[Closed] PSA Horizon are we still evolving? bbc2 now

I also like the idea that the whole massive evolution movement is actually completely wrong and we've spent all this time barking up the wrong tree.

Mankind doesn't like the idea of intelligent design because he can't then stride around saying "see that, I used my enormous brain to understand that; gaze upon me, aren't I magnificent and clever and all that"

You and ahwiles are nt really playing by the same rules so this argument is pointless.

Im not anti religious at all but you could say the same about intelligent design. "Look at me Im a man Im so great and perfect I must have been designed !"

If your not going to stake a claim to an alternative position this argument is pointless.

I mean everyone could be wrong about everything and you know what I sometimes "feel" the chances of this are probably higher than anything else. I also "feel" that really there should be nothing at all and the fact there is a blip.

But I have no evidence for these views and to live in the real world and take a position on something you need evidence.

The one thing I do agree with you on is its always worth keeping it mind that your viewpoint might be totally totally wrong, but as stated evolution is currently the best explanation for the variety of life on earth.

But there are still more things in the Universe (and beyond maybe) than we do not understand, than we do understand.

to take a position on something you need evidence

To take an OBJECTIVE position on something you need evidence.

true, which is what I mean by not playing to the same rules.

Mankind doesn't like the idea of intelligent design because he can't then stride around saying "see that, I used my enormous brain to understand that; gaze upon me, aren't I magnificent and clever and all that"

No, mankind doesn't like the idea of intelligent design becasue it's a lazy cop out for the hard of thinking.

No-one has ever claimed that the theory of evolution is set in stone, however if you are going to reject that theory in because it's not perfect, then there are a fair few other things that you better get ready to ditch like electronic devices for example. They rely on quantum theory to work, a theory far less well developed than evolution. That of course is one the easier ones, quite how you are going deny gravity is beyond me.

Mankind doesn't like the idea of intelligent design

I think a very large section of it does, actually. And almost all of it did for thousands of years.

Mankind doesn't like the idea of intelligent design

Mankind INVENTED the idea of intelligent design to explain what it couldn't explain. We've since seen further and deeper and are starting to question why we bothered with the invention.

The whole point of science and theories of things like evolution is they are not set in stone, they need to be constantly re-evaluated. And they are until fault is found.

Tim Minchin does it again...
http://tinyurl.com/672gtuq

I'm just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.

Evolution is not a series of accidents.

Actually it is ...... nothing is "planned".

If God created all the animals on the sixth day, why then, did he make all the mammals throughout the world in a certain way except in Australia ? Did he get a little bored towards the end of the day and when it came to Australia he said to himself "I know, I'll do this one a bit different, I'll give all the mammals in this part of the world pouches to keep their youngsters in" ?

The reason mammals in Australia are all without exception, marsupials, is purely down to "accident". There is no logical reason whatsoever why mammals in Australia should have evolved to become marsupials - mammals in the rest of the world manage perfectly ok without being marsupial.

The evolution of marsupials is nothing more than a random accident ........ a very effect accident which works of course.

All evolution is a series of random accidents......some more successful than others.

As far as I was aware, evolution proceeds by the aggregation of changes, not by one single animal changing and becoming the ideal. I presume there must be a tendency among many animals of the same species toward a certain variation and that giving them an advantage in the environment they're in means that variation wins out.

So it's not an accident, it's the result of the statistical somethingion of many variations within the specific environment. It's not planned, but it's far from a one-off accident.

I think I might be using a different definition of "accident", I used it in the context of : [i]anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance[/i].

I doubt very much that there is "a tendency among many animals of the same species toward a certain variation". It just happens, unintentionally, by chance.

a nobel prize is worth about a million quid.

if you're not convinced by evolution, right down your reasons why, check it for spelling, and send it off to Nature, or some such well respected publication, and sit back waiting for the cash.

it really is that easy.

Have you ever known two people to have a kid that grows up say freakishly tall?

If we lived in the jungle, that kid might be handy to have around to pick fruit and so on.

So his tribe do well and get more fruit, he has a family and has more freakishly tall kids. Lots of tall kids in that tribe, and the tribe gets taller and also larger cos there's more fruit around. Cos everyone's better fed the lady folk get pregnant more readily and have more stronger healthier kids.. and so on. So there are loads of these tall strong people - too many for that corner of the forest so some strike out and set up shop somewhere else, perhaps beating up a tribe of smaller folk who lived there previously. More big strong tall people, and so it goes on. Before you know it, there are fewer and fewer short people and more tall people, to the point where the short people are hard to find. Ultimately, there'll be no more short people.

All because of a random variation which can be passed on.

Very simplistically put but you get the idea.

you having a dig at the Welsh again i am telling Don Simon on you 😉

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion without needing the approval of the Nobel Prize Committee.......including those who question evolution.

The Nobel Prize Committee is not the font of all truth. And I certainly don't need to a bunch of Norwegian politicians to tell me what to believe in. They awarded Henry Kissinger the Noble Peace Prize ffs.

Do angels have mums and dads?

Here's a question... (for the purposes of this question when I say "god" please assume I mean whatever the equivalent deity in your chosen religion as this question is posed to people of all religions, not just christians).

If the pope or whatever equivalent in your chosen religion went on TV saying that:

Ghad spoken directly to them admitting that evolution is an undeniable fact. That the creation of the world (earth) was a by-product of the "big bang" as our earth scientists call it (in fact he's quite impressed by our earth scientists having worked it out), god had nothing to do with it and has just sat back since and let things evolve out of curiosity.

Meanwhile the god that earth humans have been worshipping has been working hard looking after his chosen beings that were created in his image in another dimension (he's not that bothered about our universe as he had nothing to do with it)... the real story being that god is nothing to do with humans, and in fact he's a little miffed at us humans being so self-important that we've assumed he's like us and have made up all these stories about being created in his image and bibles and such) ... would you then believe it then?

Do angels have mums and dads?

No

The laryngeal nerve in giraffes

Had the pleasure of getting up close to one of these recently! abolutely beautiful!

[IMG] [/IMG]

I certainly don't need to a bunch of Norwegian politicians to tell me what to believe in

Then who takes them to pin head dancing classes? Hmmm?

if the pope ........ went on TV saying god (or your chosen equivalent) had spoken directly to them admitting that evolution is an undeniable fact........... would you then believe it then?

The Pope supports the theory of evolution and all catholic schools teach evolution in their science classes. Sorry to be pedantic, but such sloppiness mildly irritates me .......if you are going to attack people for opposing the theory of evolution, then at least attack the right people 💡

The Pope supports the theory of evolution and all catholic schools teach evolution in their science classes. Sorry to be pedantic, but such sloppiness mildly irritates me .......if you are going to attack people for opposing the theory of evolution, then at least attack the right people

Officially the Vatican has at last accepted evolution, but some of the things Pope Benedict XVI has said would indicate he thinks otherwise. So not entirely cut and dry.

Ernie... i'm not attacking anyone, i'm asking a question... a hypothetical one at that 🙂 no need to apologise about pedantry!

just curious as to whether the faith that causes some to believe evolution can't be true cos its all too perfect and there must be a god could be changed if the leaders of that faith said so?

Officially the Vatican has at last accepted evolution, but some of the things Pope Benedict XVI has said would indicate he thinks otherwise. So not entirely cut and dry.

😕 What do you mean "at last" ? And it is perfectly "cut and dry" ......the catholic church fully supports the theory of evolution. That's how I learnt about theory of evolution .......in science classes in catholic schools. It's pretty clear cut to me.

EDIT : And as I recall, when discussing the theory of evolution in our biology lessons, we were taught of the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel. Gregor Mendel studied genetics in relation to evolution ..... particularly plant evolution. He lived in the 19th century and happened to be a catholic monk.

I doubt very much that there is "a tendency among many animals of the same species toward a certain variation". It just happens, unintentionally, by chance.

Erm, you can't doubt it really. Things like certain genetic variations (i.e. tendencies towards a variation) that occur in a percentage of the population. If that genetic variation is helpful it gets kept by natural selection. That IS evolution. What I'm saying in the first post is that it's not just a random accident with one animal, it's a structured and repeated variation that occurs and wins out over the old version.

What do you mean "at last" ? And it is perfectly "cut and dry" ......the catholic church fully supports the theory of evolution. That's how I learnt about theory of evolution .......in science classes in catholic schools. It's pretty clear cut to me

Was it not Pope John Paul II in 1996 that clarified the position ? Thats what I meant when I said about time. I could be wrong though I am not a Vatican historian.

