Evolution And My Job

[thessalonian]

So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?

[havok579257]

whoa whoa whoa, who are you to say my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather wasn't a dodo. how dare you sir. maybe your just mad because your ancestors were frogs.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699']
So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?
[/quote]
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/377484935_b4ee114483.jpg[/img]

The brain is kind of only secondary to evolution. Random mutations occur in genes, and those which are beneficial tend to be passed on via a reproductive advantage.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

It must be remembered that individuals don't evolve, species do. One does not really see evolution on an individual scale but rather species wide scale.

That being said, you need a mechanism for evolution. In creatures, the mechanism is reproduction. Your guidance equipment does not reproduce itself and make more guidance systems and thus it has no way of getting better or worse (well it will get worse overtime as observed by the second law of thermodynamics, but that is another point).

[thessalonian]

I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the mail or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin.

Edited March 11, 2011 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299867385' post='2220140']
I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the mail or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin.
[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299867385' post='2220140']
I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the mail or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin.
[/quote]
Again, the only possible response I can come up with:

[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/377484935_b4ee114483.jpg[/img]

[Laudate_Dominum]

The evolution of sexual reproduction is super interesting imo. 'Tis one of the big deal topics in contemporary biology too.

Here's a decent little summary: [url="http://www.philippwesche.org/old1/es.html"]Evolution of Sex[/url]

Edited March 11, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[AudreyGrace]

The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2

[sixpence]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299733266' post='2219746']
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/377484935_b4ee114483.jpg[/img]

The brain is kind of only secondary to evolution. Random mutations occur in genes, and those which are beneficial tend to be passed on via a reproductive advantage.
[/quote]

THIS!!!!!!

[sixpence]

1. what do you mean "better"? what makes an ant "better" than an aardvark? They are both surviving in their environment

2. machines, though they are super amesome, do not reproduce and do not have a "population" per se.. and therefore cannot evolve

3. if you want to ignore all that... you could maybe say that people's preferences are the selection force on the machines.. with only the one's people like continuing to be produced... when you are talking about living things, this Miiighhhtt be comparable to breeding dogs or livestock... people are the selective force here too. In nature... the force that selects who gets to move on to the next round is called "natural selection" and "sexual selection" and, depending upon who you ask, the influence of God's will sometimes....

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699']
So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?
[/quote]
One of the worst interpretations of the theory of evolution I have ever seen.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1300385127' post='2221420']
One of the worst interpretations of the theory of evolution I have ever seen.
[/quote]


It's not an interpretation of the theory and I said below it was a bit TIC. I was just thinking out loud a bit and also looking to probe some thought. I am ok with evolution as a theory but it would have to be guided is the point of what I wrote.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373882' post='2221392']
The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2
[/quote]

Amen.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373882' post='2221392']
The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2
[/quote]

I think the quote you may be thinking of is "Faith purifies reason...[but if removed from reason] faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition" (Fides et Ratio). I have never come across the quote you use and when looking for it online, though I found it, I did not find any real citations for it or any direction to where it would be in an actual document released by the Pope. Also, I do not agree with the general role given to science in the quote you use. The role seems to be appropriate to Reason, at large, as the first light that God gave to humanity and not to science specifically. I think the appropriate relationship is spelled out in Fides et Ratio.

[xSilverPhinx]

The "guidance" of evolution is natural selection and it's actually a very simple process: living things are born with genetic variations within a species (as was pointed out, it's species that evolves, not individual animals) and the environment selects which characterisitcs survive and reproduce. The next generation is born and the process repeats itself. That's the summery of natural selection.

A valid analogy would be artificial selection (breeding). When you breed animals, you select those with characteristics you want and breed those again to produce offspring with a higher chance of inheriting those characteristics. Your analogy fails because machines are not living things, do not struggle to survive and do not reproduce with random variations.

If you look at dogs, for instance. One or more species of wolf (mostly grey wolf) were interbred based on characteristics that people wanted. The process is actually not as simple as going for one characteristic at a time because one effect can unleash a number of unanticipated effects (if you're interested, I suggest you look up a video on YouTube about what happened to some silver foxes who were selected just for tameness in a fur farm). Now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. If you continue this process further, maybe in a few thousand years both those breeds would no longer be of the same species.

The term "species" is sometimes difficult to define. Basically it means a group of animals which can breed within eachother and produce fertile offspring, but there are cases in which two animals of different species but that are genetically close enough have produced fertile offspring, though I don't know how many generations they got out of those.

