TED Conversations

AbdelRahman Siddig

This conversation is closed.

The real evolution happened to our awareness not our bodies

The ability to create modern tools existed since we exist
What real evolved over time is our awareness of the
Law of physics and chemistry which was installed and configured for us before we arrive and ready to be discovered
why we are able to make modern tools only now?
what was missing before
The raw materials
or the deep relations between these materials (physics &chemistry)
or our awareness of that fact this materials are reshapable into different form of tools which helps us to save our time and efforts
but claiming man was ape this just pure theory which will never be proven
because man was created by GOD

Topics: life
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 22 2011: Simple and comprehensible proof of the the theory of evolution by the Null Hypothesis:
    For evolution to NOT happen the following things would need to NOT happen:
    1: Heredity
    2: Genetic Drift
    3: Natural Selection
    4: Mutation

    Those are 4 of the most fundamental governing principles of evolutionary theory, and because all of them are proven to happen, it is accepted that evolution is a valid theory of speciation.
    It should be understood that when scientists use the word "theory" it means something very different than how it is used in common parlance, an accepted theory is the pinnacle of a worthy idea, to say that evolution is "just a theory" shows a lack of understanding of the principles of scientific inquiry and ignorance of the scientific method.
    • May 23 2011: I was laughing about that today. "just a theory" like do you have the slightest understanding? Great post.
    • thumb
      May 24 2011: So, let me get this straight. Because Heredity, genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation occur, we evolved from bacteria? When you say evolution, perhaps you need to define the term? I'm sorry, but I'm not following the logic. We can certainly say that "evolution" in the sense of heritable genetic changes in populations exists because of the aforementioned points, but does that prove bacteria to man evolution...I would say hardly and in fact not at all. What would the null hypothesis be to ACTUALLY prove evolutionary theory? I agree that theories are not the same in all disciplines, but does this somehow make evolution a "more strong" theory? If evolution was proven, it would be a law, and it has not been proven, so it is not a law. Pretty simple I think, no?
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: The logic is not faulty, those 4 principles describe the mechanics of basic adaptive radiation.
        I was not trying to articulate the details of phylogeny, but in short, yes, those 4 principles are the fundamentals of speciation. Though I wish that I could explain to you how proto-life gave rise to life and differentiated giving rise to prokaryotes and eukaryotes, how single celled organisms adapted into complex multi-cellular organisms, and how every species has come about, I'm afraid that all those details will not fit in this format. But really the details would only elaborate on the principles I've already listed.
        The theory of evolution is a theory of speciation, the principles of which I have provided. If you would like a fuller understanding of their respective mechanisms and other pertinent concepts to the idea I would strongly recommend picking up a book on the subject. I could recommend a few if you'd like, I'm a fan of textbooks if detail is what you want that is where you will find it, if you prefer politicking the science and want controversy pick up a work of non-fiction to see where the contentions lie. A good short essay that you may appreciate if brevity is what your into "the salamander's Tale" by Dawkins is good to highlight the divide between how many people think of speciation vs. the reality of speciation by describing a common problem in peoples minds concerning speciation, namely that we arbitrarily categorize species based on assumptions about phenotypical morphology.

        Just because you have a hard time believing, imagining, or understanding that single celled organisms could give rise to all the complex forms of life that exist does not change the fact that it has thus far held up against every level of scientific scrutiny since proposed and is still the prevailing theory and only gaining strength in validity as research continues to pump out new affirmations.

        More on laws.....
      • thumb
        May 24 2011: On Laws: As Far as I know, Laws only exist in the field of mathematics such as the 4 fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism). More forces may be discovered concerning the nature of the universe, but besides for the fundamental forces nothing can be said to be a law (and even these may come into question at some point).

        "If evolution was proven, it would be a law, and it has not been proven, so it is not a law. Pretty simple I think, no?"
        Your profile indicates that you have an education in scientific fields and yet you are saying things that indicate that you do not understand the foundations of scientific inquiry? How is it that you can study Biochem at the postdoc level and not pick up on the definitions of Laws versus Theories?
        Scientific findings never speak in terms of absolute Laws because our understanding of the universe is never absolute, even the elementary table of elements and particles are still being defined. Just because something is not said to be absolute does not mean that it is not most of the story. There is still much to be yet discovered and understood, but that doesn't mean that we don't know what the general picture or story looks like.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: Hi Meher,

          Just needed to point out that all I am saying is that there are some sciences that are more "hard" than others. So, for example, biochem like math is a harder science than evolutionary biology. Why? Because it does not rely on assumptions of past events. It can be tested in the here and now. Unless we have time machines, we cannot observe evolution, and therefore it is not on the same level of scientific scrutiny. It enters the historical realm which is unfortunately very subjective on many accounts.

          So, can you agree with me that evolutionary theory is not as hard a proven fact as say one amino acid in a particular protein interacting with another in its partner protein? If you can agree with me here, then we can go on. The point you were making about evolution being proven by null hypothesis is really going too far - that is what I am getting at. I actually fully accept all except the natural selection leading to speciation points you describe (mutation, genetic drift, heritable variation). These can all occur, independent of evolution from a common ancestor, no?
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: I hate the observation defense...

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a7ZPZQUfk

          It is so impractical...

          http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fast_evolution_observed_in_butterflies
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

          The reason it is the "Theory of Evolution" is because we do not know everything involved in evolution, not that evolution is an actual theory. A contributing factor to evolution in which YOU should be arguing here is "How did the original cell come into existence?" Now that is a complex question worth actual time.

          Now from my understanding Meher studied this information in-depth, so, I won't bother linking you to a thousand websites that prove evolution factual. However, real quick....

          When faith comes prior to science, there is MASSIVE room for error. Skepticism, logic, and critical thinking become tools/skills of ignorance rather than used genuinely and with an open mind.
        • May 31 2011: Cont:

          Remembering, it is a matter of increasing diversity while increasing depth of the pool. We will survive if we keep a deep and wide gene pool.
        • Jun 3 2011: To PM on 02Jun2011:
          Yes, the "attempts" at control you point out are the same crock. Furthermore, I keep hearing it. So, let us leave the “idiots” in the past and understand how to implement it on a constructive path. Realize that the ability to love, care, understand morality etc are GENETIC!

          Otherwise, a zygote become a human because you love it. If true, we could do it with dogs, cats, and trees!

          If you choose to focus on education, be happy in a world filled with sociopaths because that is evolutionarily favorable--regardless on where you think we came from!

          To the specific comment:
          "I too care about where we're going, and neo-evolution is a complete crock for dealing with that. Do you honestly think we can drive evolution to some higher ground in the short time needed to deal with problems on the world today? "

          Yes, I do. I think the ability to give a crap, see, understand, and drive to implement change are genetic. Your mind is not a magical thing. It is the intangible functions of the brain. The brain is made of cells and cells are driven by genes. Do you not agree?


          "Now I will proceed to disagree on the future benefits of gene "defining the best possible gene pool we can create"... ... Okay, in a practical way, describe how we can do that?"

          Make the impractical practical!

          It seems you already believe that it is impossible. Therefore, any attempt would be viewed as impossible. For example, genotype everyone at their first check up.
          This would complete the current “phylo-genetic” tree for our species and we can then test theories off this data set.

          Cont:
        • Jun 3 2011: Plus, when amy and bob get married and have kids we can have the observation tested.
          Moreover, this would be done as high-school science classes. Any abnormal traits would be encouraged to increase the width of the gene pool. However, we would choose which is considered “best” based off the decrease in obviously unfortunate genes. In other words, you pay/assist people to keep having kids if they contain BRCA2!! However, exhibit control if the frequency is high to the point of damaging the healthcare system. Plus, how would you know if it will damage it unless you test for acceptable holistic approaches? Wow, health care becomes cheaper, you know to eat xyz, and your life is increased and improved because the level of science is not elementary… it is HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE!!!!!!

          To point out, my family name is a known genetic disorder, my friends who exhibit disorders have heard my argument in full, and this is not impractical for someone with imagination.

          So, how would you implement your idea? Moreover, using my idea as a template make my argument for me! If you are hear to understand and move forward, you should be able to run with my idea and point out the ways to improve it. (regardless if you agree or not!) However, you stated the idea is ridiculous before proposing any.


          “So, why would we even reconsider such a rediculous notion?”

          “Clearly we don't have any "ideal" genes in humanity.” Mother Theresa gene?

          “We actually desperately need education and knowledge and perhaps we need to go back to our roots to understand how moral responsibility and love and care and working together could perhaps be way more important than seeking the right genes. This involves education, not "neo-evolution"

          As stated and I believe you cannot argue, negative to the above (e.g. love) are favorable. The argument of loving upbringing is nurture which cannot change the nature. Otherwise, we would teach trees to dance.

          cont:
        • Jun 3 2011: In the end, I think your idea of education is correct. However, you need a school to teach in and with out neo-evolution your “school” will never exist.

          Post script:
          Nature vs. nurture is really BS unless you understand how it actually works.

          Genotype creates the phenotype! Dogs dont start walking on two feet and shop at starbucks.
        • thumb
          Jun 7 2011: Jonathan, I have a hard time following your arguments. So, you are saying that by taking the genotype barcode for everyone individually, we will be able to decide which genes are beneficial and which ones are not. So, we can then select the good ones and encourage them to reproduce? By the time you genotype even every North American person, we will be long fried by global warming if we don't stop having pipe dreams and focus on the real problems we have today. Do you even know what the leading cause of death is in the developed world?...yep - heart disease - completely preventable by a change in choice of food and exercise habits, having basically nothing to do with your genotype. So, in the time it takes you to genotype a few people (not to mention the money), it would be possible to educate millions about how their lifestyle CHOICES determine their health and the health of their planet. Check out forksoverknives.com. I'm just sayin...the neo evolution idea is really not going to provide for any schooling - just another eugenics disaster waiting to happen. Explain to me how neo-evolution provides good schools?
      • May 31 2011: Would everyone agree with one thing I will state as FACT:
        the process of heredity, mutation, and everything which goes along with it exists.
        Wow, you look like your mommy and daddy. Crazy leap of faith, I know.
        Thus, with years of growth into the future, we will see humans which look like your parents and further forward, humans which don't so much look like your parents?

        Now, looks are one thing and none visible traits are another thing. The basis for thought could be linked with an external observable trait. Some cultures believe long ear lobes are a sign of intelligence. (e.g. look at versions of the Buddha.)

        Thus, say “long ears” are true. We select for only long ears and the society becomes smarter on the whole. Regardless of any vestigial phenotypes which arise.

        I don't give a flying leap where we came from... it is where we are going which is important and the fundamentals of the "theory of evolution" is the basis for our map/path.

        In my opinion, this was the point of the statement to turn off your minds if you disagree with evolution theory in the TED talk.
        Simple argument toward the future and ignore the inane debate of where we came from, how valid the science is looking backwards, et cetera.

        To repeat: We are here and there is a system of orders which we now understand and into the future will have better understanding. Fact: we can control for the species expression of specific traits if not in the individual phenotype with further study. Yet, if we keep talking about the validity of the science we will not accomplish this goal. We will be talking about my uncle the ape until we are all just apes in some future humans discussion.
        So, let us agree to disagree in regard to where we came and move on to the fact that genes do influence thought and perception; thus, the evolution of man is currently present in our species and we need to define the best possible gene pool we can create. ......next
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2011: Hi Jonathan,

          No problem - no leap of faith there. You really think I'm retarded, don't you?

          Careful now..."we select for long ears"...how does that happen? What makes you think that natural selection works like that. Easy to say - harder to prove. Even Darwin's finches go back and forth between long and short beaks over generations. Maybe in many years people would look like my parents or yours again? Why should they change? Has the environment or will the environment have changed so much to remove the possibility of these traits from coming out again? Questions that need answering, and actually aren't so easy to answer. Has the environment been steadily changing over the years to force evolution as so many assume?

          I do agree in retrospect that the talk is useless for anyone who doesn't believe in the "theory of evolution". I would argue further that the talk was entirely useless though. Why? I too care about where we're going, and neo-evolution is a complete crock for dealing with that. Do you honestly think we can drive evolution to some higher ground in the short time needed to deal with problems on the world today?

          Thank you for laying to rest the agreement to disagree. I agree to disagree on origins. Now I will proceed to disagree on the future benefits of gene "defining the best possible gene pool we can create"

          You say..."we need to define the best possible gene pool we can create". Okay, in a practical way, describe how we can do that? I'm no rocket scientist, but this has been tried in the past, and history can tell us that it isn't pretty. So, why would we even reconsider such a rediculous notion? Clearly we don't have any "ideal" genes in humanity. We actually desperately need education and knowledge and perhaps we need to go back to our roots to understand how moral responsibility and love and care and working together could perhaps be way more important than seeking the right genes. This involves education, not "neo-evolution"
    • thumb
      Jul 4 2011: Pekka, I am have enjoyed your input on the discussion and I know this is an old thread but I am wondering if you have a recommendation as a biochemistry guy on a book that would help me to understand the translational system in the cell. The whole DNA, RNA, MRNA thing It is fascinating stuff. I definitely agree with how "evolution" has become dogma. The cosmologists, paleontologists, physics and chemistry guys do not seem to talk to each other and the result is the gaping holes in the idea of evolution are not even discussed scientifically. God or no God belief there is very little open discussion. Darwin was against the idea of evolution in jumps adopting "natura non facit saltum" Yet it does not seem to bother anyone that there transitional forms are not only lacking but as Stephen Jay Gould put it in the "Panda's Thumb" ..... can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms-that is , viable functioning organisms~ between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? I submit , although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no... The physicists have found that as Max Planck said “all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“ Thanks in advance.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.