>he thinks God and evolution are mutually exclusive
>>366848
Evolution and original sin are incompatible if you hold that the original sin was an actual action that took place by our first parents
>>366848
Blame protestants and their literal interpretation meme
Ah, yes. The old "God did it" explanation, just moved up a step.
>>366866
Which is exactly what the catechism says: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"
There's no convincing evidence of macro evolution. Micro evolution is simply adaptation over time
>he believes in god
>>366879
>christian science
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>366879
Fossils
>>366935
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
>>366954
>Scientists consider Ambulocetus to be an early whale because it shares underwater adaptations with them: it had an adaptation in the nose that enabled it to swallow underwater, and its periotic bones had a structure like those of whales, enabling it to hear well underwater. In addition, its teeth are similar to those of early cetaceans
Sounds like these scientists are just a bunch of eager beavers with a boner for evolution to me. Unless I'm missing something, I was hoping for some more genetic based evidence, something a little more than "hey these have X... Whales also have X. therefore evolution!"
>>366879
>Micro evolution is simply adaptation over time
Okay... So I split a population of species A into two groups, I put one in environment X and one in environment Y. The animals in X will adapt to X and evolve for X. The animals in Y will adapt to Y and evolve for Y. Eventually the A in X will become B and the A in Y will become C. This is macro evolution.
>>367046
Show me a VERIFIED case of this happening
>>366866
Bodies can evolve, soul cannot. Maybe one pair of some hominins got their souls once, thus isn't incompatible with body evolution.
>>367031
So you would completely discount the fact that chimpanzees share 90% of human DNA, obviously showing we shared a common ancestory, and that is not proof of Macroevolution?
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
>>367031
This isn't Jurassic Park. Any DNA associated with fossils will have long been degraded away.
>>366879
there is literally no difference between micro and macro evolution, I would say nice meme but really it isnt, it is just utter scientific illiteracy on your part so, poor meme
>>366848
>He doesn't question his beliefs and refuses to leave them open to change and evidence.
>He only takes in information that appeals to him and his beliefs.
>>367049
This was literally Darwin's first discovery. He noticed that the finches were each adapted for their specific island. Diane Dodd used a laboratory experiment to show how reproductive isolation can evolve in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after several generations by placing them in different media, starch- and maltose-based media. See https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2409365
>>367083
>He noticed that the finches were each adapted for their specific island.
Yes, adaptation over time. They're still finches.
>>366935
Analogous and homogeneous structures
>>367094
The concept of a 'finch' is externally placed. You could call one a fonch and another a funtch and say it's a new species
>>367077
Lol, you mind telling me how evolution disproves God? And I'm not talking about a personal, Christian one.
>natural laws get magically violated whenever it's convenient for me
>>367134
Why don't you give me a rigorous definition of god first before I get back to you
>>366848
>He thinks the only conceptions of God's in human history are the one's that are supposed to care about us
>>367158
>God's
>one's
>>366848
if you accept that mutation happens through radiation or errors in DNA replication, and natural selection is able to filter the useful from the damaging mutations, then the concept of God is completely unnecessary to explain evolution of species. It's not contradictory, it's just useless.
>>367154
Any supreme principle/higher power that isn't a purely natural, physical cause of the universe
>>367171
As in different versions of a single God...
No..?
okay...
>>366879
there's no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Evolution occurs. Depending on what time frames you reference evolution could make no morphological difference or it could turn a fish into a chimp
>>367172
>if you accept these complex interactions of matter, then an intelligent cause of the universe is completely unnecessary
>even though we cannot sufficiently explain the universe in purely materialistic terms
hmmm
>>367189
>or it could turn a fish into a chimp
Show me a VERIFIED instance of something like this happening
Evolution does not, and never will, increase information in the genome. It decreases it
>>367202
All mammals have the same structure of bones in the forelimbs
>>367199
didn't say anything about cause of the universe, I said God is unnecessary to explain the *evolution of species*.
