Is the Theory of Evolution of Humans complete?

As the study shows, cooperation works mathematically which is why it has been intrinsic to evolution, to life, since RNA world at least. So the invention of agriculture and the making up of religion is utterly deterministic tens of thousands of years after the deterministic evolution of behavioural modernity. Simples.

He gives cogent arguments based on the latest science to show that so far chemistry is nowhere near explaining how living cells evolved. He should be answered in kind.

He isn’t asking a disinterested scientific question from a disinterested scientific perspective so disinterested scientific answers are meaningless. There are no other answers. In fact he isn’t asking a question at all.

1 Like

Thanks for your welcome. No particular reason the theory of evolution should answer everything. I was responding to johndm “the laws of chemistry can probably explain—” That said believers in atheistic materialism when discussing evolution often claim that we are there or there abouts in explaining the origin of life…

Yes I see it is intrinsic, but we see little of it early on in evolution, much more in mammals and in humans aided by the the Evolution of Religion it is accelerating exponentially

We’ll never be there, a pre-biotic lab of billions of cubic kilometres of water, air, rock with every physical and chemical gradient imaginable. One of a trillion in this insignificant galaxy alone. We don’t have to be there to know with complete rational certainty that abiogenesis occurs as soon as it starts raining.

We know nothing of the sort. And if it were that easy, it would be insulting to all the good work and theorizing that has gone into building up plausible scenarios or pathways. If just sprinkling some water into the bottom of a chamber were all it took, they would have been all over that decades ago.

Termites were eusocial one hundred and fifty million years ago. Religion didn’t make them or us cooperative. Statistics did.

You need a pre-biosphere as I said Mervin. In deep time that’s what happened. A second after midnight.

Religion has helped Jumpstart cooperation. see pdf

1 Like

Good grief. Statistics are only records of the observable, data after the fact. They don’t make anything happen. Well, maybe they make someone who enjoys working with them or finds them necessary for their work to study them more. They could influence other decisions, too, but that is more of an indirect and passive effect than a direct and active one.

2 Likes

Actually, it started raining when the earth started cooling from molten into solid rock, and the vapor in the atmosphere started condensing into water. It rained long enough to fill the oceans. Not sure on the math, but many millennia, and life didn’t form right away.

A lot of research has been done since 1984. You asked specifically about the population explosion over the last 12,000 years. That question is simple. Hunter-gatherer societies live off the natural produce of the land, and whether the land in question is jungle or savannah or coastline, the human population is limited by the amount of food the environment produces. Once the earth was “filled,” so to speak, population growth was stagnant until the invention of agriculture.

On cooperation, it reaches much farther back than 12,000 years ago. Religion is a latecomer too. Both language and morality require advanced forms of cooperation, and the roots of those things stretch back to H. erectus at least. Sarah Hrdy, in Mothers and Others, traces the roots of cooperation to cooperative parenting, well more than a million years ago.

1 Like

That’s exactly what made it happen. The odds.

As I said Jay, in geological time it might as well be simultaneous.

Yes, I’m picking nits and not bothering to look up dates, but life began in the oceans, whatever the mechanism and chemistry. In geological time, we might as well have skipped straight from Australopithecus to sapiens. That’s a big scale.

Actually, @Dale is right. Odds don’t make things happen. Odds said that Barcelona and Real Madrid wouldn’t lose on the same day, but they did. The game still must be played. Odds are that the odds will prove right, but not every time. Perhaps the odds were against life, but it formed anyway?

1 Like

Not at all, it’s all statistically inevitable. Cooperation wins in game theory, operational research, so it does in reality. Life is intrinsically cooperative. A winning game.

The latter, in the last minute. Water was present 4.1 gya, life 4. 20 minutes. In the last 24 hours. Two and a half percent. Have you seen the best film ever made?

Yep. Looks like you answered your own question. Of course the development of language with the coding and representational abilities even surpassing that of DNA was a big part of what made this possible.

I think it is intrinsic to the very process of life.

On the contrary, it has always been the most successful evolutionary strategy, especially early on in evolution. That is when you got real advances in evolutionary development.

Not only will you find symbiotic relationships in the earliest of ecosystems but the cooperation implicit in multicellular organisms was a key step in evolution. Any close examination of the human body reveals that we are literally built of cooperative symbiotic relationships. There are also hints that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic in a similar way by symbiosis and cooperation. And when you go to prebiotic evolution I think the cooperation of different chemical cycles was a key part of the formation of life itself.

NOW consider the implications of this. The old social Darwinist idea about society’s protection of its weaker members being an obstacle to evolution is revealed to be pure nonsense. Evolution is not even driven by natural selection as they supposed, but by variation. And society’s protection of its weaker members increases variation. We don’t all have to be Daniel Boones surviving on our own in the wilderness. We now take thousands of different roles in cooperative efforts which enrich everyone’s life. Thus instead of halting evolution this has greatly accelerated it, which is pretty obvious to anyone looking at how fast things are changing in the world.

But doesn’t more evolution mean humans changing into something else? Not necessarily. Eukaryotic cells evolved 2.7 billion years ago and they have not changed much in all that time. The evolution of all the different plants and animals all evolved with those same basic cells. Of course we do see a variety of cells in the body as they have adapted to their special roles and I suppose we might see some of that also, not by the evolution of new species any more than those different cells are different species but changes brought about by the abilities of the developmental relationships which we might call technology.

2 Likes

Yes in what I quoted he is not asking a question He is making an informed comment and giving some of his reasons more detailed reasoning can be found if you explore his other writings.
I must say Klax that I do not understand where you are coming from.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.