MrDarwin

Over in the Existence of God forum I was asked toward the end of <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000318&p=13" target="_blank">this discussion</a> to expand on my statement that I firmly believe that humans had an entirely natural origin; nothing supernatural involved. As I see it, there are at least 3 possibilities:

1. The standard evolutionary hypothesis: humans evolved from a species of ape (basically, we are a species of ape) without any kind of conscious intervention by an outside force.

2. The theistic evolution hypothesis: Humans evolved from a species of ape, but some outside force consciously interceded--by induced mutation, intentional selection, etc.--to guide or otherwise influence our evolution.

3. The creationist hypothesis: humans had an entirely unnatural origin; that is, there is no connection between us and any other animal; we appeared on the earth sometime in the past as humans, no more, no less, by means unknown. (I think it's safe to say that even hardcore creationists don't know the exact method by which God supposedly created humans!)

So here's my question: on what basis can we select from among the three hypotheses? Is there any way of testing them? What predictions does each hypothesis make, and what kind(s) of evidence should we look for to support or falsify it?

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Evil Jello

"So here's my question: on what basis can we select from among the three hypotheses? Is there any way of testing them? What predictions does each hypothesis make, and what kind(s) of evidence should we look for to support or falsify it?"

We look at evidences.

Hypothesis 2 and 3 should not be taken seriously until because they are based on an unproven assumption. It's as ridiculous to claim that God created the Earth 6k years ago then to claim that Bob ( an omnipotent pink unicorn) created the universe 2min37sec ago (with our memories and all). Unless you can prove that Bob (or God) exist, dont bohter us with your hypothesis.

Duvenoy

Eve was an ancient form of axolotl. She ate small, aquatic creatures in the Swamp of Eden. She had many children sired by many Adams, most of whom, at the beginning of their lives, became prey to larger creatures, probably including other axolotls; possibly including Adam(s) and Eve themselves.

Of course, I can no more document this than a Creationist can prove a talking snake. Please don’t ask, I’m just havin’ a little fun.

I have to go with the prize behind Door Number One. The fossil record thus far all but shouts for Evolution. The only “questions” are: Was the evolution of hominids, and therefore all creatures living today including bacteria and viruses, guided by an outside intelligence?

Or: Is the Theory of Evolution a crock and some sort of deity created it all on a whim? Which begs yet more questions that have been gone into to the point of despair, here and elsewhere.

There has yet to be any empirical evidence produced for the existence of such an intelligence. The Christian Bible and other, religious documents such as the Koran are the only “evidence” in support of either ID or Creation. These documents, written when science was barely in it’s infancy (they had some math and astronomy, and a little medicine) and bolstered with more than a little superstition, cannot be viewed as authorities on this nor any other, secular subject. The argument of: “It is too complex to have been brought forth naturally.” just won’t cut it. Indeed, show me how we/they are too complex. Given time and conditions, almost anything might happen.

What kind of evidence to look for? The fossil record, of course. These remains will tell us even more as we come to learn more about them. I have read that yet another species of hominid has been described and it is causing some excitement. We come from a large and varied family, with much evolutionary trial and error along the way. I think that had environmental conditions been just a little different in our past, we might have all ended up a slightly different species.

Predictions: I have none; I am a not a scientist. But would that we could trace the hominid line way back beyond mammals. Perhaps Eve the Axolotl is not so far out, after all.

Looking forward to more thoughts.

Duvenoy the Damned

tronvillain

Unless God is a deciever, hypothesis three is falsified by the available evidence. Other than that, hypothesis one is the simplest.

MrDarwin

I'm not sure my question was clear. I'm asking more about the methodology of science, about how we find out about the world around us and its history, than the specifics of the human origins argument. This is for people who aren't familiar with the scientific issues to the extent that they don't know how science operates in the first place.

So let me rephrase a little: pretend we're starting from scratch, and we don't know which of these three hypotheses is the best one. How would we go about addressing them and what would we look for?

-=Vagrant=-

1)Look for evidence supporting theory. 2)If no evidence can be found, dumb the theory. 3) Repeat.