Debate: Are we naturally religious?

It didn't. There's lots and lots of these fossilized single cell life forms throughout the fossil record during that period, and nothing else.

All I'm suggesting is the THEORY is mostly right, but has some flaws. To be more correct, it would include some sort of element of catalyst and catastrophic events. Something kicked it into gear after those 2B years. And something caused the variety of life to appear all at once in the cambrian explosion. And catastrophic events tend to wipe the slate nearly clean to start from near scratch.

This latter point has nothing to do with mutation or long time periods associated with the theory.

I'm not at all suggesting intelligent design or anything like that.

 

So confronted with scientific fact that disputes parts of this "objective" decision, you would reject the new information and stand by the textbook?

Interesting. Sounds more like a religion than science anymore.

 

You're right, the information isn't new. Makes me wonder even more about the textbooks these days.

 

This is not my opinion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

 

When the first sentence starts with "Others PROPOSE" then it sounds like opinion to me. And that "others" propose different opinions.

Oh, and it doesn't describe natural selection in the least.

 

In fact, they're supporting my suggestion about something in the environment being a catalyst.

 

I never tried to disprove natural selection.

I've been told that kind of thing is a straw man.

 

That is true. There is no evidence of natural selection, as the pbs link says, for most of the first 4B years.

That's a different thing from me saying "there's no such thing as natural selection" which is what you imply is my point.

The Theory of Evolution relies heavily on Natural Selection and implies that life progressed from a single celled organism and over eons of slight mutation turned into all today's modern species, including Man. I pointed out that this is not correct.

Life didn't progress for 2B years, so something else (catalyst) is involved and omitted from the Theory.

Catastrophic events completely alter the long term effects of mutation and adaption. The species that survive aren't the fittest, they're the ones that were furthest away from where the asteroid hit the earth.

If not for the asteroid hitting the earth 65M years ago, there's no reason to believe the earth wouldn't still be ruled by dinosaurs. After all, they dominated for hundreds of millions of years BUT their chain of succession via Evolutionary principles was abruptly terminated.

And for millions of branches on the Phylogenic tree to appear all at once suggests that Natural Selection or Adaptation or Survival of the Fittest was not involved.

 

Well not to let this get too far off topic, but please everyone be mindful that the term 'theory' is deliberately misconstrued by some who wish to treat evolution as divided opinion rather than fact. Gravity, relativity, and germ theory are all classified as theories. That's not to say theory is unwavering fact (what is?); science is built on skepticism and challenging and debunking theories leads to greater scientific discoveries. Note how you will rarely (never?) hear creationism or intelligent design referred to as 'the theory of creationism' or 'the theory of intelligent design'. The pushers of that doctrine have perverted the word theory to their own ends. The term theory is reserved for what they disagree with which (by definition) ironically lends credibility to their opponents, or at least steals credibility from their own line.


With regards to Cambrian radiation, fossil records aren't complete. We're talking about, as Denny has pointed out, an extensive time line of life on Earth, of which we have limited fossil records. The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is the oldest argument in the (non-text) book. Just because we can't explain something with our current science doesn't invoke the need for a lazy "God did it" answer--it invokes the need for more scientific investigation! I suppose "we're working on it" seems like an equally weak answer to "God did it, now STFU," but if the religious are true in their stance, they have no need to fear scientific results. Everything will eventually end with God, right? Once the Cambrian explosion is figured out there will be something else for creationists to jump to, but each foothold they reach gets more precarious.

Creationists (Dembski, etc.) have been quick to jump on evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for a quote in Watchmaker where he says "...we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." But that quote is taken out of context, much in the same way the word theory is used out of context. Its just the preface to his probe into the possible explanations for such gaps, including macromutation. The theory of evolution is still evolving. Perhaps that is why the religious treat science in general with such scorn--religion doesn't evolve. Is it fit to survive?


To the topic at hand, though--there are several examples of why religion is unnatural. Take, for example, the disdain for the human body. If religion is natural, why is nature so reviled? The perfectness of design is very easily debunked scientifically, but religions typically debunk their own assertion in the way they (mis)treat human genitalia and the libido. Or the fact that almost every species to exist on Earth has gone extinct--that one is a bit suspicious, no?

 

Speeds,

My comments and observations are aimed at improving the theory of Evolution. Most descriptions of the theory include 4 or 5 basic principles or laws, including the passing on of genes to the next generation, adaptation, not having a species eaten out of existence, etc. And Natural Selection. I'm just suggesting it needs 6 or 7 or 8 basic principles to be more complete.

I suggested a missing catalyst explains the lack of evidence of Natural Selection for more than half the life of the planet. Some scientists posit this catalyst was the atmosphere reaching a certain level of oxygen, which is plausible and the kind of thing I'm looking for. It's just a guess, though. There are other possibilities I can see, like the moon moving away to a far enough distance to keep the tides from being 100 feet tall. That'd be one thing missing from the theory.

I suggested that the Phylogenic Tree has been burned to the ground and regrew from near scratch. Mammals became dominant after the dinosaurs were killed off by a freak but recurring/periodic kind of catastrophic event. Evolution from a single cell to Man over billions of years was only possible because of asteroid strikes and other natural type disasters. The theory should include this fact.

And there is an artificial component needed to update the theory. We cross pollinate plants for characteristics that have nothing to do with adaptation or selection or survival of the fittest. We pollute the water and kill off entire species (almost another kind of catastrophe). We make poisons to kill off undesirable pests. We're manipulating genes with science, and that's a radical alteration to any natural kind of growth of the Phylogenic Tree. In fact, you could classify this as a kind of intelligent design - we are the designers, not in the creationism sense of the words. I'd consider this critical to having a more complete theory.

 

igotask8board-

The Prime Mover argument is one of the last vestiges for people almost willing to accept science but unwilling to accept their own finite mortality. There are several counterarguments to it, but the simplest is as follows: if the proponent of the cosmological argument is willing to accept the scientific method, tracing the origin of the universe back to its initial stage and then throwing out the scientific method when that point is reached is contradictory. You can't say you agree with science in what we've learned about the development of the universe and then put a divine stamp on it at year zero. Either you believe in the scientific method or you don't--you can't have it both ways. Another problem with the casual argument is that if everything has a cause, what is the cause of god and design? If it is exempt from cause, why? If everything has a cause, EVERYTHING has a cause, right? Also, if there is a cause, why must that cause be divine? Couldn't the cause be something else? Unmoved mover proponents prefer not to delve into these questions in favour of using the "god did it" line which is no better than other religious viewpoints against science.

 

The Theory of Evolution doesn't claim to know/explain how the first forms of life came into being, nor do we fully know. I don't at all suggest it came about because of some supreme being.

What it does do is attempt to explain how all the varieties of life we see have evolved from the simplest forms. Over eons and countless generations of reproduction with random chance of the tiniest mutation as genes are passed on, the forms of life became varied and more complex. That mutated forms that weren't viable did not survive. That inferior species became prey for the superior ones and the superior ones simply lived to reproduce. That some species survive to pass on their genes simply by producing so many offspring that predators can't kill off the species. The fossil record, even with significant gaps and missing species in that record does support that all this is true.

My argument here is that this theory is incomplete.

1) None of these processes happened for most of life's history, so some catalyst or set of conditions must also be present to enable or kick start the whole set of processes. I'm not at all suggesting an intelligent designer or supreme being, but something along the lines of the right mix of gases in the atmosphere and/or the right influences of the moon's gravity on the tides and/or other conditions that we don't fully understand at this point. The right kinds of catalysts or conditions can rapidly alter the Evolutionary processes (explain the Cambrian Explosion).

2) That Evolution does not fully explain how life evolved from simpler forms; it is at least a combination of accepted/proven Evolutionary principles and a number of catastrophic events throughout history that combine to determine which species survive and which species abruptly disappear. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is the example I use to support this - the dinosaurs didn't die off because they couldn't adapt to the environment, nor were they some inferior species that got eaten out of existence.

3) That man is an intelligent agent that has radically altered the Evolutionary processes. The Buffalo became near extinct because we made guns and hunted them to near extinction for sport. We create poisons to kill off undesirable forms of life (pests). We selectively breed plants and animals for traits that suit our desires (bigger faster horses, sweeter pineapple, grapes without seeds, pigs with lower body fat etc.). And more recently we have the know-how to scientifically alter genes (and clone!) to select traits we desire.