>>367183
>that isn't a purely natural, physical cause of the universe
Science can't disprove metaphysics, so I guess you got me there
>>367211
the principles that drive the evolution of species, namely the phenomenon of life and its expression in DNA, have everything to do with the ultimate cause and physical parameters of the universe. god may not be totally necessary, but he is not unnecessary either
>>366848
It's just dumb protestants (mostly americans) who think that
The catholic church accepts evolution
>>367217
while I recognize that I can't prove metaphysics either, I'm pretty stoked you were smart enough to understand this quickly and saved us both the reddit-tier argument about to happen
>>367202
You must be trolling. What do you expect, a fish to give birth to a chimp? That's not how it works bub.
If you want good evidence to suggest this occurs, one need only look at the fossil record. Consider how Tiktaalik, a fish/amphibian hybrid, was found within a rock later dated right in the middle between the rock layers containing only fish and first amphibians. This is only one tiny part in a plethora of evidence that points to an evolutionary model of reality.
Plus all this nonsense about increasing information... All that evolution requires is that creatures change through reproduction, mutation, and some form of selection (sexual, natural, etc.) which weeds out the less adapted to survive, all of which occur without a doubt.
Given a large enough time scale, why would you not expect animals to have such significant changes that it could be considered a different animal altogether when compared to it's million+ year old ancestor?
>>367202
What about the fossil record
Before ~500 mya we only find algae and microorganisms
After ~500 mya there's fossils of arthropods and trilobites and all sorts of funky shit
>>367219
Evolution has nothing to do with ultimate cause of anything. Nor does it have much to do with muh physical parameters. That's like finding a puddle that perfectly fits the hole it's in and searching for a puddle designer because what are the odds?
I hope you are all just being baited.
>>367245
Ah, so the physical laws that drive the birth of stars and formation of galaxies are in no way related to the laws that drive the development and subsequent evolution of life, good one chief
>>367252
I hope you realise we've all just been playing along, just waiting for some unsuspecting sap to walking in and accuse us of falling for bait.
CoaxedIntoASnafu.jpg
>>367265
I think the confusion was made when you said "ultimate cause", where he thought it meant "ultimate purpose", and you just meant it as the mechanism by which it came into being... perhaps..?
>>367265
There's a reason I went from saying "nothing to do with" to "not much to do with". Evolution isn't innately tied to any particular set of rules. So long as the universe isn't completely random and replicating structures can form, it's set to go. Something that people who bring up "muh fine-tuned universe" apparently can't quite grasp.
Dumb frogposter.
>>367186
You wanted "Gods"
>>367281
But the fact the universe can create replicating, self-aware structures is what my whole argument hinges on. Either, a) there's some metaphysical cause that conscious beings can understand as being intimately related with the mechanism of their self-awareness or b) the universe is a natural by-product of some higher-order process we can't begin to understand.
Your glib dismissal of non-physical causes is premature.
>>367300
or c. self-replication and self-awareness are just natural possible byproducts of any orderly natural universe
>>366879
>Being this stupid
How did you even get through high school (I'm assuming you're American, because, well... who else would try to deny something with an overwhelming body of proof)?
>>367239
>Excluding a few contested reports of much older forms from USA and India, the first complex multicellular life forms seem to have appeared roughly 600 Ma. The oldest fossil evidence of complex life comes from the Lantian formation, at least 580 million years ago. A quite diverse collection of soft-bodied forms is known from a variety of locations worldwide between 542 and 600 Ma. These are referred to as Ediacaran or Vendian biota. Hard-shelled creatures appeared toward the end of that time span. By the middle of the later Cambrian period a very diverse fauna is recorded in the Burgess Shale, including some which may represent stem groups of modern taxa. The rapid radiation of lifeforms during the early Cambrian is called the Cambrian explosion of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota
>>367321
Of which there is some ground mechanism that determines its parameters.
Round and round we go my friend
>>367328
~600 mya
>>367330
Why do these mechanisms need to be any more complex or removed from natural physical processes?
>>367342
Who said anything about complexity? We can't have an infinite regress of natural causes, because a natural cause is always preceded by another one before it. Or do you have an example of a physical process that that doesn't adhere to this rule?
>>367346
The random decay of certain nuclei.
>>367351
Gonna need a source on that. Can't just drop something that violates causality without a source nigga
>>367300
Or c) consciousness is a case of emergent complexity, requiring no non-physical causes or spooky voodoo.
