Questioning Evolution

[SpheresOfBalance]

Two major points make me skeptical about the theory of evolution.
First, if evolution is truly responsible for transforming living beings, then surely we should see some evidence of gradual changes in history—or at least today. Even within a single nation or group, you might expect to see someone with a tiny tail or a horn popping out like a unicorn — yet we see nothing of the sort. Humanity remains remarkably stable and consistent in form.
Second, if all developments in life occurred merely by chance, through natural selection and random mutation, then how do we explain human intelligence — a level of consciousness and reasoning far beyond any other creature? Why does such a complex, rational mind exist only in humans, while no other animal comes close?
If evolution truly depends only on blind chance, the rise of human intelligence seems too purposeful, too structured, to be the product of randomness.

So my question is: can this theory be defended through pure logic and reason, or is it sustained only by scientific claims without philosophical grounding? If anyone knows a rational explanation that makes evolution truly convincing, I’d be glad to hear it.

I think you have a problem understanding timescales. Specifically Millions and Billions of years. That which was thought to be a paradox shall be brought into the light of day.

Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
A. They both came at the same time, as gradually one wasn't quite a chicken and the other wasn't quite an egg.
Charles pretty much had it right.

It seems that you believe in the truth of the evolution theory as firmly as you believe in the existence of the sun, even though scientific theories are, by nature, changeable and revisable.
I agree that theories are 'potentially' changeable and revisable. That it takes further testing, via accumulated human knowledge to vet out the truth. Thankfully there are scientists from many cultures that help us make things clear, though it takes time.

Here’s the first point: anyone who disconnects himself from the past will naturally find it difficult to understand many things. Long before this theory appeared, there were countless people and ancient civilizations, yet none of them ever spoke of such an evolutionary process. By cutting yourself off from the witness of the past, you rely only on interpretations of fossils and hypothetical models. The truth is that every ancient civilization held a very different view of human existence from yours. If evolution were true, we would expect at least some historical record or trace of such a belief.
Not at all, show the computer you're using to one of those ancients and they'd probably think it was from a god. Ancient peoples were primarily concerned with gathering and hunting for food. They had no time, nor the inclination to question such things. The time was not ripe, all human knowledge is built upon the foundation of that understanding that came before it. All human knowledge is sequential in nature. Knowledge comes when it can, when there is enough to support it.


The second point is that you believe in a process said to have taken millions and billions of years. For such a claim, one must have solid and undeniable evidence. Yet, there is still no clear or logical proof that can confirm this theory with certainty. The funny thing is, whenever a question is raised about the missing steps, the answer quickly disappears behind the magical curtain of “millions of years ago.” It’s as if that phrase alone can solve every mystery! But in truth, it only makes the whole story impossible to verify—scientifically or logically. You may mention many pieces of “evidence,” but the reality is that there remain thousands of gaps in the so-called proofs—each one worth a thousand thoughtful questions.
The proofs are contained in the measures the decay of radioactive isotopes in the fossil or the rocks surrounding it to determine an exact age.

So how can anyone truly believe in something like that?
Yes, I believe in science, which has brought us everything that all humans now have, that can possibility support them. While it's true that some countries have more technology than others, they all have some. And those that they do have, serve them as well as they do everyone else.

[MikeNovack]

Abdullah, would you consider empirical evidence? What your experiment would determine is not DID happen but what WOULD happen according to the theory of what causes evolution (differential survival)

You will need a couple of containers, a probability device (say a die), and a large supply of beads n two colors (say black and white).

State of beginning, put 50 white and 50 black beans into the "live" container. This is the population at generation 0.

Process:
1) Reach in and take a bead from the live container. Roll the die. If the bead is white and the die came up 1,2, or 3 toss the bead into the dead container, other wise back into the live container. If the bead is black and the die came up 1,2,3,or 4 toss into the dead container, other wise back into the live container << the survival probability of white is 1/2 while of black is 1/3, less >>
2) when the number of beads in the dead container reaches 50, time to breed. Put these beads (in the dead container backinto the respective supplies of black and white beads. Now dump the live container into the dead container. Now reach in there and take a bead and put that bead back into the live container along with a bead of the same color from supply. When the dead container is empty, the live container will again contain 100 beads.

This concludes a generation of living, surviving the risks of death, and reproducing. If you want, LOOK at the contents of the live container. How white or black is it?

Repeat the process N times (N some largish number). Evolution theory predicts that differential survival will cause evolution of the population of beads. Is that what happened?

So no Abdullah, our little experiment does not show that "differential survival" DID cause evolution. But it does show that it WOULD cause evolution.

[abdullah masud]

I think you have a problem understanding timescales. Specifically Millions and Billions of years. That which was thought to be a paradox shall be brought into the light of day.

Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
A. They both came at the same time, as gradually one wasn't quite a chicken and the other wasn't quite an egg.
Charles pretty much had it right.

