h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Going back to an earlier post, I would suggest Kuzushi looks at homology. It´s a nice and easy way to see the relationship between the species, and how they have changed over time.

Thanks Anhaga.

Most of that last post, clive is 'filler'

I thought that you wanted me to expound on what "God is the Evolver" means..

>> What about the FISH IN THE RIVER? English do you speak it?

I'm sorry? I have no 'flash player' on my computer .. I assumed that you wanted to know how God affects the evolutionary process

eg. waves a wand and certain genes predominate etc.
Well .. that's NOT what it means ( I think you know that )

It means that Almighty God has arranged us in pairs ( some organisms are assexual, I know ), and He causes us to evolve by design. What don't you understand by that?

"YES, all of that about fish and the river and the currents and the genetic drift and the mutation is all true - that's how god does it."

>> does he sits back casually and lets it happen all by itself? 'cos that's what appears to be happening.

Oh dear .. you are bringing the time dimension into it .. 'sit back casually' --- meaningless .. He is the 'owner of time'.
He simply is the Arranger .. it is He who fashioned the universe as it pleases Him. He is responsible for the 'birth of the universe' (big bang?) He created the creatures in the way which pleases Him .. this includes the possibility that mankind (or any other creature) was made by an evolutionary process
eg. over billions of years

The simple statement "God created mankind in His image" means different things to different people .. Almighty God is not a monkey
does not look like a monkey..
does not sound like a monkey..

HE IS COMPARABLE TO NONE!

PS. The creation process does not have to be 'abracadabra' and in a flash there was Adam

Hi WG,

>I find myself staring atheism in the face

Say it ain't so!

Gif

>>Most of that last post, clive is 'filler' <<

Yes it's called ridicule. You don't get to have a serious conversation with me becuase you repeatedly show yourself to be incapable of it.

I made a quiet serious post that I didn't expect you to actually address (as I said) and so since you you some completely lived up to that rather meagre prediction - yeah you don't get to have a serious conversation until you start engaging with me on the point at issue.

You made lots of noise and bluster which was entirely irrelevant and when you finally deign to stay on topic you didn't actually say anything useful or in any insightful.


But, Warner, I expect nothing less.



>>I thought that you wanted me to expound on what "God is the Evolver" means.<<

Indeed, with reference to the cichlid fish in the lower congo river please.


>>I'm sorry? I have no 'flash player' on my computer<<

No, no it's quiet alright.


Let me help.
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

However, if for some perverse reason you feel unable to install this generic piece of software, that's why I sent to the not inconsiderable trouble of *explaining what was in the video.*

But if I'm going to have to do all the hard work here (and I can see that I'm going to have to since you seem either unwilling or incapable (I can't tell)

Here is a scientific paper that describes the study that was featured in the video.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/149

Since you acknowledge

Hi Warner,

>The majority of tenets in the theory of evolution are not in conflict with theological conclusions

Blimey, everyone's coming over Darwinist all of a sudden...

Gif

Bugger - hit post by accident - where was I?

Oh yeah

Since you acknowledge having no problems with The English Language you should have no problems reading this. No flash player required! But since it is kind of long and they use lots of big words - you might try install flash and watching the video cos they broke it all down into nice easy to understand bits. Path of least resistance and all that.



>>I assumed that you wanted to know how God affects the evolutionary process<<

Specifically what his role is in the genetic diversification of the cichilds. I thought this would be better instead of ranging over all of biological diversity - this is one example, one clearly observable bit of biological evolution that is measurably happening.

So what is god's role in affecting the evolution OF THESE FISH IN PARTICULAR?


>>waves a wand and certain genes predominate etc. Well .. that's NOT what it means ( I think you know that erm )<<

Actually I have no idea what "God is the evolver" means, in fact I think it is a meaningless and redundant statement of utter vacuity.

But that's why I'm asking you: IN RELATION TO THESE FISH, how is god evolving them, becuase they seem to me to be doing quiet fine all by themselves. Is there some 'extra' step that is exclusively god acting? If so, what is it?

>>It means that Almighty God has arranged us in pairs and He causes us to evolve by design.<<

Uh-huh. No, I refer you back to where I said theistic evolutionists (that would be you) if you can ever corral them into be specific about what "god did it" means will shift ground and say 'ooh it's all supernatural.'

That being what I expect you to do - can you be very specific and say *HOW* god *CAUSES* the fish to evolve? ALSO what DESIGN (in the context of the fish in the river) MEANS and HOW IT COULD BE IDENTIFIED?


>> does he sits back casually and lets it happen all by itself? 'cos that's what appears to be happening.

Oh dear .. you are bringing the time dimension into it .. 'sit back casually' --- meaningless .. He is the 'owner of time'.<<

And yet you manage to totally miss the point. Obtuse on purpose or just dumb as a bag of hammers, which is it?

The point I am labouring to get you to wrap your noodle around is:

Here is an present day actual example of evolution happening, what is god's role in THIS SPECIFIC process, I do not perceive that there is one. THis pattern of genetic and morphological diversification appears to be happening *NATURALLY* without direction or interference.

Since you claim otherwise, I want you to be specific, what else other than what we observe is god actually responsible for making happen in a measurable and detectable way?



>>He who fashioned the universe as it pleases Him. <<

Irrelevant. I asked you about the fish in the river. Not the universe. Stay on topic!

>>He is responsible for the 'birth of the universe' (big bang?)<<

Are you incapable of staying on one topic? What is your major malfunction Private Pile?


>>The simple statement "God created mankind in His image" means different things to different people .. Almighty God is not a monkey<<

I really don't like having to keep repeating myself.

THIS IS NOT RELEVANT.


>>HE IS COMPARABLE TO NONE!<<

Absolutely nothing compared with absolutely nothing is still nothing!


>>The creation process does not have to be 'abracadabra' and in a flash there was Adam<<

Forget Adam - NOT RELEVANT, I want you to THINK (I'm crediting you with this faculty, don't disappoint me) about FISH.

Focus on the damn fish.

What does God is The Evolver MEAN in the context of how these fish are evolving?

Clive .. I looked at the scientific paper.

>> so what is god's role in affecting the evolution OF THESE FISH IN PARTICULAR?

I don't get it? Why *those* fish?
Any fish, and I will give you the same explanation.

You say that 'they seem to be doing quite fine by themselves' ..
What made the fish to breed and mutate genes in the FIRST place?

Almighty God designs all creatures, and gave them their nature .. to breed, amongst other things. He designed the system of DNA (all systems, actually!), along with natural selection etc.

What I'm saying, in effect, is that the 'evolutionary process' itself did not evolve, it was designed that way from the beginning.

The religion messageboards are now permenantly closed, but if you look it up, you will find that these type of discussions always boiled down to whether natural selection is an 'intelligent process' or not .. and of course, there was no agreement!

If you don't like the concept of God being Evolver, I could say 'the Designer', the 'Fashioner from nought' ..

God doesn't 'evolve something' in the way that he is making it happen .. as you say, it's a 'natural process' .. but that's it! He is the designer of this natural process. It is not an accident .. life is not an accident .. conciousness is not an accident .. intelligence is not an accident

I was going to say, Clive, that I think I have a bit of an understanding of what warner is getting at here:


'Oh dear .. you are bringing the time dimension into it .. 'sit back casually' --- meaningless .. He is the 'owner of time'.
He simply is the Arranger '

I was going to suggest that the idea is that God is sort of like a painter and his canvas is Time, and his canvas is hanging there before him, all complete, but we are in the painting so we can't see it all.

(free will problems there, of course)

But then warner also talks about 'beginnings' and such.


While I think I understand the idea warner seems to be getting at, I find that it is an absolutely useless and self-contradictory hypothesis. And I also find that rather than bringing 'meaning' to the universe and our lives, it sadly absolutely eliminates the possibility of meaning.

But then, I was born a monster.

>>I looked at the scientific paper.<<

It can be taught...


>>Why *those* fish?<<

Simply because the mechanism of the isolation and diversification has been identified and is so simple I thought "even Warner could understand this."

Of course, it is also quite complex but it works at many levels, basically it boils down to, "river so fast fish stay where they are."

Isolation is a big factor in driving diversity.


>>Any fish, and I will give you the same explanation.<<

No, you see that doesn't work - the mechanism of the enforced diversity in the Lower Congo is unique to that location. That particular environment is having this effect - that's the proximate, natural cause.

What I'm asking you to identify is where is god in this picture?
Giving me the same explanation demonstrates to me that you aren't actually thinking about the problem I am presenting to you, it's like you mind is stuck in manual. Think, boy! Think!!

>>You say that 'they seem to be doing quite fine by themselves' ..
What made the fish to breed and mutate genes in the FIRST place?<<

That was a short-hand, the fish aren't 'making themselves evolve' on successive generations the populations of fish species at different point along the river are starting to diversify as the genetic and morphological changes build up, a factor increased by the isolation of the currents.

When those divergent populations reach a point where they are unable or unwilling to interbreed they are de facto different species with a common ancestor. That is the process that is taking place - I am asking you what is god's role in this.

Tracking the question back to why fish have sex and why genes mutate is a non sequitur (again!!) - you are changing the subject. I want you to keep the focus of your answer on what is god's role in this specific example of evolution that is occuring, that will make sense of the (present tense) "God is the evolver."

HOW is god evolving THESE FISH?

>>God designs ... DNA & natural selection<<

Natural selection is just the rate of differential survival/retention via reproduction of frequencies of alleles in response to environmental pressures. In this case the isolated populations aren't sharing genes with the local relatives on the opposite bank and drift is occurring with a high degree of conservation but observable morphological changes and the pattern of this change is recorded in their DNA. i.e the speciation is measurable and detectable and correlated with the hydrology of the river (which is the really interesting bit)

Saying "god created DNA" doesn't help you. Quiet apart from "how do you know that?" it doesn't explain to me what god "the evolver" is doing to these fish to make them evolve. Even if I accepted God created DNA, which I don't, - what of it?

Is as I suggested God responsible for tweaking the genes at the very moment of fishy conception? Is that what an "evolver god", does?


>>If you don't like the concept of God being Evolver, I could say 'the Designer', the 'Fashioner from nought' ..<<

It has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" it or not! Good grief! It has everything to do with the concept being incoherent!

In any case, those terms are not equivalent - stop changing the subject and stop moving the goalposts!!





>>God doesn't 'evolve something' in the way that he is making it happen .. as you say, it's a 'natural process' .. <<


At bleedin' last! He admits it!

So the Cichlid fish in the lower Congo River are undergoing natural selection and genetic drift NATURALLY - no gods required or in evidence.

Still it therefore rather begs the question what sensible meaning can be derived from "God is the evolver" if "god does not evolve something." These, to me appear to me statements in mutual contradiction.

But your beliefs are incoherent nonsense, so that's okay provided you are a fool and a credulous twit.

We have I think struck bedrock at last, as Wittgenstein would put it "our spade is turned"


Exeunt stage left. G'night everybody!

Hmm.

Im sorry..but its not a totally daft answer. Its the *wrong* answer, but looked at in a lenient way not fundamentally daft. It boils down to:

~Let the process of evolution by natural selection = god.~

or

~Let physical laws = god.~

OK - admittedly the boy wraps up a lot of nonsense with it. ~God is not a monkey~ fer chrissakes! But what are the objections to the above formulations?

Cmon. The Chiclids are easy stuff that we (if not warner) can take as a given. Lets have a go at demolishing some harder theological questions.

Let the process of evolution by natural selection = god.~

or

~Let physical laws = god.~


Sure that's possible and yet again - to me - it seems to entirely redundant to have god being equal to, say, the Briggs-Haldane Equation of Enzyme Kinetics. What good does it do to understand this and say genetic drift as a processes we can investigate and quantify and observe and predict vs saying "god does it." Which of these apparently equivalent statements provides the better model of predictive utility?

I do not in fact accept that the equivalency proposed, exists.



In any case, that isn't what Warner said to be fair to him.

He didn't say god is equal to evolution.

He said god designed evolution to occur, just as he designed DNA, ad made it so populations would reproduce and natural selection would ensure many creatures suffered unnecessary barbarous and cruel deaths perhaps starving to death or being eviscerated by a predator.

God is not as I understand Warner's conception of him, each of these things in turn, but he is responsible for their coming into existence with these functions and purposes.

The following is a quote from Sir Fred Hoyle on the improbability of
Carbon atom Production:

"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect
must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the
chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature
would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common
sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and
that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The
numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as
to put this conclusion almost beyond question. ”

Sir Fred Hoyle should have won the Nobel Prize for physics but for
some reason this outspoken person was overlooked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

God

Endless dribble spouted out in support or otherwise of a metaphorical postulation, nice to see you boys are still hard at it

@Tarantoes

According to Hoyle:

"Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space,
spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that
evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses
arriving via comets."


Sounds quite as probable as anything else I've heard hear.
If only because we now know that extraterrestial debris
has had some demonstrable effects. It seems only natural to
expand on what we've learned and propose more far-reaching
possibilities. Take that big black rock in Mecca for example
or that stone of throne from under the scone. Meteoric rocks
have long been at the centre of regal and magic power in
cultures round the globe. Even the ones nobody saw landing,
just laying there, no reason to suspect it came outa the sky,
but somehow irresistably alien. Somehow endowed with power.

~jwf~

Panspermia doesn't actually explain how life arose. It just pushes the problem into the background.

Sort of like saying 'Nothing comes into being without a cause, so, God made the Universe.'

Yup.

Hoyle also coined the term Big Bang as in
The Big Bang Theory.

He meant it as a belittling criticism of a
purely mathematical theory that creates an
entire universe existing only in numerical
relationships.
It also neatly avoids the Cause by calculating
backwards from observable Effects to an unknown
and unknowable, infinite Nothingness that might
also be a Something.


~jwf~

>>Panspermia doesn't actually explain how life arose.<<

I agree.

A while back I'd attended a public lecture in Nottingham on Panspermia and I wound up sat across from the guy giving the talk on the train home so we got to chatting and it turns out he is the head of the Chemistry department at Leeds and his research area was astrobiology, and in particular the occurrence of Phosphorous on Earth.

Phosphorous as phosphate has a great importance to 'life-as-we-know-it' being both elemental to the DNA molecule and cell formation and organic metabolism which uses Adenosine triphosphate

He was research where all the phosphorous came from. It was his contention that a lot of phosphorous was delivered to the Earth during the late-Heavy Bombardment from the meteorites left over from the formation of the solar system. And was describing excitedly to me his research trip to Iceland to study this.

However, the point was, the idea that the *chemistry* of life can be transported about the galaxy on meteorites is - to steal a line from Ed - not totally daft.

What is questionable is the idea that "life" as some unit could have survived the freeing cold / rapid heating and pressure of planetary impact.

Certainly some extremeophile bacteria are candidates in that they can tolerate all sorts of environments that would reduce your or I to a sold block, dissolve the skin from our bones or render us down to a wisp of evaporating gas. But the point he made in his talk is that these bacteria are themselves highly evolved, highly adapted species for their environment.

And there is no one "super-bacterium" that could survive all the conditions space and meteorites could present to it, nor in particular one that could be ancestral to all life.

So basically it depends on what one means by panspermia on how ridiculous it is.

But the general objection to directed panspermia (how on earth did they get the rocket to land on earth, and who made 'them') is usually sufficient objection.

Sir Fred Hoyle might have been considered "nuts" by some outside of
his day job as brilliant physicist (which may have cost him the
Nobel Prize) but he did create a lot of (testable) ideas.

A few quotes from Richard Feynmann (shared 1965 Nobel Prize for
Physics for his contribution to the development of a relativistic
quantum mechanical model for the electron):

"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of
something and knowing something".

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics".

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But
how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain,"
into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows
how it can be like that".

"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an
error on your part".

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just
as dumb as the next guy".

Of course science is important as a very useful method of inquiry,
but it is important to recognise its limitations.