I may read through that later to see if it’s covered but I want to remind everyone there a difference between evolution and evolution by natural selection. I often hear Muslim scholars says Islam is so smart because it talks about evolution, but it’s not evolution by natural selection.
Lucretius was definitely talking about evolution from natural selection (especially look at the last one from book 5 about the intermediate freaks where only what survived to reproduce continued to exist), including what was nearly a Mendelian picture of trait inheritance from each parent.
As for whether that picture of things was being conveyed by a historical Jesus, it really depends on how one interprets the broader context of the sower parable regarding what survived multiplying (i.e. is canon more accurate or the Naassenes).
But I’d strongly suggest at least reading through the first part of my comment of the De Rerum Natura quotes. Your mind will be blown (when I was first researching this material I had to keep checking it wasn’t a hoax or overly forgiving modern translation, as it was strikingly at odds with the accuracy of what I thought was capable of being theorized in antiquity).
What is the difference? Evolution as a word can mean a few things but the concept of evolution from a biological perspective is the same as natural selection. There is no difference. Natural selection is the theory by which we explain observed biological evolution.
I suspect they mean the broad concept of “life came from other stuff that was different before it” vs “life came from other stuff based on what survived to reproduce.”
Not that neutral selection is overly broad vs evolution, but that the term evolution is sometimes too loosely applied to ideas in an attempt to give them greater credence while the thing it is applied to is ignoring the mechanics of how those changes were propagated.
It’s a fair point even if it doesn’t really apply to what I commented as Leucretius not only explicitly described the relevance of surviving to reproduce on the survival or failure of intermediate mutations, but even was aware that trait inheritance depended on a doubled seed from each parent.
So it was kind of like “I didn’t bother reading this but I’m going to assume it’s wrong in this way” where the way discussed is a legit point but not applicable to the thing they are replying to as would have been immediately apparent had they read it.
I suspect they are simply being dishonest which is why I asked. They probably don’t know and don’t care about the various methods of inheritance. They just want to try and claim that natural selection is wrong.
Nah. I’m familiar with Lamarckian evolutionary theories and there’s no evidence for them. Although many evolutionary traits and effects seem Lamarckian in the ways they affect species, they are completely defined by natural selection processes and mechanisms.
I can’t tell if you’re bringing this up in bad faith because you’re a religious person or if this is a genuine attempt at separating the hypothesis from the effect and you’re just a bit ignorant.
As an example, epigenetic inheritance, which has been dishonestly used as an example of Lamarckian evolution, has evidence for it. Contrary to that idea, though, it has never been observed to have an effect on actual evolution because the environment of the species in which the inheritance occurs is still selected for by their environment.
I think there is more evidence for lmarckian thinking now than when it was proposed. I don’t think it really works but the environment can activate genes. As for whats the difference is natural selection is the source of evolution whereas god evolved creatures over time with his god powers as part of his great plan. well that would not be.
Not in the way he meant it. We’ve confirmed that inheritance is a thing but not in the way he described. In one of his writings, he gave an example of how a blacksmith, for example, could grow his muscles because of the rigor of his work and that he could pass that down to his children to give them an affinity for the same type of work. We now know that that’s not only not true but that, even in his example, the environment is the driving factor there.
I may read through that later to see if it’s covered but I want to remind everyone there a difference between evolution and evolution by natural selection. I often hear Muslim scholars says Islam is so smart because it talks about evolution, but it’s not evolution by natural selection.
Lucretius was definitely talking about evolution from natural selection (especially look at the last one from book 5 about the intermediate freaks where only what survived to reproduce continued to exist), including what was nearly a Mendelian picture of trait inheritance from each parent.
As for whether that picture of things was being conveyed by a historical Jesus, it really depends on how one interprets the broader context of the sower parable regarding what survived multiplying (i.e. is canon more accurate or the Naassenes).
But I’d strongly suggest at least reading through the first part of my comment of the De Rerum Natura quotes. Your mind will be blown (when I was first researching this material I had to keep checking it wasn’t a hoax or overly forgiving modern translation, as it was strikingly at odds with the accuracy of what I thought was capable of being theorized in antiquity).
What is the difference? Evolution as a word can mean a few things but the concept of evolution from a biological perspective is the same as natural selection. There is no difference. Natural selection is the theory by which we explain observed biological evolution.
I suspect they mean the broad concept of “life came from other stuff that was different before it” vs “life came from other stuff based on what survived to reproduce.”
Not that neutral selection is overly broad vs evolution, but that the term evolution is sometimes too loosely applied to ideas in an attempt to give them greater credence while the thing it is applied to is ignoring the mechanics of how those changes were propagated.
It’s a fair point even if it doesn’t really apply to what I commented as Leucretius not only explicitly described the relevance of surviving to reproduce on the survival or failure of intermediate mutations, but even was aware that trait inheritance depended on a doubled seed from each parent.
So it was kind of like “I didn’t bother reading this but I’m going to assume it’s wrong in this way” where the way discussed is a legit point but not applicable to the thing they are replying to as would have been immediately apparent had they read it.
I suspect they are simply being dishonest which is why I asked. They probably don’t know and don’t care about the various methods of inheritance. They just want to try and claim that natural selection is wrong.
Look up Lamarckian.
Nah. I’m familiar with Lamarckian evolutionary theories and there’s no evidence for them. Although many evolutionary traits and effects seem Lamarckian in the ways they affect species, they are completely defined by natural selection processes and mechanisms.
I can’t tell if you’re bringing this up in bad faith because you’re a religious person or if this is a genuine attempt at separating the hypothesis from the effect and you’re just a bit ignorant.
As an example, epigenetic inheritance, which has been dishonestly used as an example of Lamarckian evolution, has evidence for it. Contrary to that idea, though, it has never been observed to have an effect on actual evolution because the environment of the species in which the inheritance occurs is still selected for by their environment.
I think there is more evidence for lmarckian thinking now than when it was proposed. I don’t think it really works but the environment can activate genes. As for whats the difference is natural selection is the source of evolution whereas god evolved creatures over time with his god powers as part of his great plan. well that would not be.
Not in the way he meant it. We’ve confirmed that inheritance is a thing but not in the way he described. In one of his writings, he gave an example of how a blacksmith, for example, could grow his muscles because of the rigor of his work and that he could pass that down to his children to give them an affinity for the same type of work. We now know that that’s not only not true but that, even in his example, the environment is the driving factor there.
I won’t even comment on the god powers.