious in the natural world, needing no further explanations. It is absurd to look for any further independent cause or explanation of the cause or explanation of something that is already clearly explained and is so obvious. For example, if one feels pain because one has cut one’s finger with the knife then that is the cause that resulted in one ending up in pain. Once we have this cause for that effect then we have no need to start searching for any alternative parallel cause for explanation of the very same phenomena of pain.

    When any of us are ill, we try to find the causes of their illnesses. How ill any are, is decided by the factors involved in each and every one of the illnesses. If we cut our fingers when peeling fruit for example, the pain we suffer depends on the factors that give rise to or control the sense of pain. So you can see that although things happen all by themselves, they do not happen randomly ie without anything having any control over anything. They are controlled actions and reactions of some things by other things, large or small. This pattern in things gives rise to a concept of natural design that needs no intelligence nor any other parallel explanation. Unless one realises this point one may become confused and therefore think that such events and phenomena could be work of intelligent designer. For example, the natural earth quake happens naturally for natural reasons but to recreate the very same effect we can try and design it as well ie for movies. So one may not be able to see the difference between what nature does and what we design ourselves when copying nature to recreate the same effect for our own purposes. The reason is that it is impossible for energy or matter to exist without its properties and natural behaviour etc. Now these properties are capabilities of these things, for that is the way they exist. In other words you are what or who you are and the way you are, the way you are.

    Just as nature can cause explosions and thereby destructions and decide their magnitude or other aspects so it can end up building things from human point of view, for as far as nature is concerned, it is all only a matter of subatomic and atomic interaction within the given space and time, for energy or matter are never at rest. Since energy gave rise to subatomic particles and their interaction gave rise to atomic structures and interactions which in turn brought about elementary and compound molecular structures, so arose what we call the structure of the universe and whatever is in it or is happening in it as we see it today. It arose all by itself from scratch bit by bit as one thing led to another.

    To understand the origin of the universe the main thing is to look at the universe the way it is today and start going back in time bit by bit. We will come to realise that as we go back in time, there were less and less number of living things on the earth eg people or other living things. Moreover they were simpler and simpler as compared to later things ie not as complex as the later things. As we go back in time the things people invented would one by one disappear because they were not there till people invented them. There comes a time when there was no life anywhere in the universe. If we keep going back in time we will see that even planets and solar systems and galaxies would appear as mere fragmented clouds of gas. Going yet more into the past would lead us to a universe that was mere a spot that was pure energy without any significant dimensions at all and so virtually non-existent for all practical purposes. This is why unless we try and understand the energy and the matter with all their properties, we cannot be right in claming that they are not capable of doing this or that on their own. If I do not know anything about you, then how right can I be in talking about you and your capabilities ie what you can or cannot be or do etc? Moreover if anyone tells me anything about you, I need to make sure that I am told the truth about you as well as the whole thing, otherwise my judgement about you would be at least defective if not outright wrong.

    Likewise, once people know things about energy or matter and its capabilities and how it works etc etc then they are in a much better position to understand things. Although nature gives rise to very strong forces and terrible phenomena yet it is not capable of accomplishing whatever we wish eg assemble a jumbo jet in front of our very eyes. This is not the way nature works and that is why it is wrong to put questions about nature this way. However, if we understand the way the nature works then whatever we see including jumbo jets is brought about by nature using its own mechanisms of many different kinds. Even people did not bring about jumbo jets till nature rendered them capable of doing so. Nature has its own mechanisms whereby it brings about things just like we invent mechanisms to do things we wish to do the way we do eg use mechanisms to lift heavy things. Our own inventions did not come about overnight but took time likewise nature brought about gradually all that we witness today. The automatic mechanisms of nature are always explored and discovered by us gradually. What we did not know a thousand years ago and therefore it was a magical mystery we have come to know some of it by now and the magical effect that it had on our minds for ages has finally disappeared. It is like you do not know how the computer actually works and so you imagine all sorts of things about it, but once you become really aware of its working, the baseless assumptions you were imagining about it disappear.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Likewise to understand how universe might have come about, one has to think about hundreds of kinds of subatomic particles like photons and quarks or protons and electrons etc etc etc that formed in the early universe which bumped into each other as dictated by their then environment and so combined into atoms. Likewise atomic interaction as was dictated by their then environment brought about material universe. All this happened when the universe began expanding like a balloon. As universe expanded it began to cool down and so energy was able to freeze in form of material particles which began interacting due to their very nature of existence giving rise to observable forces and phenomena in nature. The better way to imagine all this is to look for causes of effects. For example, if the roof of a building falls down on the floor, look for reasons or mechanism behind it. May be the metal support structure has given way but what caused that to do so? Likewise, as we find cause after cause, we will come to realise, how automated the whole universe is. In a similar manner look at natural structures and see how they might have come about or what sort of mechanisms are behind them. Once we start looking at things this way to make sense of them, we will come to know a lot more than we already know.