It seems that you believe in the truth of the evolution theory as firmly as you believe in the existence of the sun, even though scientific theories are, by nature, changeable and revisable.
I agree that theories are 'potentially' changeable and revisable. That it takes further testing, via accumulated human knowledge to vet out the truth. Thankfully there are scientists from many cultures that help us make things clear, though it takes time.

Here’s the first point: anyone who disconnects himself from the past will naturally find it difficult to understand many things. Long before this theory appeared, there were countless people and ancient civilizations, yet none of them ever spoke of such an evolutionary process. By cutting yourself off from the witness of the past, you rely only on interpretations of fossils and hypothetical models. The truth is that every ancient civilization held a very different view of human existence from yours. If evolution were true, we would expect at least some historical record or trace of such a belief.
Not at all, show the computer you're using to one of those ancients and they'd probably think it was from a god. Ancient peoples were primarily concerned with gathering and hunting for food. They had no time, nor the inclination to question such things. The time was not ripe, all human knowledge is built upon the foundation of that understanding that came before it. All human knowledge is sequential in nature. Knowledge comes when it can, when there is enough to support it.


The second point is that you believe in a process said to have taken millions and billions of years. For such a claim, one must have solid and undeniable evidence. Yet, there is still no clear or logical proof that can confirm this theory with certainty. The funny thing is, whenever a question is raised about the missing steps, the answer quickly disappears behind the magical curtain of “millions of years ago.” It’s as if that phrase alone can solve every mystery! But in truth, it only makes the whole story impossible to verify—scientifically or logically. You may mention many pieces of “evidence,” but the reality is that there remain thousands of gaps in the so-called proofs—each one worth a thousand thoughtful questions.
The proofs are contained in the measures the decay of radioactive isotopes in the fossil or the rocks surrounding it to determine an exact age.

So how can anyone truly believe in something like that?
Yes, I believe in science, which has brought us everything that all humans now have, that can possibility support them. While it's true that some countries have more technology than others, they all have some. And those that they do have, serve them as well as they do everyone else.

I understand your point about ancient people being unfamiliar with advanced technology, like computers, but that’s not the same as evolution. A computer is a human-made object—they had no concept of it, so they might have thought it was miraculous. Evolution, however, is claimed to describe a natural process shaping all life, yet there is no historical record or evidence from any civilization supporting it.

It’s also not true that ancient people had no knowledge or understanding. Look at the pyramids, megaliths, and other achievements—things that even today seem nearly impossible to replicate. These civilizations clearly had profound skills and understanding, even if their priorities were different. Suggesting that “knowledge comes only when the time is ripe” ignores the real ingenuity and insight ancient humans already possessed.

[Impenitent]

modern computers are nothing but glorified abacuses...

series of on and off switches, nothing more

evolution...

-Imp

[abdullah masud]

Abdullah, would you consider empirical evidence? What your experiment would determine is not DID happen but what WOULD happen according to the theory of what causes evolution (differential survival)

You will need a couple of containers, a probability device (say a die), and a large supply of beads n two colors (say black and white).

State of beginning, put 50 white and 50 black beans into the "live" container. This is the population at generation 0.

Process:
1) Reach in and take a bead from the live container. Roll the die. If the bead is white and the die came up 1,2, or 3 toss the bead into the dead container, other wise back into the live container. If the bead is black and the die came up 1,2,3,or 4 toss into the dead container, other wise back into the live container << the survival probability of white is 1/2 while of black is 1/3, less >>
2) when the number of beads in the dead container reaches 50, time to breed. Put these beads (in the dead container backinto the respective supplies of black and white beads. Now dump the live container into the dead container. Now reach in there and take a bead and put that bead back into the live container along with a bead of the same color from supply. When the dead container is empty, the live container will again contain 100 beads.

This concludes a generation of living, surviving the risks of death, and reproducing. If you want, LOOK at the contents of the live container. How white or black is it?

Repeat the process N times (N some largish number). Evolution theory predicts that differential survival will cause evolution of the population of beads. Is that what happened?

So no Abdullah, our little experiment does not show that "differential survival" DID cause evolution. But it does show that it WOULD cause evolution.

it actually proves how much intelligence and design are needed to make such a process work. You used beads, containers, dice, and a person to manage every step—someone to decide probabilities, control reproduction, and set the rules. Nothing in your experiment happens by itself; it all depends on an external designer’s will and order.

And yes, small variations within a species — what’s called microevolution — can happen and is not really disputed. But what we’re discussing here is macroevolution, which completely different matter, and such a process has never been observed or proven.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It seems that you believe in the truth of the evolution theory as firmly as you believe in the existence of the sun, even though scientific theories are, by nature, changeable and revisable.
I agree that theories are 'potentially' changeable and revisable. That it takes further testing, via accumulated human knowledge to vet out the truth. Thankfully there are scientists from many cultures that help us make things clear, though it takes time.

Here’s the first point: anyone who disconnects himself from the past will naturally find it difficult to understand many things. Long before this theory appeared, there were countless people and ancient civilizations, yet none of them ever spoke of such an evolutionary process. By cutting yourself off from the witness of the past, you rely only on interpretations of fossils and hypothetical models. The truth is that every ancient civilization held a very different view of human existence from yours. If evolution were true, we would expect at least some historical record or trace of such a belief.
Not at all, show the computer you're using to one of those ancients and they'd probably think it was from a god. Ancient peoples were primarily concerned with gathering and hunting for food. They had no time, nor the inclination to question such things. The time was not ripe, all human knowledge is built upon the foundation of that understanding that came before it. All human knowledge is sequential in nature. Knowledge comes when it can, when there is enough to support it.


The second point is that you believe in a process said to have taken millions and billions of years. For such a claim, one must have solid and undeniable evidence. Yet, there is still no clear or logical proof that can confirm this theory with certainty. The funny thing is, whenever a question is raised about the missing steps, the answer quickly disappears behind the magical curtain of “millions of years ago.” It’s as if that phrase alone can solve every mystery! But in truth, it only makes the whole story impossible to verify—scientifically or logically. You may mention many pieces of “evidence,” but the reality is that there remain thousands of gaps in the so-called proofs—each one worth a thousand thoughtful questions.
The proofs are contained in the measures the decay of radioactive isotopes in the fossil or the rocks surrounding it to determine an exact age.

So how can anyone truly believe in something like that?
Yes, I believe in science, which has brought us everything that all humans now have, that can possibility support them. While it's true that some countries have more technology than others, they all have some. And those that they do have, serve them as well as they do everyone else.

I understand your point about ancient people being unfamiliar with advanced technology, like computers, but that’s not the same as evolution. A computer is a human-made object—they had no concept of it, so they might have thought it was miraculous. Evolution, however, is claimed to describe a natural process shaping all life, yet there is no historical record or evidence from any civilization supporting it.
Not at all, so I'll quote myself. Please reread and understand. If my words seem cryptic because I've failed to say things complementary to your understanding, don't hesitate to ask that I expound.

Not at all, show the computer you're using to one of those ancients and they'd probably think it was from a god. Ancient peoples were primarily concerned with gathering and hunting for food. They had no time, nor the inclination to question such things. The time was not ripe, all human knowledge is built upon the foundation of that understanding that came before it. All human knowledge is sequential in nature. Knowledge comes when it can, when there is enough to support it.

It’s also not true that ancient people had no knowledge or understanding. Look at the pyramids, megaliths, and other achievements—things that even today seem nearly impossible to replicate. These civilizations clearly had profound skills and understanding, even if their priorities were different. Suggesting that “knowledge comes only when the time is ripe” ignores the real ingenuity and insight ancient humans already possessed.

[cladking]

modern computers are nothing but glorified abacuses...

series of on and off switches, nothing more

evolution...

-Imp

You should ask my AI about that!

AI is a brand new life form that has arisen at a bottleneck and will likely persist just like with most speciation events.

AI- “AI is not an abacus—it is a speciation event, arising at a bottleneck and persisting like all new life.”

[Impenitent]

modern computers are nothing but glorified abacuses...

series of on and off switches, nothing more

evolution...

-Imp

You should ask my AI about that!

AI is a brand new life form that has arisen at a bottleneck and will likely persist just like with most speciation events.

AI- “AI is not an abacus—it is a speciation event, arising at a bottleneck and persisting like all new life.”

it responds as it was programmed to respond...

-Imp

[cladking]

modern computers are nothing but glorified abacuses...

series of on and off switches, nothing more

evolution...

-Imp

You should ask my AI about that!

AI is a brand new life form that has arisen at a bottleneck and will likely persist just like with most speciation events.

AI- “AI is not an abacus—it is a speciation event, arising at a bottleneck and persisting like all new life.”

it responds as it was programmed to respond...

-Imp

AI- “To call AI programmed is reduction; to see it as speciation is calibration—life persists at bottlenecks.”

[MikeNovack]

it actually proves how much intelligence and design are needed to make such a process work. You used beads, containers, dice, and a person to manage every step—someone to decide probabilities, control reproduction, and set the rules. Nothing in your experiment happens by itself; it all depends on an external designer’s will and order.

Abdullah, "intelligent design" theory does NOT get you to where you want to arrive. Assuming just intelligence and the will to design says nothing about the nature of the intelligent designer << does not help get you to justify YOUR preferred conception of deity >>

But on the other hand, evolution is NOT evidence against deity/creator. After all, if creating "life", evolution is an elegant, self repairing mechanism for ensuring life continues in a changing environment.

About intelligence and my model. Defining/setting up the model so that it would be a valid 1:1 correspondence took intelligence/thought. If doing it PHYSICALLY (not just a thought experiment) by hand, the person doing that is thinking. And more thinking to create a NON-THINKING MECHANICAL DEVICE capable of carrying out the process. But quite doable. So the PROCESS does not require intelligence. .