Of course, consciousness *could* be a product of a nebulous "higher-order process", in the same way the desk I'm sitting on *could* have been crafted by fifth-dimensional aliens who travel through time at right angles. But there's no actual evidence for this needlessly complicated explanation, and by raising more questions, it defeats the point of an explanation in the first place.
>>367368
>he lives in a universe where the passing of a threshold of complexity results in the self-awareness of an organic system
>he thinks the emergent process by which this self-awareness arises is enough to explain it
cheers for the kek m8
>>367380
It matters because then you'd be conceding to my argument, that there is no physical effect that is not preceded by a cause, and so on.
>>367367
Look up anything that deals with trying to find a physical source for why one nuclei decays and the other doesn't. It's been a pretty well documented process.
>>367392
>No physical effect *within our* universe
Should that apply to the universe as a whole? Or to every possible universe (if there be more)? I'm not trying to argue one point or the other by the way, I'm just naturally curious
>>367389
What explanation would satisfy you, and why would that be an inherently better explanation?
>>367397
Either this seemingly random decay is explained by as of yet undiscovered quantum dynamics or yes, you're right, causality is violated by these processes. I'm surprised your hinging your argument on such tentative data, compared to the possibility (if not the proof) of an intelligent universal principle that is evident all around us.
But I'll give you that you could be right. I just think it's not likely.
>>367412
I'm not even disagreeing with you. You're right, emergent complexity in the physical system that is the brain results in consciousness. But HOW consciousness arises doesn't explain WHY it arises. It doesn't account for the presence of consciousness in what is supposed to be an inert, clockwork universe, IF consciousness is just a fluke of nature.
But bruh, don't even take my word for it:
>Over and over, Chalmers emphasizes the difference between explaining how consciousness works in the brain and what consciousness is. Thus there is an "easy," though still difficult, problem of consciousness, and the "hard" problem.
>How does the brain process environmental stimulation? How does it integrate information? How do we produce reports on internal states? These are important questions, but to answer them is not to solve the hard problem: Why is all this processing accompanied by an experienced inner life?
>No explanation given wholly in physical terms can ever account for the emergence of conscious experience.
...It will ultimately be given in terms of the structural and dynamical properties of physical processes, and no matter how sophisticated such an account is, it will yield only more structure and dynamics. While this is enough to handle most natural phenomena, the problem of consciousness goes beyond any problem about the explanation of structure and function, so a new sort of explanation is needed.
>>367416
I'm not quite clear, what do you mean by intelligent?
>>367406
Even if the universe's creation is determined by the interaction of higher-dimensional universes, or branes, or whatever, you still have to account for their existence and their parameters, but speculation past this point is pointless t b h
>>367416
I just don't see the proof or evidence for an intelligent universal principle, and know that intuitions about everyday experience are rarely actually universal. It seems intuitively ridiculous that radioactive decay could actually be a random process, it the same way it must have seemed intuitively ridiculous that splitting a tiny piece of matter in just the right way could unleash enough energy to destroy a city.
>>367430
The intelligibility of the universe suggests an intelligent principle. At least as far as we humans can tell. It's not that outrageous of a conclusion.
>>367443
Scientific achievement proves the universe "responds" to rational models of itself. In other words, the intelligibility of our models is congruent with the intelligibility of the universe. If consciousness was some nasty fluke of nature, you'd think we'd be considerably more ill-equipped to survive in a universe that absolutely not meant for us.
>>367444
I don't see how that follows at all. Humans attach special importance to intelligence and conciousness because it defines our identity, but from an outside perspective there is no real reason to. It's like a fish concluding that outside the universe there _must_ be a massive rushing medium that sustains the universe, because it is largely defined by swimming through water and forcing water over its gills to breathe.
>>367476
Your argument would hold water if we thought the whole universe was a big planet with mountains and forests and rivers and shit. I don't see where our harnessing of, say, electricity through the proper understanding of universal laws is tantamount to believing the earth is flat or stars are pinpricks of divine light in the night sky or whatever
>>367470
The universe isn't "meant" for anything, it simply is. Humans evolved to fit into it. Again, it is like a puddle assuming a hoe was made for its benefit, because they fit together so nicely.
But if we want to go down this route, you're correct, humans are ill-equipped to survive in "the universe." We are limited to a tiny miniscule time frame, on a tiny miniscule planet, in a miniscule solar system, etc. The grand total of every single human achievement summed together will still be irrelevant compared to the total flow of time and space.
>>367425
My mistake, I kind of butted into the conversation, I wasn't the person you were originally talking to. In any case, I can see what you're saying, but could it be possible to say that we're simply asking the wrong question? Does there even need to be a why?
You could say how are we even able to contemplate the question why when there was no reason for it in the first place, but we could just as easily contemplate other questions which we readily concede hold no relevance to reality.
Indeed, nobody argues that water is anything more than two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, yet this simple combination can produce the sensation of "wetness"... Could it be that the right combination of neurons in our brain produce the sensation of "consciousness"? Could it be possible that there really is no answer?
I certainly don't have the answer, but just because there appears to be a problem doesn't mean there actually is one. Will we ever know? I don't know. Maybe this is just a defunct of our brains. Maybe they weren't adapted to figure this out. Maybe there really is a problem, and nothing we do will solve it. Maybe we will one day.
>>367440
Ah yes, and it would seem that way for any "cause", be it nature, divine, supernatural, etc...
>>367444
But what is an intelligent principle?
>>367491
>I don't see where our harnessing of, say, electricity through the proper understanding of universal laws is tantamount to believing the earth is flat or stars are pinpricks of divine light in the night sky or whatever
I'm not sure where I implied this. Just that assuming the universe is intelligent because we are is a leap of logic mostly based on human ego.
>>367503
>>367505
>>367507
Look, I'm only arguing for a reining in of scifag smugness than absolute proof of a creator. We don't know. I don't know. I see a system that produces agents that can understand that system and conclude the system was created for that purpose, and not for something else we agents can barely comprehend.
>>367495
It's possible 'why' is just a limitation of the human mind, but at the same time I believe a tracing of natural causes to their origin isn't that ridiculous of a thing to do.
>>367543
But why was it created to produce the thinking agents and not, for examplease, to produce unconcious insects? There are many more of them than there are of us. What makes the intelligent agents so special?
Heck, why limit ourselves to the earth? Really, the system seems designed to produce hydrogen and helium, and everything else to much less of an extent.
>>367567
Because the thinking agents intuitively respond to the intelligibility of the universe, either as an innate curiosity or the manipulation of forces through science.
And of course we're talking about consciousness in general, not just humans. To presume the universe was created solely for humans is lol even for me
>>367543
>I see a system that [does X] and conclude the system was created for that purpose
I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy but I can't remember which one
Is-ought, maybe? Or the naturalistic fallacy
>>367587
>Because the thinking agents intuitively respond to the intelligibility of the universe, either as an innate curiosity or the manipulation of forces through science.
Sure, but action-response isn't evidence of intent. Warmth causes a release of CO2 through chemical weathering or changing the ability of dissolved water to hold CO2, causing further warmth. One is intimately affecting the other, but there is clearly no intent on the part of either. The system simply emerges from a set of natural principles leading to natural interactions.
>>367590
That's silly. Consciousness is an absolute game-changer. Why not speculate about its origin and purpose (if any)?
>>367609
>Consciousness is an absolute game-changer.
Explain
>>367606
Except it would be ridiculous of you to assume atmospheric processes are conscious of themselves, whereas with humans that is the case. Or are you saying consciousness is as deterministic as weather patterns? That might be the case, but that still doesn't explain consciousness. Schopenhauer said that to an objective, empirical observer, we act as we must, but it does not explain our inner experience of these actions.
>>367617
your assertion is a deterministic system of sterile physical processes. with consciousness, we have agents that can not only perceive these processes in an inner experience of "knowing" quite unlike anything this material universe, but can actively manipulate them through trial-and-error. Would you not agree that consciousness is a fluke in your purely material universe that requires an explanation outside of blind physical laws? Or at least, an accounting for within these blind laws that explains how something so antithetical to them can be produced?
>>367621
>still doesn't explain consciousness
You shouldn't turn to supernatural reasoning at the first sign of difficulty in finding an explanation though
>>367635
True, but neither should you return to a reductive one.
>>367632
>Would you not agree that consciousness is a fluke in your purely material universe that requires an explanation outside of blind physical laws?
No
>Or at least, an accounting for within these blind laws that explains how something so antithetical to them can be produced?
Sure, if consistent systems of mathematics and logic and be derived in a "blind" universe then consciousness can too if it is also a consistent system. I don't see how it's antithetical to be honest. The universe tends towards entropy but life acts as a "nega entropy " collector - it decreases local entropy in exchange for higher entropy outside. That doesn't mean that life is antithetical to the universe or that life needs a supernatural explanation.
>>367654
>and logic and be derived
*can be derived
>>367654
It does not need a supernatural explanation, but it does need a more sufficient explanation than "it's a fluke/natural by-product/iunno lol".
Until we have a proper understanding of how these laws operate, and not only how they work but also how they produce these flukes of consciousness, and arrive at a full understanding of whether or not these flukes can be logically derived from otherwise stable processes, it would be presumptuous of us to hedge our bets either way.
>>367632
>with consciousness, we have agents that can not only perceive these processes in an inner experience of "knowing" quite unlike anything this material universe, but can actively manipulate them through trial-and-error.
We don't really have to be "conscious", in the sense that we usually apply it, to do that kind of stuff though. You just need sensory organs connected to a central nervous system capable of being conditioned.
>>367692
>It does not need a supernatural explanation, but it does need a more sufficient explanation than "it's a fluke/natural by-product/iunno lol".
It needs whatever explanation is true. Terr are multitudes of things about us that are natural by-products and flukes of natural history. The blind spot, the fragility of the knee socket, etc. Why should conciousness be any different?
>>367753
OK, yes.
>>367753
>Because it's just on another order of flukes than "lol male nipples".
Why? Why is conciousness more important than the blind spot in terms of flukes?
>>367760
Because it is fundamentally different than vestigial organs. it can still be a fluke of course but like any really big mistakes it requires an explanation
>>366848
>>367590
Seems similar to the Spandrels of San Marco argument of Stephen. J. Gould
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
For example the adaptation of feathers was likely initially for warmth (or some other factor) and was only later utilised for flight
>>367120
Technically, the definition of a species is the inability to reproduce viable (sterile) offspring.
>>366879
Micro evolution is more than "simply adaptation over time". It subsumes selection, otherwise we'd be talking about "micro genetic deviation".
The randomly deviated genetic traits are still selected at the micro level, or there would be no collective trait changes in a species -- collective trait changes which obviously have been documented countless times.
>>366848
It is in America.
>>368036
Christianity does not merely exist in the US, though. Most European Christians do not believe in Genesis literally.
It's quite peculiar that US Christians and Asian Christians cannot conceive of Christianity without literal interpretation of Genesis, especially when you consider that they accept non-literal interpretation of other books of the Bible.
>>366848
>he thinks the Abrahamic god and evolution are compatible
>>368043
It's not that peculiar if you imagine these people believing that anyone who denies the validity of the Bible is an agent of Satan.
>he realises his believes are a crock of shit so he ignores the craziest bits of his holy book
>>369942
religious moderates are intellectual cowards
>>367202
Information gain and loss is bullshit.
Let me walk you through it.
Proteins are derived from RNA which is derived from DNA (Generally).
The function of a protein is important to the organism.
The function of a protein can be changed by minor changes to the amino acid sequence (Among other things). Whether this is a good (increased functionality or additional good functionality), neutral change (No difference in functionality) or bad change (Decrease in functionality or additional harmful functionality) is not predictable especially since good or bad functionality is relative to the environment.
A Protein is encoded by the base pair sequence of the RNA which is derived from the base pair sequence of the DNA.
If failed DNA repair/replication switches a base pair and this changes a protein is this increased information?
If a stop codon (signal to stop translating RNA->Protein) mutates into something else then does the new information beyond the original stop codon count as increased information?
If failed DNA repair/replication accidentally causes a shifted reading frame (such as an insertion or deletion of a base pair) and the entire protein sequence is different does this count as increased information?
DNA is almost constantly in a state of degeneration and repair and while the repair is pretty good it is not flawless.
Additionally the reproduction rate of small organisms (bacteria, which also have a plasmid which allows more liberal swapping of DNA) allows for bad mutations to be selected out and bad mutations have a lesser effect on sexual organisms since a second chromosome can supplement the failed functionality of the first.
>>369952
>the only valid stances are extreme ones
