This conversation is closed.

Darwinism, Evolution and religions

physical evidences on evolution and darwinism.

  • Jun 22 2011: If evolution is true and God isnt. Can someone pls explain at what point did our feelings and conscience evolve Is it developed at a certain stage, or age Once again, Satan IS 'The Author of Confusion'.
  • Jun 22 2011: If Darwin believed we evolved and were not created since there is "no God". Then why did he cry out for God when he was on his death bed GOD IS 'THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIGHT'. Satan IS 'The Author of Confusion'.
  • Jun 22 2011: Since everyone in here is open to new theories how bout checking out a fellow by the name of Edward A. Kimball He was a Scientist from the 1700's. Awesome man.
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2011: That is not very polite of you to speak a language that a lot of Tedsters don't understand. Mind telling us in English (both of you are proficient) what you are talking about ? I think evolution is probably a viable option and I do not tell God how to create so why should I not accept the theory. It does nothing to my belief system.
    • Jun 9 2011: Matthieu said to me that my topic stays not clearly (I am not anglophone), he asked me what I wanted to translate into English.

      Unfortunately, the evolution is more than one theory, it is a fact. Like the sun, my computer on which I put these words.
      The sun can be an illusion but there exists much of concordant facts, the evolution is exactly similar.
      If your belief is to be thought that:
      - we are not there by chance,
      - that we are higher (qualitatively, spiritually, etc) than the other animals,
      - that there exists a destiny,
      - that you are, essentially, such as you are,
      - you are free
      then you are wrong and your beliefs are in contradiction with the fact of the evolution… and for this reason the evolution is criticized as well by the believers, that reverses the code-thought-beliefs as many believers take for absolute.
      • Jun 9 2011: Evolution is for the benefit of the species, it job is to go on improving. So why no destiny?
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: Derek, we've already been through this in previous threads. The selection pressures exercised on genes are ever changing. If you trace back the ancestry of animals, they have come out of the water, back again and out again. Destiny suggests direction, as though organisms' evolution was premeditated millions of years in advance. In fact, all an organism needs for survival is to be adapted to its current environment.

          Helen if we chose to write in French it's obviously because it only concerns the two of us.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2011: none taken. Seems a little fussy on the part of the admin.
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2011: Why is there a need to subscribe to any of these concepts and theories? Let it be..
    • Jun 9 2011: because if everyone believes in the reality of the religious ideas, there is no science: medicine, technologies, physics, neurosciences, sociology, etc
      To fight and teach science are paramount, all that is political.
      • Jun 10 2011: Hello Raphael. You can't compare the survival of species with the prowess of a few gifted individuals. Even if that was possible; where does the survival of the most intelligent adhere to this scale of survival.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2011: I don't think he is.
        • Jun 10 2011: if i good understood, Scott ask why to subscrire of these concepts. I say to know science (without religion) can change the conceptions on the world, completely different of religious beliefs.
          And if science does not preserve its independence, one runs to the catastrophe as to the USA where the creationnism, like a true scientific theory, is taught.
      • Jun 11 2011: Hi Raphael. I am very old and I don't teach. I have however wrote a book of sorts. My research has taken me to places science has not reached yet; though they have tried and failed. I won't be giving away to much if I give you a taster. People who have had a dream of an atrocity that appears to happen in the future; on a scale of 1-10, their emotional level was about 3-4. People who had a dream of an atrocity has it happened; their emotions reached a level of 9-10.
        Say goodbye to time- warps, it's a shame to put the dampers on the mystical, but a man's got to do what a man has got to do.
    • thumb
      Jun 9 2011: It changes everything. You just don't see it because you're used to the way things are. It informs our way of thinking and our way of doing on so many levels.
      • Jun 9 2011: Hi Mathieu. "Pressure on genes are forever changing." How do they get their information, how do they know what changes are needed? How does the right amount of prokaryotic cells end up in the eukaryotic larger cells and then go on to form a life that as not only got to benefit it's own species but all species? Ability without some kind of guidance would spiral out of control. Your hypothesis explains everything but tells us nothing. Are you suggesting chance plays the leading role. Ask any gambler what chance will do? I am referring to a natural source and not a spiritual one.
        • Jun 9 2011: natural selection : individuals with good genes reproduce better. The principle is the same one as in tournaments, there is always only player gaining among tens, hundreds of players.
          then, you add a heredity, a variability and a reliability in heredity: you find a system super effective for the adaptation (the data processing specialists use this system with the genetic algorythmes).
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2011: Derek, I can honestly say you do not understand the theory of evolution at all. Organisms do not know what changes are needed in advances. These changes are not planned and other changes could have occurred instead of them. Evolution does not have an end-point towards which it strives. Mutations happen that favour certain organisms over others in a specific environment and that's all there is to it. If the evolution of specific body parts was planned, it would not take millions of years. Chance mutations play a role, but not the only role. Natural selection is a non-random process. In a given environment, favourable mutations are selected precisely because they confer to their owner a selective advantage while other mutations die out. Since TEDconversations started, I have seen you repeatedly posting evolution questions that missed the mark on what evolution exactly entails. But it's clearly worse than I thought. Check out how an eye can evolve without guidance or any of that nonsense:
      • Jun 10 2011: Hi Matheiu. Prove that evolution is not by guidence, you can do no more than if you were trying to prove there is a God. Evolution is ability, ability where ever it exists, has to be governed or it would spiral out of control. You can't ignore the laws of nature to suit whatever it is you believe. Evolution = ability. please explain chance in something as complicated as evolution. Evolving is not like building a piece of furniture, it takes a little bit more designing. Environments are one example, life changes to adjust to changes of that environment, which may take millions of years. The mutations go along with the pattern and at the same pace. Remember what I said about ability, do you want evolution to go out of control? You are right about organisms they do not know what changes are needed, but the species do. Change your thinking Mat, it's new ideas that keep the world turning. Natural selection is the survival of the fittest, I am more interested in the survival of the most intelligent, because with intelligence natural selection takes on a totally new aspect. Your thinking is out of date Mat.
        • Jun 10 2011: Derek, prove i can't fly. You don't.
          Is this proves that I can fly? No.
          intelligent design is a belief, not science. Why do you want to believe so much that there exists a direction?
          Cult off Cargo is also a religion, an insane belief where the merchandises would be a gift of gods.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2011: I believe what every evolutionary biologist believes. Even people with widely different views about the specifics of evolution such as Dawkins and Gould would fundamentally agree on this particular point. Your thinking isn't even out of date, it's always been wrong from the moment Darwin came up with his theory. How arrogant of you to call me out of date and close-minded. I am not the only one who has told you that, but stubbornly you insist that we are all wrong and you are right. I have already told you evolution isn't random because natural selection isn't random selection. Species with deleterious tendencies will not survive long enough to get to a reproductive stage. The more adapted form survive, because they are more adapted in their current environment. There is no long term guiding hand. How perfectly anthropocentric of you to take a particular interest in the intelligence strategy of survival too when there are far better strategies out there.

          Please read one or more of the books Raphael and I have suggested for you.
      • Jun 10 2011: Hi Matt. I am not saying I am right, I am saying that I am thinking and not being influenced by others. Einstien's theory of general relativity, now who would question the master? Then comes along the quantum theory of gravity. The two theories clash, so one is wrong, or they are both wrong. That is why I can question your answers. You must not assume that others are wrong and you are right. Answer this; why do some species stop evolving when others go on changing? Why don't they all go on evolving? Crocs and sharks stopped 15 million yrs ago.Darwin's tree of life is just a theory and theories must be challenged, if not life would become stagnant and so would evolutionary biology. Now do you understand why I challenge your ideas. You keep on about natural selection not being random and I agree. I am no different from Dawkins or Gould in this area. The natural selection that you go on repeating concerns individuals or deleterious species, it is not the same as the survival of a species. You mock my introducing intelligence into the debate. Intelligence allows the species to survive in any climate, it's knowledge allows our environment to expand to the stars and one day may beyond. In turn it stimulates the mind, it's the food that intelligent life feeds on. Without stimulation we would not exist. What are the far better strategies out there.? You would have no idea of those stratagies if it was not for intelligence, so don't knock it.
        • Jun 10 2011: Hi, Derek
          all the species continue to evolve/move: the sharks of now are not the same ones as 15 million years ago. The coelacanth also, even if the media claim the opposite.

          The theory of Darwin is obsolete, one speaks now about Neo-Darwinism which takes again the natural selection of Darwin and adds the genetics of Mendel.

          you criticize the fact that one questions your thought, but you do not seem to know the subject.
          One should thus tolerate this ignorance because the intelligence makes it possible to advance in knowledge?
          well, we must thus tolerate the Nazis who thought that the black people were lower than the Aryan ones.
          That a theory can be called into question, it is the logic even of science (refusal of an absolutism and refutability) but before criticized, you must learn it, include/understand it for with the final one: to accept or not.

          A last thing which can astonish: the evolutionists have never to think that the human ones went down from the monkeys (chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobos, etc).
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2011: That is incorrect Derek, general relativity and quantum mechanics both work perfectly well within a certain scale. They can both be right, as long as a unified theory is found that reconciles the two. It is unlikely that either will be totally rejected. In fact, theories in science are never entirely throw away. The General theory of Relativity does do away with Newton's gravity, it builds upon it and improves it. What Newton found was almost correct, what Einstein found is a more complete version of the truth.

          The same can be said of the theory of evolution. The truth will not deviate so far from the current paradigm.

          Also, Raphael is correct in saying that not all ideas should be treated as equally valuable. Unless you can give some good scientific weights to your ideas, you should not be going around assertively saying that selection is all the species (and don't go saying now that it's only your guess when you never prefaced any of your sayings with "I think")

          The reason some species don't change much (they do change somewhat) for long stretches of time is because they are well-adapted to their environment and therefore no random mutation does particularly better in a population than another. The selective pressures are also obviously not the same for all. All these things fit in the current modern synthesis, they are the product of work by Fisher, Elderedge, Gould and others. My final piece of advice to you is know your subject, then you can speculate about it. You base your assertion on questions that have already been answered many times over. Read some books about. There's plenty of books targeted at the layman.
        • Jun 10 2011: Matthieu,
          can you see your email ?
      • Jun 10 2011: Hello Mat. With respect, but you have not answered my question. What are those far better strategies out there? Far better than the intelligence strategy. The apes stopped evolving because intelligence had been accomplished, there was no need for them to go on evolving. If you look around you will see evidence of evolving where species change without the branches on the tree of life dividing. The Galapagos Cormarants are a good example. You are missing that what you want to miss. Your explanation regarding the theories, only confirms what I have already said. Don't take them literally. Tell me of those far more important strategies and I will call it a day. I have researched my work, I have been doing it for over 35yrs. Not evolutionary biology. The design in nature and how information can be passed on to the ability we call evolution.
        • Jun 10 2011: excuse me but how old are you ?
          - you must teach! Can you present an article to us (in a review at committee) which would present your theses?
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: C'est pas forcément tres clair ta description la. Envoie-moi un mail avec ce que t'essayais de dire en Francais et je te le réecris en Anglais si tu veux.
    • Jun 8 2011: lol. j'essayais de dire (à la portée de mon niveau d'anglais et de mon logiciel de traduction...) :
      - beaucoup de croyants, ignorants, estiment que (l'évolution et plus particulièrement le darwinisme) cela n'existe pas, que c'est faux.
      - ci-joint un document où sont présenté un nombre conséquent de preuves. La science ne se satisfait pas simplement de croire, espérons que ces idiots fassent des études de biologie.
      Pas de créationnisme chrétien, musulman ou d'autres mais bien le pouvoir et la réalité du hasard.
      -C'est triste, certains pays veulent enseigner les théories créationnistes car crues par des centaines de milliers de personnes incultes.

      Inutile de me renvoyer la traduction, je vais la modifier.
      bien à toi