The great thing about natural selection is that you don't need an intelligent guider for the process, though theists who understand and accept evolutionary theory are able to reconcile god in there pretty well.

Edited May 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699']
So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?
[/quote]

This is not remotely close to a good explaination to an understanding of the evolutionary process, but I realize that you were writing it without the intent to be specific and provide such an explaination.


[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1299737419' post='2219762']
It must be remembered that individuals don't evolve, species do. One does not really see evolution on an individual scale but rather species wide scale.

That being said, you need a mechanism for evolution. In creatures, the mechanism is reproduction. Your guidance equipment does not reproduce itself and make more guidance systems and thus it has no way of getting better or worse (well it will get worse overtime as observed by the second law of thermodynamics, but that is another point).
[/quote]

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection falls outside of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which deals in heat.

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1300373882' post='2221392']
The issue is not how we were created or developed, but whether or not we acknowledge God as the creator.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." -JP2[/quote]

I understand what [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II said, I don't agree with him but I understand what he said. In my mind, if you believe in the creation story of Genesis, you cannot possibly believe in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, as much as Eugenie Scott and Keneth Miller would like us to believe so. Just take a look at them from a scientific standpoint, they are opposites.

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1300385127' post='2221420']
One of the worst interpretations of the theory of evolution I have ever seen.
[/quote]

Agreed but give him some slack, it started a good discussion.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304725300' post='2238133']
The "guidance" of evolution is natural selection and it's actually a very simple process: living things are born with genetic variations within a species (as was pointed out, it's species that evolves, not individual animals) and the environment selects which characterisitcs survive and reproduce. The next generation is born and the process repeats itself. That's the summery of natural selection.[/quote] This is still very primative.

[quote]A valid analogy would be artificial selection (breeding). When you breed animals, you select those with characteristics you want and breed those again to produce offspring with a higher chance of inheriting those characteristics. Your analogy fails because machines are not living things, do not struggle to survive and do not reproduce with random variations.
[/quote]

It's true, Machines cannot reproduce so it doesn't work.

[quote]If you look at dogs, for instance. One or more species of wolf (mostly grey wolf) were interbred based on characteristics that people wanted. The process is actually not as simple as going for one characteristic at a time because one effect can unleash a number of unanticipated effects (if you're interested, I suggest you look up a video on YouTube about what happened to some silver foxes who were selected just for tameness in a fur farm). Now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. If you continue this process further, maybe in a few thousand years both those breeds would no longer be of the same species.
[/quote]

That's microevolution, but yes.

[quote]The great thing about natural selection is that you don't need an intelligent guider for the process, though theists who understand and accept evolutionary theory are able to reconcile god in there pretty well.[/quote]

This is a great reason why it's not compatible with the Biblical Text and the doctrines of the Church. Darwin's Theory of natural selection is defined as, "undirected mutations via natural selection", meaning undirected, not being guided by G-d, nor anyone else. I myself reject darwin's theory as inadequate, but that's another story.

[xSilverPhinx]

RezaMikhaeil, could you elaborate on your understanding of the theory? Because I've already spotted some problems with your thinking and am wondering how far it goes.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304728568' post='2238168']
RezaMikhaeil, could you elaborate on your understanding of the theory? Because I've already spotted some problems with your thinking and am wondering how far it goes.
[/quote]

No problem, the standard textbook definition of Darwin's theory is, "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection". If you believe that, then it's as Richard Dawkins has made clear, incompatible with the belief in the G-d of the Bible. You might say, "G-d put this from of evolution into place to impliment his design", but you have no chance of saying that G-d guided the design because it is undirected by it's very nature. However even saying that G-d implimented his design through Darwin's Theory is a stretch that most Christians, nearly all Agnostics and all Atheists are not willing to take.

I, myself, think that the furthest a Christian that believes the Bible is G-d's Word, can go is to believe in intelligent design, which is defined as, "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence". This is quite different then the typical "creationist" story because it doesn't attempt to fit the Bible [or any other kind of G-d] into science, but rather allows science to tell us about life. Intelligent design is a minimal commitment, scientifically - to the possibility of detecting causation.

Do you see the distinction? Intelligent Design doesn't exclude all forms of evolution, it doesn't. Rather it allows the concept of G-d, where as Darwin's Theory does not. Darwin himself was an atheist and most people that accept his theory are Atheists for a particular reason. It leaves little to no room for the belief in G-d and certainly no room for the biblical account.