    If some people did not think this way, we would not have any judiciary or any other real world based institutions including science of any sort. If we could accept that angels or ghosts and other imaginary things can kill people or other living things, and or commit any sort of crimes, we would have lost the reason to prosecute anyone because everyone would have an excuse that it was not him/her who did this or that but some one or something else. One only has to listen to simple folk about the stories of djinns and ghosts or monsters and satan to realise what I am trying to explain. Belief in magic spells is a big part of fights between relatives or family members among such people, because when they run into problems, they cannot stand back and properly analyse the reasons or mechanism behind them. Since they do not go for reasoning things out, so they do not look for reason based solutions either. Instead they run to the so called magic experts or the maulana sahib to cast out the spell etc and so make things better. This may lead them to more fights and animosity between themselves when someone in position of power over them whom they believe falsely tells them who might have cast the spell upon them in the first place.

    Thus looking for obvious reasons and mechanisms is very important if we are at all a sensible people. By shutting our minds to reason and mechanisms we are only participating in promoting and propagating ignorance and thereby superstition hence the outcome is obviously confusion. So it is reason that needs to be applied as the very first thing, not the very last whenever we have to judge things for their truth. Likewise, it is the mechanism of things that we must discover as the very first thing if we ever wish to know about their existence or whatever they do and or how they do it. Anything else is mere figment of our imagination and cannot help us judge things for what they really are or the way they behave.

    If we want to condemn science for what it is ie the truth testing mechanism then that is up to ourselves but religion is no alternative for science. Organised religion has been around for as long as it has been since its invention and it was invented by some people to control others. This held people back from progress and the proof is the development in our world that has taken place since the organised religion lost its political power over masses, which was absent the while organised religion was politically in control of things. The natural religion always pushed humanity to take care of itself and it is returning with freedom of thought and expression. The natural religion was the way of life for earlier civilised human beings that evolved with the people and the world and gave rise to religious philosophy but that is a different issue altogether which I cannot address just now.

    Going back again please do notice that what I am saying is not intelligent design by any such designer but the perception of natural unintelligent design as unnatural intelligent design by an intelligent being. For example, you can have an actual old building as well as a newly designed one that appears old ie that gives the very same perception. In movies for example, special effects are used to create such perceptions all the time. So one perception is designed by the special effects' artists the while the other is natural ie the one we are trying to recreate. To the person who is watching the movie, all such effects seem so real and thus we could be fooled into believing something about something that is not exactly what it seems to be. Why would god put people through such confusion if he ought to be perceived as the only true creator of the universe? So the design we see in nature is natural design and not the intelligent design. The reason is that we actually see things designing things ie one thing leading to another and so it seem a kind of design rather than random. In nature we see a lot of activity and it seems destructive but if we look at it closely that destruction is part of construction process ie as some things are destroyed others are being brought about. This is the way nature functions. The end product is never known nor designed but something has to result from the process and that something could seem to us as has been designed for a set purpose.

    For example, a volcano blows up and we see a pattern created because of it. The debris fall here and there depending on the interaction between all the involved things eg forces etc. We may call it a destructive pattern but to nature it is only a pattern. Rain as it falls on high places and runs down, erodes softer ground creating a river or lake ie a pattern. Thus nature creates natural designs, large or small. If you fill a sack with pebbles and turn it upside down, the pebbles will fall out of it creating a pattern that is dictated by the things involved in the process. This end product was not intended to be this way but something ought to be the end result of the process. In other words interaction between things is inevitable regardless they are large or small. What this clearly shows is the fact that things can do things. If things can do things and we can clearly observe them doing so anywhere and everywhere then the question is, how do they do it? They do it the way we observe them ie one thing leads to the other. For example, when a roof of a building falls in, we try to figure out how exactly it may have happened. How could we do that if we are not able to do so? Now if this is true for all things observable then it ought to be true for things yet not within our reach. Due to this very fact the universe is believed to be fully automatic ie whatever is happening in the universe, it is happening because things within the universe are making it happen. Thus existence and nature of things is also determined by things themselves as well as their behaviours.

