Reasons To Question Evolution?

I've not really had issues with evolution once you get started with animals I can readily see and the corresponding evidence to support evolution.

However, an aspect which has been slightly shred in mystery for me regarding evolution, still is to an extent, is how life developed here in the first place. I've learned Two theories, rather recently, which have helped elucidate this issue for me. The first being that most elements which are the basis of life are theorized to form in supernova explosions. Much like dealing with the large numbers in the billions, it's a bit difficult for me to fathom the types of energy, fusion, scope and process taking place in a Supernova for it to form all these novel elements responsible for life. (Often suggested as to be so bright as to briefly outshine it's whole galaxy!!) The other theory is that of biopoiesis or the ability of non-living matter to form living organisms given particular conditions.

There is still a conceptual refrain in my mind to these theories because I'm not engaging with this phenomena on a daily basis, nor am I a witness to these processess. In that regard, I can slightly relate to those who do not ascribe to evolution. But again, once I realize the scales that we are talking about and the mounting available evidence to support these theories, they start to make more sense.

 

This touches on something I had wanted to elaborate on, but wasn't sure how to approach. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from non-living matter, and is of course somewhat different than evolutionary theory. I also feel like most people are somewhat ignorant to the distinction. Evolution requires that some organism already exists in order to evolve through natural mechanisms. Evolution itself is actually pretty easy to accept for a moderately educated person, after all evolution and it's effects can be studied and oberved in experiments, so it is completely plausible. I have no issue with evolution. I also must mention that some are confused about the laws of thermodynamics and make claims such as evolution being a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the state of systems will increase in entropy over time. These people are confusing entropy with complexity. I almost tend to say that complexity is subjective, and that our notion as to what is complex or not is a biased one.

On the other hand, abiogenesis is a more difficult thing to grasp and convince yourself of it's plausibilty. Evolution only describes the processes by which organisms evolve into new and different organisms, not how organisms or biology appeared in the first place. We dont really know how it happend, we only have hypotheses about how it possibly could happen. There have been experiments where ionizing radiation can cause the formation of simple amino acids but this is a long way from anything as complex as DNA. I have read that the probability of producing a working DNA or RNA molecule is too low to have occurred on earth in the 4 1/2 billion years of it's existence.

One thing is for certain, based on what we know, this would be an incredibly unlikely thing to occur. Perhaps one day we will be able to write a computer program that simulates the natural processes of physics and chemistry at a much higher speed so that an experimental model could be run, simulating billions of years in orders of magnitude less time. This would require a huge amount of computer time, even on the most powerful supercomputers, and the vast amount of data produced would have to be analyzed. Mathematically it seems less plausible than evolution itself.

The thing about probabilities and statistics though is that sometimes you get "lucky". The larger the set, the closer experimental results will follow statistical predictions. If you roll a die, the chances of rolling a 6 are 1 in 6, so rolling 600 times you would expect to roll a 6 100 times, implying that it takes 6 rolls in order to roll a six. However, testing this will show that it is possible to roll a 6 the very first time, it is also possible to roll consecutive 6's. Also, it is possible to roll a very many times and not roll a six. In sets of 6 rolls, you would expect to "win" once. Actually, repeating these games many times reveals that this is often the case, but you are actually about equally likely to have rolled a six either 0 times or twice (which makes it seem to have occurred more quickly than it should). Sometimes you can roll 3 or even more sixes, though this occurs much less frequently. If you play this game millions of times. After a million times you might get 166195 wins out of 1000000, which is about the number of wins you would get if ever six rolls was a winning roll. This is a very large set though, in reality there are many instances where the expected condition appeared to occur sooner than predicted, there are also instances where it appears to occur much later than predicted. It averages out in large sets to pretty closely reflect the statistical odds, but the smaller the set, the higher likelihood of the results significantly differing from the statistical prediction. Gamblers often make the fallacy of assuming that after playing a certain number of turns that they are "due" to win soon based on the probability of winning. The reality is that the probability of winning is the same every time, and isn't affected by how many times you've played. The probability of rolling a 6 are the same every time, they do not increase with each losing roll. If you roll 5 times without rolling a six, this does not guarantee that the next roll will be a 6, the odds are the same and are not affected by previous outcomes.

So perhaps we just happen to be extremely lucky and had life form much sooner than predicted. The universe is huge, there are a lot of "chances" for life to occur.

 

I chose the word biopoiesis as to not confuse the topic in that I am relating it to any religious leanings regarding the issue, which I think the term "abiogenesis" could potentially conjure up. They are essentially synonymous terms however.

It is a different concept than Darwinian Evolution but if we are to speak in terms of evolution as Meagain exemplified with Pirsig's claims, Biopoiesis is a form of evolution.

 

Supernovae are actually very well studied and relatively often observed phenomena; the principles behind their fusion of heavier elements past Iron (the heaviest element possible to make during a star's life cycle) are also understood and completely sound mathematically and physically.

Even though this phenomenon is so rare, lasting only a few months in a lifecycle which is measure in millions or billions of years, we have so many dang stars visible to us through telescopes that we cannot but help witness them occasionally. Their brightness is also a matter of record.

It's not on christians in general; it's only towards "thefutureawaits" and those of similar dogmatic persuasion (he doesn't buy into evolution on principle, that is a specially kind of voluntary ignorance which i have zero tolerance and respect for)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjAqcV_w3mc

starts talking about supernovas at 4:30

 

In this instance it was. I guess I was having other posts of you regarding christians or theists/theistic beliefs in general in mind as well. btw, I plan to get back on 2 of those! I feel a bit lame for taking my time but sometimes it's like that. I guess I plan to write something just as conclusive as you

 

As long as your conclussions are 1) actually true and 2) worth getting to

 

I always aim for the truth, but this is causing me sometimes to get less conclusive (or forcing me to counter other people's conclusiveness ) on the topic of God or the sense of theistic beliefs. Wether it is worth getting to might be subjective, or depending how much the other person disagrees with it ( I for one find it most worthwile to take notice of other, even opposite, perspectives than mine without convicting them, but I often have the urge to counter those of antitheists though, because they remind me of a former perspective of my own, and those are often based on theory rather than reality and they generally are too rigid about theists and their beliefs)
But I promise I aim to make it a worthy read (otherwise I wouldn't bother!) I'll stop here I think because neither of us is questioning/battling evolution.

 

The essence of faith is being willing to believe things without any reason, and in the face of reason against said things.

We often seem to think of religion like a beach, and some people are just deeper than others. It's actually a pier, and some are deeper than others, but none of them can touch. Some people might still be hanging from the pier, but when they fall in, it's very hard to get them out, you have to teach them to swim as they're drowning. Drowning people work on basal instincts, they grab the highest part of your body and pull down as hard as they can, and only let go if you dive.

Asking someone with a broken sense of logic "why" is as futile as presenting them with logic, you can only try to kindle logic in slow roundabout ways.

 

How did the explosion of a star (Nebular Hypothesis) create gravity in the absence of gravity, slam the pieces of the former star together multiple times, and create an Amosphere with multiple layers, so many different types of animals, and beings able to think for ourselves, govern ourselves, and feel pity, guilt, hope, love, etc.?
Also, think about how complex the human body is. Each cell has a different job, which allows the body to function. How is all of this even possible without a Creator? (Also the fact that there are trees growing, at least in some places, though the different layers of Earth's crust that are supposed to represent, if I'm correct, 4+ Billion years)

We Christians not only believe electricity is perfectly fine, but also sometimes pay attention in science class. I'm in 8TH grade. If you want a more solid answer, ask any New-world scientist.

I'd like to hear the answer of a secular ideologist, so please respond.

 

I believe in evolution because the science behind it is pretty sound.

That being said we should question evolution.

Why?

We should question everything thats why?

 

.

 

Yes, the more questions we ask, the more answers are uncovered; clarity is what we ought seek.

 

Science and evolution and questions and thinking....

BLASPHEMY!!

You are all practicing the presence of the SATAN DEVILLLL-LAH!

Almighty GAWAHD-DAH, will send you to burn for ETERNITAH-AHH!!!!

How dare you question his sharp meat toothed, vestigial boned DESIGNS-SAH!

 

I think you are either in error on a few of those statements or I am misunderstanding what you are suggesting..

I've never heard it suggested by (mainstream) science that a star created gravity, I think a star would need gravity to form in the first place. From my understanding, gravity either separated from the other 3 fundamental interactions of the universe moments into the Universe (like during or prior to the Planck epoch) or perhaps it was never unified with them but still existed moments into the inflation of the universe.

Also that picture you present of cells in the body seems like a bit painted with rose-colored glasses. People can lose some brain cells and more or less function the same way. There are events, such as synaptic pruning which occur during a humans life which have a significant effect on cells as well. This event eliminates the amount of pathways which a neuron cell can be passed through and essentially streamlines what cells can do and where they can go.

 

Here's one question I've always had: If people were on an evolutionary stage from the monkey.

How come both monkeys and humans exist, but nothing in between?

 

Rather a vague question... For instance if we point to 'monkey' as animal which possesses a tail such as a rhesus macaque, then clearly there are still extant species which reside in between macaque and humans such as bonobos and chimpanzees. I see this an important distinction as to point to the fact of variations in what we may group together colloquially as 'monkey.'

Not including the scope of evolution, particularly if we are being a bit loose with colloquial terms, may be a bit disingenous to what the theory of evolution posits.

Now I assume your question is along the lines of 'If humans are great apes then why are there are no intermediate species between other apes and the homo genera?'

There are extinct species such as the austrolopithecenes which are thought to be a pre-cursor to homo species and more traditionally apelike. Why humans are the only extant species of the homo genera is a bit puzzling to me as well. Perhaps we take it on faith that a larger, encephalized brain automatically gives a species advantages in survival but perhaps we underestimate things like length of child-rearing, reproductive age, and enviromental conditions. Furthermore, I am reading On the Origins of Species right now, and Darwin posits that competition between incipient species may arise against older species due to competition of resources, so perhaps another variable to consider.

 

I like to think it was the platypus :-D

 

There were primates between people and apes; homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis...

The most likely reason they are extinct is that we killed them all. Humans do have a tendency to slaughter everything we perceive as a threat or that gets in our way. Obviously, any primate that comes closer to our likeness is also more likely to be after the same resources, causing trouble, and generally, "in our way".