(So maybe I should stick to the science bit 🙂 )

Was it not Pope John Paul II in 1996 that clarified the position ?

😀 No. I had long left school by then. I tell you what, my mum will be 91 next week, I'll ask her when I next speak to her whether she was taught evolution - she went to a convent school.

EDIT : And as I recall, when discussing the theory of evolution in our biology lessons, we were taught of the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel. Gregor Mendel studied genetics in relation to evolution ..... particularly plant evolution. He lived in the 19th century and happened to be a catholic monk.

Yes and who fixed his results to give what he thought should be the correct answer 🙂 Clever bloke though 🙂

I don't recall anything about "fixed results" .......but it was a long time ago. What I do recall is being taught about evolution and the lessons which dealt with Gregor Mendel. Biology was a subject which I actually paid some attention to 🙂

As with the existence of beer, Alice Roberts is proof that there must be a God.

I loves her.

His data sets were perfect and there is some conjecture as to whether he fudged them or not. It was like once he realised what the results should look like, he decided to ignore ones that were slightly off and only present the perfect ones.

he decided to ignore ones that were slightly off and only present the perfect ones.

And a monk and all 😐 ........ I hope he went to confession to confess his sinful lies.

Whilst on the question of confession, I have to confess that contrary to my claim, I did not learn about the theory of evolution from school. My much older brother with whom I shared a room and who studied A level zoology and went on to become a microbiologist (and was an aggressive atheist btw) used to give me long lessons about evolution - which I found fascinating. As a consequence I knew all about evolution, antibodies, etc, whilst still at primary school. And I remember being ridiculed by mates at school (aged about 9ish) for suggesting that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. But none of that detracts from the fact that I was later taught the theory of evolution in biology lessons in catholic schools.

aggressive atheist btw

Did he threaten you during the evolution lessons?

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE BUS SIZED HOLE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS! PLEASE NOW!

In order to see it you have to screw your eyes closed really really tight, put your fingers in your ears and repeat the phrase

"LALALAIMNOTLISTENING"

noteeth - couldn't agree more. Well said!

The human appendix
Hind leg bones in whales
The laryngeal nerve in giraffes (and most other animals)
Nipples on men
The coccyx in humans
The frequency throughout the animal kingdom of 5 digits or the remains there of.

Are all holes in intelligent design bigger than a rhetorical bus. Until some one who holds the view that intelligent design has as much validity as the fact of evolution can show me their bus sized object, I will subscribe to the theory that their beliefs are based on a lack of education and an unwillingness or inability to understand biology specifically and science generally.

No it mean I believe you personally have no challenge to the theory of evolution, when you initially said you were challenging it

You appear to be trying to change the question now a technique often employed by people of faith ( I realise I cant extrapolate that you are a person of faith from the evidence of this thread ) In fact it was a technique that in the stories of the bible Jesus used to great effect

You are absolutely spot on, I don't have a challenge for the theory of evolution. And I [b]did[/b] say I was challenging it. You got me there. 😀
What I meant to say was that I was challenging the view that it is a complete theory that will never be changed or challenged.

As an aside, the problem for me is that it is "limited" to explaining how life has changed and diversified.
So, [b]personally[/b], I view it as important as trainspotting.
Fascinating in itself but saying nothing about the "why" of existence.

I am, however, completely happy accepting the universe and life as a chance event.

as you note ],evolution and therefore yourself are chance events that is your why. Oddly most people dont find this a spiritually satisfying answer as it is almost pointless. Sadly that is about how importnat our lives are cosmically 8)
HTH

Ahem, if I can just divert away from arguments between science and religion and refer to the actual episode of Horizon......

I found it rather disappointing. I've only watched a few of this series and to use the current phrase, they seem rather dumbed down. Most of the questions posed can be answered in one sentence, never mind a whole hour of tv.

One thing that stood out like a sore thumb was a so-called expert's use of the term 'caveman'. As in, we've evolved (or not) from 'caveman'. I didn't realise that 100+ years of research had been bypassed and we were back to thinking that people lived in caves a few thousand years ago. Anyway that was just an irritation.

I must have missed the relevance of the section on lactose. The expert said that humans had an evolutionary advantage because some populations could digest milk into adulthood, giving them a rich and plentiful source of food. (I think?)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wild animals do not produce milk all year round, only when producing young once or twice a year. And this would apply equally to newly domesticated animals as well. Add in that the milk produced is only really enough to look after the young - the levels of milk production that we see in cattle today has been bred into them. So the milk would not be particularly plentiful or available through the year. So where is the advantage in that, when you already have a rich and plentiful source of energy in the meat that the animal produces? Milk was just one source of energy that humans exploited once the animal had been domesticated, surely. The bit that reduced evolutionary pressure is the actual domestication of animals, not the type of food they produce.

And why was that expert referring to Europeans - what advantage did they gain over competing populations 10,000 years ago by drinking milk? As I said, I'm completely missing the relevance of that section!

The section in Massachussetts also puzzled me because I wanted to know what the science was behind the research. It's the first time I've heard of humans' height oscillating - I understood that in general height and weight in developed countries was increasing almost purely because of improving nutrition in childhood. How is the genetic factor singled out from other factors such as eating too many burgers?

Please feel free to mock if I'm missing something obvious - I had a child's bleeding forehead to deal with in the middle of the programme, so my attention drifted slightly....

humans started farming about 10,000 years ago.

humans that retained the ability to digest lactose in adulthood have a slight advantage over those that don't.

simply because it opens up another food source.

you are right - the amount of milk available to pour onto caveman shreddies would have small by our standards.

so the advantage was only small.

but still, that's the point, one small advantage, over 10,000 years, is obviously enough for the gene/mutation/whatever to become common in some populations.

typically it's europeans.

fascinating stuff, but yes, a little simplistic.

there's lovely science thing on radio 4 iplayer about how we measure the age of things like the earth / universe.

lovely lovely science.

🙂

Please correct me if I'm wrong,

but wild animals do not produce milk all year round, only when producing young once or twice a year. And this would apply equally to newly domesticated animals as well.

Add in that the milk produced is only really enough to look after the young - the levels of milk production that we see in cattle today has been bred into them.

It was odd that they dismissed skin pigmentation as cosmetic. I was under the impression it was a useful mutation for producing vitamin-D in the cold, dull north.

I understood that in general height and weight in developed countries was increasing almost purely because of improving nutrition in childhood.

That was the fascinating thing, they showed that there is a tendency towards shorter and fatter (and I presume with a large database & good statistics they can account for the additional fatness due to overeating), so we're not turning into the tall & slender gods that was assumed.

What I meant to say was that I was challenging the view that it is a complete theory that will never be changed or challenged.

Yes this has happened a few times on this forum before. People say 'I don't agree with evolution', then the scientists post endless overwhelmingly persuasive arguments and the original people say 'well really what I meant was I don't believe in the people who say it's a perfect theory'.

No-one says it's a perfect complete theory and explains the entire origins of life, you just made that up to avoid having to admit you're ill-informed.

They start producing when they produce offspring but don't stop until you stop milking them

ahwiles - Member
humans started farming about 10,000 years ago.........

lovely lovely science.

It is - but completely irrelevant in terms of the question posed by Horizon. 'Have humans stopped evolving?' It is a bit of a sideshow, like the worms on Dartmoor. Interesting, but why are we looking at worms?

There are plenty of populations who have evolved suitably according to the conditions they live in. The sherpas were used as an example, you couild have used the Kalahari tribesmen with bum-fat, forest dwellers who are shorter, plains dwellers who are taller. All irrelevant to the question.

5thElefant - as above, the section was irrelevant anyway. I've a feeling that you are looking at it from a 21st C point of view, though, not a nomadic cowherder's POV 10,000 years ago. It can't do the animal much good to be continually milked. Do Masai tribesmen continually milk their cattle? (I genuinely don't know, and didn't think to ask the ones I met last year. 🙂 )

Moses - Member

I understood that in general height and weight in developed countries was increasing almost purely because of improving nutrition in childhood.

That was the fascinating thing, they showed that there is a tendency towards shorter and fatter (and I presume with a large database & good statistics they can account for the additional fatness due to overeating), so we're not turning into the tall & slender gods that was assumed.

No - they suggested data that goes back 60 years, 3 generations, in one population. Again, how is 3 generations of data going to answer the question presented? Anyway, show me how to isolate the effect of poor nutrition from that data.

I've realised that this programme was a bit like one of my A level exam questions. I'd waffle on for a while on a vaguely related subject, not really answer the question, and be given a poor grade.

There were some fascinating areas touched upon, but almost nothing relevant to the question.