Evolution ("by non-random natural selection")

On abiogenesis: here's a pretty good video. The answer to "how did life come from nothing" starts around 3:25.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I swear, but for the fact I know I didn't write this, I'd have thought I wrote this. This sums up my confusion with the "more solid than cement" proponents of evolution.

It was an honor

Then I'm glad the next post after it has my response.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Yes, and an equally well-written one by Best Of, which both seem to be a repeat of what Sati pointed out.

It was an honor

Here we go again. Starship, I like you, I have enjoyed reading your posts on many a thread, but frankly, at this point, you're almost trolling. We went over your questions ad nauseaum over on the "Creationism-Evolution Debate" thread. In all honesty, if you arent convinced by now, I don't know what anyone could possibly say at this point that could help you. Unless there is something specific and new that you want to ask, you have my permission to simply disbelieve evolution by natural selection.

Not that I need your permission De Marquis, but thanks anyway. And while tossing out the trolling accusation is a well-known pasttime (heck, I've done it myself) that doesn't make it true.

Sati wrote a post that sums up my exact views on the subject. And the rebuttals posted to that post seem to only reinforce the point. Me saying so isn't trolling.

It was an honor

I did say "almost". The problem that I have is that it's almost impossible to have a discussion with someone who seemingly wont tell us what they themselves think is most likely to be true, and why they think it. Or at least what their criteria for "true" is.

Maybe trolling is a bit harsh, but I'm extremely frustrated that after all this time, we seem to have made no progress in alleviating your confusion. At this point, I'm telling you that I don't know how to help you. I literally have nothing left to say. I've been here at TV Tropes for almost three years, and that's the first time I've ever said that. You have accomplished something that no one else has ever done: you've worn out De Marquis. So, unless you can tell me what standard you're using for proof, or you care to tell me what alternative model you think is more plausible, I just don't think that there is anything I can do to help you.

Sorry.

This is a false comparison.

Yes, I can imagine my brain spontaneously "developing" in such a way that it would grant me telepathy — if by "imagine" you mean that I could write a fantasy novel about it. But I cannot imagine how such a phenomenon could happen, in a physical sense, while respecting the known physical laws. I could not write a paper describing how such a transformation could work in the same detail and cogency with which, for example, an embryologist can describe how the development of an embryo proceeds.

Furthermore, brains or other organs have never been observed developing whole new faculties from one second to the next, so I can be confident beyond any reasonable doubt that such a thing will not happen to me.

The same argument, more or less, describes why the idea of myself spontaneously growing wings is, as Sati says, just fiction.

On the other hand, when it comes to evolution, we have an accurate, physically consistent description of how the process works. This process has been observed in nature and in laboratory, and it has been modeled mathematically, and it has been simulated on computer systems (give a look at the Tierra program, for example: it is incredibly awesome).

Granted, we have not observed the phenomenon when it happened in the ancient past; but the explanation fits the facts, has been successfully used to make predictions, and has been seen to work in a controlled (if more limited) setting.

It's as if, well, we found a dead person clutching a glass of some liquid, and, testing the liquid, we found that it is a poison whose effects match perfectly the observations of the corpse. Sure, we have not observed the person drinking the poison; but nonetheless, the conclusion "the person must have drunk the poison" is at that point basically inescapable.

edited 14th Mar '13 9:03:37 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

This. if nothing short of God coming down from on high and saying "You morons, evolution exists" then trying to convince maxima is kind of pointless. Science never hits 100% sureness on anything because doing so makes it impossible to change when new evidence causes us to refine a theory,

edited 14th Mar '13 9:02:14 AM by Midgetsnowman

Computational simulations of evolutionary development are fascinating. You can find a selection of different kinds here (you have to download a program called "Net Logo" but it's free and safe). There is an approach within AI that uses evolutionary processes to solve actual computational problems.

I havnt tried this one yet, but it look interesting and fun!

Starship: Sati seems to be giving an inordinate amount of weight to 'direct evidence'. No, we can't directly observe past events, like the evolution of the human eye for example. But that's irrelevant. This, I believe, is a common creationist tactic - arbitrarily dismiss inference and indirect evidence for evolution in order to undermine science. Setting aside the fact that the exact same argument works equally well against creationism (and God in general), and especially well against almost any historical event you might care to name (since they can't be simulated or tested in a lab even in theory), consider this analogy:

A dead body is found*

. Investigations begin, with the goal of discovering the cause of death*

biological studies are performed

. Various hypotheses are put forth, and the initial investigations reveal a deep stab wound on the corpse and a bloody knife lying nearby*

various living things are observed to have close biological similarities and develop according to specific circumstances and patterns

.

Right away, some hypotheses (ie. spontaneous combustion) are disproven by the evidence at hand. The cause of death was probably, but not certainly, the aforementioned stab wound*

. Further investigations reveal a set of fingerprints on the knife and no other wounds on the body. It would seem that this person was stabbed to death by someone else*

Darwin presents his case with The Origin of Species

.

Time goes on, and further investigations match the fingerprints to a suspect and then a motive. The crime scene is found to display signs of a struggle, and evidence is found that the victim had reason to fear for his life*

. A court is presented with a case based on these findings*

the modern theory of evolution

.

And then, someone in the jury stands up and says "You don't have direct evidence! Do you have a video? Were you there?*

" When challenged, they declare that "The suicide pixie must have done it! I have faith! You can't prove me wrong! Stop oppressing my treasured cultural values!*

creationism, essentially

"

See what I'm getting at here? What's with the Arbitrary Scepticism?

Edit: Aaaand Carciofus made the exact same point in about a tenth of the wordcount.

edited 14th Mar '13 9:28:02 AM by Snipehamster

But your example points out more accurately the similarity with evolution — mine was just a generic case of "even without direct observational evidence, it is possible to infer the truth beyond any reasonable doubt".

edited 14th Mar '13 9:27:27 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I'll take your word for it. My post looks like an overpunctuated rant in hindsight.

But seriously, thank you.

edited 14th Mar '13 9:31:11 AM by Snipehamster

Don't feel bad De Marquis. I've been here nearly as long as you have and getting these people who tout their grand knowledge of evolution to do something like read a post accurately and not add their own spin to it gives me similar headaches.

But alas, no need to further derail.

A conceit not everyone accepts; for many reasons, but the biggest one being that that isn't always the case.

edited 14th Mar '13 9:37:33 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Yes, evolutionary computation and artificial life are awesome. I've been playing with the idea of doing some theoretical research on the mathematical foundations of artificial life, but for the moment it's just a pipe dream.

Note that I said possible, not necessary. I cannot guess what you had for breakfast, for example — I just do not have enough information for that. On the other hand, I can be confident that before my birth, a year was approximately 365 days long — I have had no direct experience of that, of course, but the alternatives (world-wide conspiracies and so on) are so unlikely that I may as well dismiss them.

EDIT: A better example. As I said, I cannot guess what you had for breakfast. However, I can say beyond any reasonable doubt that you have a stomach, and that you kept yourself alive until now by eating food at regular intervals and absorbing their nutrients.

I have not observed that directly, of course: but still, it would be highly unreasonable of me to say that somehow this has not been the case.

edited 14th Mar '13 9:53:53 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Carc: Cool, cool, cool, as Abed on Community would say. If you havnt already, do try Net Logo, it's great! (full disclosure- I've published Net Logo sims on their webpage).

@Starship: if direct observational evidence is the only kind you will accept, then it's hopeless. We cant really meet that standard for natural modifications that occurred before laboratories developed.

Uh, what about viruses? I thought it was an accepted proof of evolution that viruses and bacteria's lives are so short that we can observe the processus of evolution in a relatively short time period since their generations pass by so quickly.

What about the people who tout their "grand knowledge" that the Roman Empire existed? All we have is evidence - no direct observation. If you dismiss evolution, by your very own arguments (the ones you quoted in the post in this page) you could dismiss Rome.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Quest: You are absolutely right. And in addition to that, there are experiments involving strains of fruit flies that demonstrate natural selection in action. And field observations. But of course, there are people who will claim that this says nothing about what happened outside the lab, millions of years ago.

edited 14th Mar '13 10:43:14 AM by DeMarquis

Whoa, slow down there Sir Best. I accept evolution, it's kinda hard not to. It's the add-ons I'm in doubt about. Which was what I believe Sati said in his post.

And my point about grand knowledge had nothing to do with direct evidence. It has to do with the humor of watching people get exasperated that folks doubt their theories, and yet many people don't bat an eye that a simple thing like a post written in idiomatic English in the present day that requires no radiometric dating or fossil records to understand can be so horribly, and easily miscontrued.

It was an honor

To make the point even clearer, if you want to declare an arbitrary standard of scepticism, that's fine; but you have to apply that same standard across the board if you want to be intellectually honest. So if you set a standard that tells you not to accept an inference when it's based on a model that is supported by millions of data points, you have to accept every other inference that is based on a similarly supported model - such as the Roman Empire hypothesis.

If you will only accept something you've directly observed you have that right, but if you want to play fair you can't then accept something else that you haven't observed.

And if you want to propose something that we wouldn't accept by your standards you shouldn't expect a positive response. (This is for those who would suggest a divine creator that I haven't observed.)

Seems that I was ninja'd.

What are these "add-ons" that you speak of?

edited 14th Mar '13 10:50:21 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Starship, have you ever seen an electron? Directly, I mean? How do you know they even exist, as all you've got amounts to circumstantial evidence?

Dont you guys get it? He's playing at silly willikers with you. He never said that he only accepts direct evidence, he only implied it. And now he will accuse us of misreading his posts for drawing the implication. Meanwhile, he still hasn't told us what he does accept as truthful. It's a game that Maxima cant lose.

Maxima adopted Sati's post by saying that he agrees with it to the extent that he almost believes he wrote it. Sati's post is pretty clear about not accepting anything until the evidence is 100%. In other words, Sati will accept almost (or maybe not even "almost") nothing as real.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I've spent several posts outlining where I fully agree with evolution, but questioning some it's more....exotic....conclusions; i.e. yes, clearly all life has changed and even split off into different forms in adapting to the environment hence we weren't created by God. (And please nobody start semanticizing this, I know that's not the exact argument, I'm boiling this down to the base). Since I'm seeing the same faces that usually pop up when someone dares suggest they don't fully buy evolutionary theory, I assume we were all there for those discussions.

Sati's post is that a lot of evolutionary theory relies on guesswork and inference, as mnay of you openly state. Hence, some people choose to mark these "conclusions" with an asterisk and hold that perhaps that's not the absolute truth. That's it. No more or less. And I believe I said this before. And again, many of you were here when I said it.

edited 14th Mar '13 11:13:48 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor