Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 4) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 13, 2011, 04:11 (4678 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > Is NS the end of the story? Absolutely not. Is it the best we have? Absolutely yes. I've said before that there's a difference between acceptance and belief, and I accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, until the better explanation comes along. I don't think I have any more to say on this matter...
> > 
> > http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
> > In closing, again, the real problem isn't Natural Selection, it's abiogenesis...
> 
> Natural selection explains NOTHING. We were 55+ phyla, and now we are 30+ phyla, survival of the fittest is a farce. If only the fittest survived and expanded the variation on planet earth, things would get more complex, not less so. 
> 
Tony, -You clearly have a radically different idea of complexity compared to the rest of us here. You're defining complexity as the total number of phyla. David's idea of convergence of many uncomplex into several, more confined phyla but with more complex individuals both fits with the evidence and provides a much stronger argument for a creator. -> So either we are irrevocably reducing the number of phyla on the planet, or we are increasing the number and complexity on the planet. Which does the evidence support?-The evidence supports fewer phyla, with more complex individuals, from many, uncomplex phyla, with complexity defined as both complexity of body form, and neurological complexity. I don't know where you're going with your ideas here, because they are completely off target when you read the entire story of life. We start ultra simple, expand (after 3.6Bn years) into a sudden burst of phyla (but still all comparatively uncomplex when compared with modern creatures). The earliest mammals... look here at the closest thing to human you would find 65M years ago... how on earth can you argue for decreasing complexity when THAT is one of the only mammals on record after the Cambrian? (WAAAAAAAY after the Cambrian!)-This convergence is what motivates David to argue heavily for the influence of intelligence and a creator, and has always been (in my mind) the strongest material argument for a creator. But both dhw and myself would ask the question, why, if omnipotent, take so long? -This site discusses 3 competing theories for the Cambrian. (Including Wolfram's.) Apparently the line leading to insects began diverging from chordates 900M years ago. -Apparently I'm going to have to find time to study Cambrian fossils...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"