    All things are made of molecules hence all their aspects are determined by these molecules, which are themselves made of atoms and so they determined their nature of existence as well as behaviours. The existence and nature of all things is therefore determined by molecules and atoms. The atomic existence and nature is determined by subatomic particles. Think it like this that when a person is on one’s own, things are different but as more and more people emerge and interact things change. The case is similar with subatomic particles ie when they were on their own as individuals things were different but as they joined to each other to form atomic structures things became different because each subatomic particle acted the way it did and so resultant or common behaviour of all of them came to being. Likewise when atoms were on their own things were different but as they came together and formed molecular structures things became different due to their interaction with each other. And so as molecular structures formed into bigger and bigger atomic structures and systems things became different. Thus interaction between things from the very smallest to the very largest in various combinations brought about everything that we see and the way we see it. The subatomic particles arose out of energy as earlier universe expanded and began cooling down, so if you like the universe became what it is because of the energy that is the origin of the expansion of the universe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lets go to pot and cooking analogy, from energy to the universe all things have properties that determine their individual and combinational nature of existence and behaviours hence the behaviour of the universe and of all things that we see in it. Just as in a cooking pot salt and chillies all have individual characteristics as well as combined characteristics eg tastes, colours or flavours etc etc so do subatomic particles as individuals and as part of each other. Some seem to separate between the things and their properties and behaviours. That is a serious mistake on their part because then so called things are no longer those things because they have broken them down into their individual constituent parts, for things either exist as they are or they do not. If they do, they come as complete units eg you cannot have an atom without what makes it an atom. You cannot have energy without what makes it energy. It is like calling the salt, salt without its saltiness. Now if the salt was without its saltiness then it would not be the salt, would it?

    From another angle you would appear to be coining a name for a thing just for name sake ie you are trying to call something a building but it is not a building because it lacks the properties of a building. The question is why would you do that? I assume it is for the reasons other than scientific ie it may be because if you accept things with their properties then they can do things all by themselves as I have explained and that could then affect your belief in god as an intelligent being because as far as you are concern someone needs to be there to initiate or do things rather than something. However if we do not accept natural properties of things that make them what they are or the way they behave then there would be problems with pot and the stuff in it for cooking. Because then potatoes would be without their properties that make them potatoes and tomatoes would not really be tomatoes nor chillies be chillies or salt the salt. Likewise arise problems if we do not accept the fact that energy and matter are capable of doing what they have done , for that is what we observe ourselves. I mean one has to think, what could go wrong if we deny our own observations and experiments?


    Finished product always seems difficult to understand if we do not break it down to its simpler forms for analysis to see how it might have become so complex and sophisticated. Let us take ourselves for example. After we have grown up and become learned and fully skilled none of us would accept that there was a day when we were none of this. However if we go back in time and analyze how we might have evolved and developed things will make perfect sense. The very same is true about all things including the universe in which we live.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Are you going to quote your source?

    You do realise that this is a forum for debate and discussion - not preaching?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    could you give me a summary? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution - it's still a theory, it has never been proved. Oh and I couldn't be bothered to read your waffle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sashh)
    Evolution - it's still a theory, it has never been proved. Oh and I couldn't be bothered to read your waffle.
    however altho its never been proven there is a very high chance the vast majority of what we know about it is in some form right - its not just a guess since the theory changes to fit the evidence
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most arguments against evolution are made by looking at it in limited way. One of the things you have to understand is the fact that evolution is a blind force. Creatures evolve through random mutations. For every generation there will be lots of mutations possible. Many of these will be damaging to the resulting creature, therefore making that creature less likely to survive than other animals of that type. Then there are the benificial mutations (long necks in giraffes, etc.) that improve its chance of survival. Of course, these factors may be tiny, but looked at over a large series of generations of similar mutations, eventualy there will be a new, improved species comming out of the process, as the disadvantaged creature fail to reproduce or survive. This is the most limited version that I can offer. If you don't understand this, go check out "The Blind Watchmaker" and read that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What the hell?!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    What the hell?!!!
    My thoughts exactly. My original post was in responce to the later posts as I realy couldnt respond to the original 10,000 word essay. What was he smoking?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sashh)
    Evolution - it's still a theory, it has never been proved.
    It's a great many theories. Theories cannot be proved; however, scientific theories can be disproved. People have found flaws and imprecisions for parts of the various theories of evolution and have amended and corrected them, but the actual evidence that evolution has taken place and is taking place and caused the whole variety of life on earth is much stronger than that for any creational hypothesis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiny)
    What the hell?!!!
    I agree!!! I read the first three lines, scrolled down to see how long it was and then fainted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution will never be proved because every time they find some new 'evidence' that will 'prove' it they are hit by a mathematical brick wall that says that the odds against it are so hight that it is a physical impossibility.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution is simply when animals adapt to their current surounds.

    (Original post by moncal)
    Evolution will never be proved because every time they find some new 'evidence' that will 'prove' it they are hit by a mathematical brick wall that says that the odds against it are so hight that it is a physical impossibility.
    As opposed, of course, to the mathematical probability of the world being created 6,000 years ago by a moody Jewish garden keeper, and the mathematical probability of life dying because 6,000 years ago two Iraqi kids eat some fruit from a tree - at the behest of a talking snake - whose punishment for introducing decay into the multiverse was to crawl on his belly (a terrible punishment, I'm sure you'll agree, for a snake)...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctus)
    As opposed, of course, to the mathematical probability of the world being created 6,000 years ago by a moody Jewish garden keeper, and the mathematical probability of life dying because 6,000 years ago two Iraqi kids eat some fruit from a tree - at the behest of a talking snake - whose punishment for introducing decay into the multiverse was to crawl on his belly (a terrible punishment, I'm sure you'll agree, for a snake)...
    I am gonna give you rep for that! Fantastic! Very funny.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Evolution will never be proved because every time they find some new 'evidence' that will 'prove' it they are hit by a mathematical brick wall that says that the odds against it are so hight that it is a physical impossibility.
    And the chance of a dice hitting a six decreases for every six you get, right? Cmon, you have only showed that you do not understand mathematical probability. If I throw a large bundle of dice they are bound to show some combination of numbers. Lets say I get this result:

    15332363243243525432164624353264 2136325364352

    What is teh chance that this particular sequence should arise? Well in order to give a perspective, the chance of any random sequence generated in teh same wya is equally likely. The above sequence is just as unlikely as the following:

    66666666666666666666666666666666 6666666666666

    Now, obviously, trhowing that many sixes in a row is extremely unlikely. But it is no less likely than the first sequence of numbers. Also, the chance of getting SOME combination of numbers is 100%. We cant tell in advance which sequence it will be, but after throwing the dice, we woant dismiss the fact that the combination arose from throwing dice merely because such a cobination is very unlikely (After all, some combination has to occur).

    Evolution does not say why humans evolved EXACTLY the way they did, it merely predicts that SOME sort of evolution is very likely to occur. Just as SOME sort of chaotic sequence of dogits is very likely to occur when throwing a large number of dice. We can afterwards check which path evolution did take and confirm that this was indeed an evolutionary path. The problem with people dismissing random events because they found them unlikely is that they neglect that an extreme ammount of equally unlikely events did not occur, although they could have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude)
    Evolution is simply when animals adapt to their current surounds.
    Its that simplicity that gives creationists and weird people the ability to "disprove" evolution. The more exact your definition, the smarter people have to be to try to disprove the whole thing. Once you get to DNA and the evolution of species you have very few people who can put forwards an irreputable argument against it without resorting to religion.

    Since I shall be studying the philosophy of science at the LSE from this October, I thought that I would correct our evangelical friends on their favourite argument - that evolution is 'just a theory'.

    Creationists are perfectly correct to say that evolution is 'just a theory', not a proven fact. But it is never possible to prove that a scientific theory is true, in the strict sense of proof, for the inference from data to theory is almost always non-deductive.

    By the same token, we could argue that it is 'just a theory' that water is made up of H20, or that matter is made up of atoms. But creationists do not argue this.

    If they are to make their position defensible they simply cannot turn on the point that our data doesn't guarantee every scientific theory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Evolution does not say why humans evolved EXACTLY the way they did, it merely predicts that SOME sort of evolution is very likely to occur. Just as SOME sort of chaotic sequence of dogits is very likely to occur when throwing a large number of dice. We can afterwards check which path evolution did take and confirm that this was indeed an evolutionary path. The problem with people dismissing random events because they found them unlikely is that they neglect that an extreme ammount of equally unlikely events did not occur, although they could have.
    Most likely many of the unlikely events did happen. For every path evolution takes, there will be many that it could have.

    Say there is are two mutations in a generation of Giraffes. One of these mutations makes the neck of the Giraffe longer, one makes it smaller. These mutations are equaly improbable, but the smaller mutation is less likely to be passed on, while the genes for the longer neck makes their chances of survival higher and therefore has a higher chance of being passed on. This means that in the next generation the odds of that change is far larger as it is now a hereditory gene and not a random mutation.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.