Things that make you believe in a God

[Jackrabbit]

Just as long as we're clear that you completely made that up, and even the most twisted logic couldn't possibly derive that from existing evidence, cool.

Uh...the world is replete with species from independent lines that evolved similar organs in a similar fashion.

Plus natural selection systematically makes everything more complex.

Simon Conway-Morris of Cambridge has outlined it beautifully.

Plus your mom told me.

[woot]

Uh...the world is replete with species from independent lines that evolved similar organs in a similar fashion.

This is true, but this isn't what you said. Eyes and wings have evolved many times. Placentals and marsupials have evolved into various forms that sometimes resemble each other. Hominins evolved exactly once.

[Jackrabbit]

This is true, but this isn't what you said. Eyes and wings have evolved many times. Placentals and marsupials have evolved into various forms that sometimes resemble each other. Hominins evolved exactly once.

This was my point. Natural selection makes species converge and more complex. So human evolution has always been inevitable.

[Jackrabbit]

naturally wired to look for the transcendant? Or naturally look for explanations as to why things are the way they are?

the latter leads to the former.

[woot]

This was my point. Natural selection makes species converge and more complex. So human evolution has always been inevitable.

Your work remains ahead of you if your intention is to provide any support for your conclusion. Natural selection is partially responsible for the vast diversity of life, including the diversity of phylogenetically distinct creatures filling similar ecological niches.

On the other hand, natural selection does not necessarily cause life to become more complex. Some organisms have become more complex, but at great cost. The most successful lifeforms on earth remain very simple. Either way, mutations, not selection, are the source of increasing complexity. Selection can only act in favor of existing complexity. You would furthermore need to define what we mean by complexity; I've been assuming it has something to do with number of genes, in which case humans would lose out to moths and various other "lower" organisms.

It seems as though you consider humans to be "more complex" than other organisms. This is an enormous leap of logic that is not supported by evidence.

[Moliere]

As I read this thread, I keep thinking that if we started a thread titled "Things that make you believe in Science" and had a bunch of non-believers make posts, the posts/answers would not be much different than what is here.

[woot]

As I read this thread, I keep thinking that if we started a thread titled "Things that make you believe in Science" and had a bunch of non-believers make posts, the posts/answers would not be much different than what is here.

Agreed. Some are bound to view natural processes like tides as the sign of a creator, while some are simply curious to find out what's behind them. Some see the vast expanse of space and marvel at the pride that makes us think we insignificant organisms on a speck in an incomprehensible void mean anything, while others see the work of a creator. There probably isn't much agency at work here. Either you are programmed in one way or the other.

[Jackrabbit]

Your work remains ahead of you if your intention is to provide any support for your conclusion. Natural selection is partially responsible for the vast diversity of life, including the diversity of phylogenetically distinct creatures filling similar ecological niches.

On the other hand, natural selection does not necessarily cause life to become more complex. Some organisms have become more complex, but at great cost. The most successful lifeforms on earth remain very simple. Either way, mutations, not selection, are the source of increasing complexity. Selection can only act in favor of existing complexity. You would furthermore need to define what we mean by complexity; I've been assuming it has something to do with number of genes, in which case humans would lose out to moths and various other "lower" organisms.

It seems as though you consider humans to be "more complex" than other organisms. This is an enormous leap of logic that is not supported by evidence.

I already know that natural selection preserves the most adaptable mutations and weeds out less-adaptive ones. And I know that natural selection creates diversity. But convergence is ubiquitous enough that it is saying that evolution (as a whole, not with individual mutations) points in a direction, towards intelligent life.

[woot]

I already know that natural selection preserves the most adaptable mutations and weeds out less-adaptive ones. And I know that natural selection creates diversity. But convergence is ubiquitous enough that it is saying that evolution (as a whole, not with individual mutations) points in a direction, towards intelligent life.

Again, if you'd like to support that conclusion, I'm all ears. You haven't even attempted to do so yet. Why do you think evolution "points" to intelligent life?

[Jackrabbit]

And to the faithful:

I highly recommend this guy:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521603250/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_ rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=07S5AFHZ5JEJ125TF7T5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p =470938631&pf_rd_i=507846"]Amazon.com: Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (9780521603256): Simon Conway Morris: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41yYG7QIXRL.@@AMEPARAM@@41yYG7QIXRL[/ame]

My attitude towards evolution has evolved from (don't know, don't care) to (probably true, don't care), and after discovering Conway-Morris, (true, embrace).

Darwin never used evolution to bash religion, as many are using him to do today (Actually, not many, but they are vocal).

[Jackrabbit]

Again, if you'd like to support that conclusion, I'm all ears. You haven't even attempted to do so yet. Why do you think evolution "points" to intelligent life?

Species tend to converge--> natural selection favors more adaptable mutations--> the brain is a product to help us move and adapt--> evolution drives species toward those with a brain (i.e., intelligent).

[UtahDan]

Again, if you'd like to support that conclusion, I'm all ears. You haven't even attempted to do so yet. Why do you think evolution "points" to intelligent life?

Insects have been around forever and dominate the biomass of the earth presently. They are not sentient. Dinosaurs dominated the earth for about 160 million years and may be dominating still if not for an extinction event probably from space. No evidence of sentient dinosaurs. Then in the very most recent moment of the earth's history intelligent life evolves for the first time in a pretty short span of time relatively speaking. I'm starting to think you are being trolled.

[creekster]

Hey woot, what is the status of the Burgess shale find? Where there or were there not, after more analysis done, fossils to support Gould's suggestion that it contained a whole bunch of basic structures that were never advanced or follwoed up on?

[woot]

Species tend to converge--> natural selection favors more adaptable mutations--> the brain is a product to help us move and adapt--> evolution drives species with a brain (i.e., intelligent).

Interesting argument. First you'd have to support the argument that species tend to converge. There are several instances in which convergence has occurred, but an overall "tendency"? That would take some work.

I will provisionally accept that natural selection favors more adaptable mutations (only over the very long term, and even then it's dicey, but I'll go with it).

The third argument is where things really fall apart. The brain helps us move in the same way it helps other creatures move, so that doesn't help your argument. Furthermore, brain tissue is extremely expensive metabolically. The evidence strongly suggests that brains are only as big as they absolutely need to be. Case in point: the human brain has gotten significantly smaller over the last couple hundred thousand years. Furthermore, I would argue that having such an enormous brain would have been an extreme disadvantage until such time as it advanced enough to begin producing technologies and allowing us to colonize more of the planet. A big-brained species would have required many more calories as well as specialized nutrients that similar but less encephalized species would not have. They therefore would have required a unique situation in which additional brain power was highly favored while maintaining easy access to plentiful and specialized nutrition. For these reasons, it has been hypothesized that the first hominins may have lived on a coast with easy access to oceanic resources, as that may have been the only way of maintaining such a diet.

Paleodemography would seem to support this, as hominin population numbers were exceptionally low throughout the evolution of our species until only very recently.

If a big brain is so evolutionarily advantageous, why is precisely one living species out of untold millions so enchephalized? It seems that fact alone falsifies your argument.

Allow me to provide your argument for you in a different way. The blue whale is the most highly evolved species who has ever lived, due to its unprecedented size. Evolution tends toward convergence, therefore something the size of the blue whale was inevitable. Why latch onto one attribute in one species and pretend that single attribute was the goal of a 4-billion year process that has produced probably billions of species?

Regarding Simon Conway Morris, I'll just say that similar to Francis Collins, the degree to which he argues for the inevitability of humans is the degree to which he departs from the evidence. His views are on the extreme fringe in this regard, and his conclusions make no sense except in the light of his religion.

[woot]

Hey woot, what is the status of the Burgess shale find? Where there or were there not, after more analysis done, fossils to support Gould's suggestion that it contained a whole bunch of basic structures that were never advanced or follwoed up on?

I'm pretty rusty on that one, but my understanding is that yes, today's recognized phyla all had their roots in the cambrian explosion, and that there were still others that do not correspond to any phyla known thereafter. Pretty cool stuff.