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

One more thing. You'll find most who believe in God do not believe he created himself. God is not under the constraints of time, thus not under the constraints of creation.

We as humans are used to things having to be created because we live in a universe with this very cool thing called time. God does not, and if there is no time, nothing has to be created. It's already there.

If you believe in the Big Bang, let me ask you this: Where did those first molecules, the ones that exploded, come from? It seems that no matter how you look at creation, there is always something before it.

Whatever led you to believe that there was anything resembling *perfection* in nature? The whole thing is chaos in its purest form. Sure, some species or groups provide mutual benefits, as a result of natural selection (since one group helps the other, they both compete better), but just as many provide harm. For every bacterium that aids your digestion, there's another that destroys your respiratory system. For every remora that keeps a shark's teeth clean, there are another 30 fish that end up in its digestive system.

The same can be applied to the universe as a whole. For every body that orbits a larger body in a neat pattern, there is another several thousand on a collision course, resulting in destruction.

Perfection?? You must be speaking of some new definition of the term.

If god did not create himself, who created him? Let me guess... he simply always was. Why can't this be the same for the universe? Matter is outside the constraints of time, and Occam's Razor slices again. At least we know that matter exists.

Josh, I disagree that evolution always results in 'improvements'. But I don't wish to press this point right now as I much prefer your other point; when considering the absence of time we no longer can have things created.

Would this also imply things cannot change or become extinct?

It's a difficult concept to grasp as time, change, creation and extimction are so fundamental to our lives.

Josh, you have just demonstrated that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Yet you seem to think that you are qualified to say that it is incorrect and then proceed to try and debunk it.

You ask "But what insures that those mutations are an improvement?" Natural selection insures this. Evolution is **not** a random process, but the mutuations are. Natural selection ensures that only the mutuations that either enable the individual to survive or breed better are passed on. Simple. It's an old book, but one of the most enlightening books that I have ever read: "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. I highly recommend it.

The only reason why Humans are subject to so many genetic disorders is because we have removed ourselves from the harsh reality of Natural Selection. In the wild, any predator-like animal with a trait that made it a less effective hunter would die out pretty damn quickly, and the trait would not be passed on. Human compassion and medical technology combined makes sure we look after people with otherwise 'disadvantageous' traits.

You misunderstood what I was saying about the Big Bang... there *was no before*. Time started then. I'm not sure how correct this is, but it is part and parcel of the theory. You say your God is out of the contraints of time, how conveinient, that will be your "friendly but omnipotent pink dolphin with flying goggles on" that neatly fits into the niche.

Ste-

You have just proved that evolution is a religion. You believe in a god whose name is natural selection. He can separate good from evil. Destroying the evil, encouraging the good. He has created life, then improved it.

Remember, you said it, not me.

Ste, if the Big Bang started time, and god started the Big Bang, then god must exist outside time????????????????

Josh, evolution can be observed; the selection of a given trait in a species over another has been and continues to be observed. I also recommend Dawkins' book(s). They certainly don't disprove the existance of god, but do shed light on many aspects of evolution and ethology.

Being observed brings it ouside the realm of religion. The conclusions you draw from these observations have reached religion status in some circles, but that's another issue.

Ste, the concept of existance ouside of time IS a valid concept! Einstein for one would be rather disspointed in not considering time as a variable. And I think it a vary interesting concept worth pursuing.....

Hahahahaha. Oh man, now that one I have not heard before. Sorry Josh, but that is really very ridiculous.

Evolution is a theory. Natural selection is a facet of evolution not a God. I won't try to illustrate using another example because they don't seem to get through.

It is very, very simple: A trait in an individual that increases the chance of that individual successfully breeding, or surviving to go on and breed, has a greater probability of becoming inherited. Surely you can see that would be the case???

There is no good or evil involved, morals cannot be attributed to a non-conscious, automatic process.

Ste

Neugen,

Fair enough, I understand what you're saying, and agree with it somewhat. But I was sticking firmly to the theory for the sake of arguement. To say that he started it implies cause and effect, which would be impossib... hang on, I'm going to go and watch Back To The Future 1,2 and 3 and both Terminators. I'll have this worked out.

I personally think time is flexible, indeed it has been proved to be so. I certainly do think that these four dimensions that we experience are not what the universe is all about. I agree, it is a fascinating concept. I just wished I was better at maths to understand it better.

I'm probably gonna get stamped down for this, but...

1) All genetic mutations are either harmful or neutral, there is no observable mechanism for the evolution of species.

2) There is a great genetic variability within each "kind" (genus?), which is responsible for the variety in nature (like Darwin's sparrows). The difference between this thought and evolution is that no genetic information is ever added, though some variability has been lost over time.

3) Long ages are not necessarily a fact. They are not needed to explain geology or the fossil record. Time is in fact the evolutionary "magic". It is assumed that with enough time, even the impossible might just happen.

4) Evolution has absolutely no scientific explanation for the origin of life. By evolutionary thinking, at some point something living had to come from something non-living. This violates the law of biogenesis, that all life must come from other life.

5) The evolutionary system that life is becoming more complex and ordered goes against the second law of thermodynamics, which suggests that everything is becoming less ordered and more random. This is very observable in genetics of course, just think of all the genetic disorders we have today.

Feel free to go "ape" on me now.

Oh, and BTW God did not "create" himself. This would imply that he is within the boundaries of time and had a beginning. He created >time< and space, and is therefore outside of both. At least that's what I think...

*gets ready to duck*

I once saw a documentary on 'time' which discussed the theory of relativity and dealt a lot with Stephen Hawking. It also mentioned that there are only some 100 people around the world who fully grasp the theory of relativity (not sure where they got that number from).

Sadly I'm not one of them, despite reading Hawking's book.

Another point made was that when you deal with the absence of time, such as at black holes, you're dealing with singularities in current mathematical approaches. So I'm not sure that (present day) mathematics will be helpfull to you......

I once saw a documentary on 'time' which discussed the theory of relativity and dealt a lot with Stephen Hawking. It also mentioned that there are only some 100 people around the world who fully grasp the theory of relativity (not sure where they got that number from).

Sadly I'm not one of them, despite reading Hawking's book.

Another point made was that when you deal with the absence of time, such as at black holes, you're dealing with singularities in current mathematical approaches. So I'm not sure that (present day) mathematics will be helpfull to you......

I'm writing a guide entry in which I employ my full knowledge of Intelligent Design, and I'll let you know when I'm finished.

Tell you what, ameoba, I'll read a Dawkins book of your choice (I've already read some of his papers) if you read a book by Philip Johnson called Darwin on Trial. It's very facinating and confirmed my disbelief of evolution.

Josh, if you wish to read something, read it because you are looking to learn, not to find faults.

Dawkins' books don't necessarily prove evolution, but describe how many aspects of evolution have been observed to function. They also focus on behavioural evolution, (ethology) which is a fascinating read irrespective of your inclinations to any theory.

Another paper I would recommend would be "Answer to Job" by Karl Jung. It raises many good points.

Ahh... ddombrow, my frequent adversary, welcome to the conversation. I shall now stamp you, as invited.

1) The average height of a human being has increased steadily over the last several centuries. Harmful? This is a process of natural selection, where women choose larger, more powerful breeding partners, while little guys can't get laid. A case can be made for diet improvements, but that should mean that children born since the 80's are growing shorter than their parents, because nutritionally-devoid prepackaged meals and fast-food chains largely replaced home cooking since then. We're not seeing that.

Tanning is another genetic mutation of sorts. People who lived in the sun for many years never revert to their original skin tones. Explanation for the differences in race? After all, white people came down from the Arctic Circle, black people emerged from equatorial Africa, and the rest emerged from places in between, with their relative skin shades fitting in the spectrum nicely with the local sun intensity.

White skin in a snowy environment would naturally be an evolutionary boon, but would be absolute torture in the sun, as your average British tourist in Kenya can attest.

3) Proof is accruing that shows that evolution occurs in fits and spurts, as niches in the ecology open up. For instance, relatively little evolution occurred during the three ages of the dinosaurs, but immediately following their demise, evolution kicked into overdrive. It continued until the ascent of man. We currently hold a lid on evolution, because we're occupying so much of the ecology that there are very few niches with room for competition... just like the dinosaurs.

4) Evolution has some very good explanations. As soon as we can generate an atmosphere on Mars (easier than you realize), we'll have a test laboratory. And you must admit, evidence of bacteria on Mars is rather compelling. As for the "law of biogenics," it is an outdated piece of science only embraced today by creation "scientists."

5) More complex and ordered? Who said that evolution lead to greater order? Darwin may have said something like that, but, as I've already mentioned, the theory of evolution has evolved. We've come a long way since Darwin.

"Oh, and BTW God did not "create" himself. This would imply that he is within the boundaries of time and had a beginning. He created >time< and space, and is therefore outside of both. At least that's what I think..." - What is the basis for this conjecture?

Replies:

1. Height is a mutation? I don't think so. See number 2. Height and skin shade are both traits that are variable within the human population. I don't see this as evolution because no new genetic information is being added. As I understand it, it's simply a matter of dominant and recessive genes. (An increase in height isn't really beneficial I think, I have heard that smaller people are healthier on average, anyway. Yet this has little to do with anything. I'm rambling as usual...)

3. It sounds good, I'll think about it.

4. Actually, I don't admit that there is good evidence of bacteria on Mars.

5. Well, I thought that was the case. I suppose you are proposing then, that humans are less or equal in complexity compared with dinosaurs?

Hmmm... here's what I wonder, where does the mind or ability to reason fall in with evolution?

Well, to be Biblical it says "In the beginning God..." implying that in the beginning (of time, that is) God already existed. I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind immediately.

1) I don't think it's a mutation, either, but I also don't think that mutation is the only vehicle for evolutionary change. It's selective breeding. The genetic information is changing by slight degrees as a result. Not an addition or subtraction... just a change.

4) I'm not entirely convinced, either, but the evidence *does* open up the question. Naturally, further research is required. It would be hasty to dismiss the possibility out of hand when a good case can be made from that tiny sample of evidence available to us.

5) Equal complexity, I'd say. Physiologically, aside from the ability to regulate our own body heat, everything is pretty much the same... organs, muscles, tendons, skeleton, hide, etc. all performing the same functions. We only *appear* to be more complex because of our greater ability to pass on knowledge, and subsequent complexity of organization and association. Which brings me to...

Ability to reason: It's my opinion that the ability to reason influences a creature's ability to control its own evolutionary path. As humanity reasoned out fire and shelter, we evolved out of our body hair. As we reasoned out how to drastically increase our food supply, we dramatically affected our own need for competition, which leads to an increased percentage of our species being able to survive without the necessary skills or physical ability to care for their own survival.

And, on the other hand, our ability to reason has helped us help our own parasites to evolve, because as they survive our attacks of pesticides and antibiotics, they only grow stronger.

Ok then, riddle me this. If no new genetic material is added, how do we go from amoeba to fish to human. And if it's slight changes that does it, how does the whole punctuated equilibrium thing fit in? And why then is there little evidence of the fossil record to support this? And how did the ability to reason just come about from natural selection?

Heh, I have more questions than answers.

Thanks Colonel Sellers!

To you id fans, you can't compare the existence of the universe with the existence of life. Life is based on matter. Not the other way round. But there is a theory which even tries to apply the Theory of Evolution to the universe: each bang and collapse is one lifespan, the physics of each of these universes is the genom which is inherited by the new universe born through the collapse and the resulting new big bang. Such the physics, or better, parts of it become more refined in that they are selected by proving to be stable and surviving the next big bang. That theory would explain why some parameters of the physics of our universe are so deliberatly fine tuned - a small change would result in a unstableness destroying everything or starting a new big bang. Our universe is one of many which has successfuly evolved to become stable. Do universes have sex? That would give big bang a whole new meaning.

(Interesting how any topic has to do with sex! Or is it because of me???

The law of thermodynamics only deals with energy in the form of temperature. It is often misquoted as a law of order, but actualy has nothing to do with it. Of course all life adheres to these laws, we use energy in concentrated form (sun) and spread it.

All changes of living creatures are (random) mutations. Who else should do it? And based on what purpose/knowledge?


The discussion can be pinned down to the most basic question:

Where does knowledge (genes, physics, moral) come from?

- From outside.

- From inside.


Where ever you look at, be it economics, politics, science, moral: knowledge coming from inside leads to good results. Evolution is working at the heart of everything, making it the basic force of Creation.

Evolution is the metaphysical answer to the question of Creation, or, to put it more simple: Evolution is the ONLY answer to the hen-egg problem.

Colonel, I beg to differ on the height question.

The height of a population is largely dependant on their access to protien. Fast food chains and pre-packaged meals do, in fact, contain nutritional value (they just don't taste like they do) although the values are not always well balanced.

If you look at the height of humans historically, you will notice that in times when meat is plentiful people are tall. In Roman times, the average Legionary is a minimum of 5'9" tall and the population of Europe are generally taller than that. Why? The celts had a diet that was based around meat.

As time goes on, there is a change in the way food is produced and distributed. By the tudor period, meat meals are a rarity and people are generally smaller. As diets change, the building blocks that the human body requires to get taller vary. Yes, there is a genetic component to deciding height but it's not the only factor and it isn't the over-riding factor: that's diet.

Look at the changes in the height of the Japanese population for an example.

>>>1) All genetic mutations are either harmful or neutral, there is no observable mechanism for the evolution of species.

Be careful of the use of the word "all" - Indeed, the vast majority of mutations we see are harmful or neutral, and in the context of pure natural selection they have difficulty surviving through the generations. However, all it takes is one positive mutation every couple of hundred generations to have a positive and long lasting effect. Just because it is rare doesn't mean it's impossible. Again, the growing prevalence of disease resistant superbugs is both observable and indicative of evolution in action.

>>>2) There is a great genetic variability within each "kind" (genus?), which is responsible for the variety in nature (like Darwin's sparrows). The difference between this thought and evolution is that no genetic information is ever added, though some variability has been lost over time.

The definition of "species" implies that they are unable to crossbreed with other species - thus a greenfinch cannot pass on genetic information to a chaffinch. Once locked into a species a creature can only breed with members of its own type. There is not that much genetic variability there at all, except in the situation when a mutation occurs. Darwins *finches* were all different species, and they could not interbreed. However, it is likely that they all shared a common ancestor in the distant past.

3) Long ages are not necessarily a fact. They are not needed to explain geology or the fossil record. Time is in fact the evolutionary "magic". It is assumed that with enough time, even the impossible might just happen.
>>> That's rubbish. Long ages have been verified from a large number of different techniques, including the simple counting of rings on a tree, to the difference in texture of ice in the Arctic if you want to be basic about it. If long ages are not needed, I would like to see the competing explanation! And nobody is saying that *time*, on its own, makes things happen spontaneously.

>>> 4) Evolution has absolutely no scientific explanation for the origin of life. By evolutionary thinking, at some point something living had to come from something non-living. This violates the law of biogenesis, that all life must come from other life.

I think CS said it. You are using as your base a *law* that is completely discredited and not accepted by anybody outside the creationist realm.

>>> 5) The evolutionary system that life is becoming more complex and ordered goes against the second law of thermodynamics, which suggests that everything is becoming less ordered and more random. This is very observable in genetics of course, just think of all the genetic disorders we have today.

You have completely misread the second law of thermodynamics. It states that the *total* entropy / disorder in a closed system is continually increasing. It says nothing about localised ordering. Also, the earth is not a closed system - we are being continuously energised by the sun, which provides the energy to make localised order possible.