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304725300' post='2238133']
The "guidance" of evolution is natural selection and it's actually a very simple process: living things are born with genetic variations within a species (as was pointed out, it's species that evolves, not individual animals) and the environment selects which characterisitcs survive and reproduce. The next generation is born and the process repeats itself. That's the summery of natural selection.

A valid analogy would be artificial selection (breeding). When you breed animals, you select those with characteristics you want and breed those again to produce offspring with a higher chance of inheriting those characteristics. Your analogy fails because machines are not living things, do not struggle to survive and do not reproduce with random variations.

If you look at dogs, for instance. One or more species of wolf (mostly grey wolf) were interbred based on characteristics that people wanted. The process is actually not as simple as going for one characteristic at a time because one effect can unleash a number of unanticipated effects (if you're interested, I suggest you look up a video on YouTube about what happened to some silver foxes who were selected just for tameness in a fur farm). Now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas. If you continue this process further, maybe in a few thousand years both those breeds would no longer be of the same species.

The term "species" is sometimes difficult to define. Basically it means a group of animals which can breed within eachother and produce fertile offspring, but there are cases in which two animals of different species but that are genetically close enough have produced fertile offspring, though I don't know how many generations they got out of those.

The great thing about natural selection is that you don't need an intelligent guider for the process, though theists who understand and accept evolutionary theory are able to reconcile god in there pretty well.
[/quote]
great post. I've read about and seen the video on the silver foxes and actually worked it into my Creation commentary.

I agree to some extent that natural selection doesnt need an intellegent guider for the process. God does let new things spring forth from existing things with a certain spontaneity and independence. However the process does I think need an Intellegent Creator, and God does order, guide and provide for particular transformations and develepments within his plan for creation as a whole or his particular plan for the plant and animal kingdoms which include plans for groups and clades within the kingdoms. For example the first epoch of the animal kingdom. It literally begins in the oceans with the micro-organims and culminates in the appearance of the birds:

Genesis
{1:20} And then God said, “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures above the earth, under the firmament of the sky.”
{1:21} And God created the great sea creatures, and everything with a living soul and the ability to move that the waters produced, according to their species, and all the flying creatures, according to their kind. And God saw that it was good.
{1:22} And he blessed them, saying: “Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land.”

The way God's command is ordered in verse twenty, as well as the way the effect of God's command is ordered in verse twenty one together in a context of an eon across an ever changing planetary environment; it seems to me that God willed the bird group to come into being by means of the increase and multiplication of the animals produced in the waters.

God's Command: “Let the waters produce animals with a living soul, and flying creatures. . . "

The flying creatures are linked to the animals produced by the waters (literally in the waters, figuratively the micro-organisms in the waters and the sea creatures). I will reword God's blessing for the sake of setting in relief what I think is implied:

Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea. And let the birds be multiplied above the land by means of the animals filling the waters.”

or

"Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, so that the birds may be multiplied above the land. . ."

The birds sprung forth from the dinosaurs which sprung forth from the reptiles which ultimately sprung forth from the micro-organisms. With this simple command God effects one whole prodigious eon in the history of Earth. A whole eon of evolution is implied in the simple command and blessing of God. The birds are said by science to be the only species of dinosaurs to survive the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event which I think could be the distinct end of day five.

So a theological way of looking at the dinosaurs could be that they were created by God for the sake of the birds. God particularily willed to transfer the gift of the birds to His children in day six, but He did not will to transfer the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would not be of good use to human persons. So God wipes out the all their species expect for the birds in the extinction event. Birds of course are very useful to us, and we get to use the dinosaurs to study the history of Earth.

From a Catholic point of view (my own personal one) some form of evolution exists because God is Eternal and Processional. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father; the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and from the Son. We call this the Trinity. The natural processes of creation imitate the Eternal Processions of God in some very limited way. God makes things just as He is.

But God is also Infinity, so He is not limited by the processes of evolution which He created. God is able to make things suddenly, miraculously, instantaneously out of nothing and/or out of something. God miraculously creates some things out of nothing and other things out something. Some things God makes out of existing things by means of natural processes designed, drawn and directed by Him; and other things he miraculously and suddenly creates out of existing things in an instant, e.g. the soul of a human person.


xSilverPhinx. You are welcome here. Grace and peace to you. Heck I would even love if you would take a look at my creation commentary. No one else seems to be showing any interest. I seamlessly work science into everything. My interpretation for the creation of the firmament in day two is the formation of the solar system from an interstellar cloud. Scientific discoveries and even some scientific theories fit in perfectly with Sacred Scripture if interpreted correctly in my opinion. So if you want here:

http://sevendaysofcreation.blogspot.com/

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka