-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Evolution and Science Acceptance
- Thread starter lati0s
- Start date
- Status
well considering you've used the word "believe" in the context of differentiating macro- and microevolution I don't think a scientific response would do any good, not to mention that there is enough material to explain macroevolution if you looked for it
hint: look up the evolution of the eye, for an explicit demonstration of how something seemingly too complicated to arise from natural selection does indeed so without the need for an intelligent maker
hint: look up the evolution of the eye, for an explicit demonstration of how something seemingly too complicated to arise from natural selection does indeed so without the need for an intelligent maker
Well if it's the word you have an issue with I can go with "I'm not scientifically convinced with the theories that go around explaining this aspect of evolution".
I looked for it, it's not uncommon that a man/woman of faith would run into these sorts of debates and discussions, especially online. Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolutionary scientists are still not sure how life started on this planet if it did and from what materials and how it happened, when they do and they can perform a test, an experiment if you will (some have already tried and failed) that proves it, I remain unconvinced.
I looked for it, it's not uncommon that a man/woman of faith would run into these sorts of debates and discussions, especially online. Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolutionary scientists are still not sure how life started on this planet if it did and from what materials and how it happened, when they do and they can perform a test, an experiment if you will (some have already tried and failed) that proves it, I remain unconvinced.
Throwing insults is easy, I'm just too old for it. Although the 2+2 argument should be enough.
Read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I've read about abiogenesis before. You're kind of late, abiogenesis has been brought up in this thread previously.
What's your point?
Is that your point?
So because we don't know everything, you're not "scientifically convinced" about the things we have plenty of evidence for? That's like saying you are not "scientifically convinced" about the heliocentric theory because a "man of faith" such as yourself must know the origin of space/time in order for you to be "scientifically convinced" that the heliocentric theory is plausible. Oh wait, there are plenty of people "of faith" who still believe that the earth is the center of the universe simply because it's written in some 2000 year old book.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
where did he say he didn't believe in evolution because evolutionary biologists "don't know everything"
he said he doesn't believe in abiogenesis because the scientific community is deeply divided on the mechanics and doesn't have a single convincing experiment, in his estimation
he said he doesn't believe in abiogenesis because the scientific community is deeply divided on the mechanics and doesn't have a single convincing experiment, in his estimation
It seems silly that the "lack of proof" for evolution means we have had to have had a deity to create us, when there is even less proof for that. We share an outstanding percentage of our DNA with a specific species of monkey (which name escapes me right now), would that not imply that we have shared a common ancestor?
EDIT:
Unless you were question if a deity created us too, which would be neat to see someone reject both of the most common ideas in light of a different answer.
EDIT:
Unless you were question if a deity created us too, which would be neat to see someone reject both of the most common ideas in light of a different answer.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
My Ford Taurus and Chrysler Town and Country share a whole lot of hardware under the hood. They both have a battery (the same battery in my case). They both have transmissions. Oh, so slightly different, but the same concept. They're both V6's. Obvious variations, but its still a V6 engine. Same bolts for the same parts. Same wiring gauges. Same idea for the frame. I could go on. But they were designed and built completely independently. They only share a lot of the same innards because they're both cars. What works for the Ford works for the Chrysler, and quite efficiently.
Its completely reasonable to look at our DNA and chimp's DNA and come to the conclusion that we both share a common ancestor. But the similarities between the two genomes, in-and-of-themselves do not necessitate common ancestry. It is entirely possible that chimps and humans could share much of the same DNA because those lines of code are absolutely necessary to produce upright, mobile, primates. Since the God of the Bible wanted a chimp, he had to put that into its DNA. In our case, when he wanted a human, he had to put much of the same code into our DNA. And in light of the fact that my Bible, that means so much to me, tells me otherwise, I'm going to go with otherwise.
Its completely reasonable to look at our DNA and chimp's DNA and come to the conclusion that we both share a common ancestor. But the similarities between the two genomes, in-and-of-themselves do not necessitate common ancestry. It is entirely possible that chimps and humans could share much of the same DNA because those lines of code are absolutely necessary to produce upright, mobile, primates. Since the God of the Bible wanted a chimp, he had to put that into its DNA. In our case, when he wanted a human, he had to put much of the same code into our DNA. And in light of the fact that my Bible, that means so much to me, tells me otherwise, I'm going to go with otherwise.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
I can't speak for all Christians, or all religious people, or all people who reject parts of evolution. Many Christians, and other religious people, absolutely do base their beliefs, their faith in their holy book and in the ideas of their religion, solely on faith.
I don't.
I believe what I believe because I have read the words of the Bible and have tried them and found them to be true.
I don't reject the common ancestor theory and abiogenesis because I believe there is no proof whatsoever for them. There's plenty of evidence pointing toward those conclusions. Those are reasonable conclusions. I don't believe them because I have tested the Word of God and am convinced it is true, they contradict what the Word of God plainly says, and there's not enough evidence to convince me personally they're right and the Bible is wrong.
I don't.
I believe what I believe because I have read the words of the Bible and have tried them and found them to be true.
I don't reject the common ancestor theory and abiogenesis because I believe there is no proof whatsoever for them. There's plenty of evidence pointing toward those conclusions. Those are reasonable conclusions. I don't believe them because I have tested the Word of God and am convinced it is true, they contradict what the Word of God plainly says, and there's not enough evidence to convince me personally they're right and the Bible is wrong.
He said he didn't believe in macro evolution because scientists are "not sure how life started" in this post:
For the record, this will never be proven. We will never have "proof" of the origin of life. Proofs are shit you do in math class. The best that will happen is that we will start finding evidence for a hypothesis. Eventually, when all or most of the evidence found supports the same hypothesis, the hypothesis will become a theory.
Except cars were designed by humans, and are unable to reproduce. Still though. Cars evolved into what you have in your garage. The model-T wasn't a V6, or had the same transmission, or the same bolts and parts, much less wiring gauges. All of those things have been changed over time (evolution). You cannot deny the fact that things change over time. Whether it be cars or Life, change is evident.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure those lines of code are absolutely necessary to produce upright, mobile primates. but that's not to say there aren't other lines of code that can produce the same thing. Since the God of the Bible is all powerful, why didn't he just make it so that another code could produce an upright, mobile primate?? I don't see how an all powerful being "HAD TO" do anything at all. Surely someone who made every fucking thing that has EVER EXISTED could easily devise another line of DNA code that still makes an upright, mobile primate. but then again, if the DNA was drastically different, we would not share a common ancestor in recent evolutionary history, and thus it would not be a primate at all even if this new creature was morphologically similar to humans and other primates.
Not only that, but we share less genetic code with life forms which are obviously further removed, but still some.
Something to keep in mind is that a scientific theory is, in the words of wikipedia:
The theory of evolution - much like the Einstein's theory of relativity and Newton's theory of gravity - was created to explain a physical phenomenon. There seems to be a general misconception that if the theory of evolution is not true, then what we know as "evolution" is not happening. The theory merely explains various observed phenomema. So you are free to disagree with the theory of evolution if you wish, but you cannot disagree with the observed processes of evolution. Admittedly, you would be hard pressed to find a better model describing observed genetic similarities between different species, speciation, inheritance of genetic characteristics, and a number of other observed facts.
As for abiogenesis: It is true that as of now it cannot be reliably reproduced in a controlled setting. It is possible that abiogenesis was a result of a creator, but it would require a very loose interpretation of every religious text I know about (i.e. they in no way suggest the creation of non-human life which later became human life) which really makes them no more accurate than if abiogenesis had occurred.
I would love to know more about your methodology
What I still am not getting is there a way to convince you that this theory of evolution actually happened or is there no chance. What would it take for someone as devout as you to say, "I was wrong about this one." I mean as a person who has a belief in science, if someone came up with a better postulate to evolution I would drop evolution in a second. Whereas it doesn't seem to be the case for intelligent design believers.
For general ideals and morals and a code in which to live by, I don't think the bible in itself is a bad way to go (as long as you ignore the whole gay-hate thing). In fact I think religion is, in theory, a pretty good practice for most people. What I find issue with religion is that it sometimes halts the practices and ideas behind science -- it sometimes challenges school systems for teaching children about it. It also challenges books to become banned, which is really fucked no matter what way you think about it.
I guess I wouldn't want a child of mine learning intelligent design, so maybe I can see a segment of where you're coming from. You want a child to grow up believing what you think is right. When it comes down to it though you have to wonder if the word of the bible, or any religious text, has as much meaning in the world it does now. Does cutting one's hair seem as much as a sin as it did then? Or does wearing clothing of multiple animals (I think that's a real thing in the bible might've been one animal?) make you a sinner?
While we expanse in our universe, traveling through space, we're trying harder and harder to achieve God-hood, even though most people wouldn't want to say that. We don't want to die, we want to create, we want to explore. As we come closer and closer to this so called God-hood wouldn't our perspectives change on what is right and wrong? It certainly offers validation to ideas prospected earlier (see: Higgs Boson), and it helps our understanding of the world.
While a bit wordy, and I'm sorry for that, I have to wonder why people of God are so against the idea of evolution when there is more validation behind it than intelligent design. Do you guys think you are halting our advancement in anyway by saying these things? Do you think you're stopping our progress towards our own, personal, God-hood?
For general ideals and morals and a code in which to live by, I don't think the bible in itself is a bad way to go (as long as you ignore the whole gay-hate thing). In fact I think religion is, in theory, a pretty good practice for most people. What I find issue with religion is that it sometimes halts the practices and ideas behind science -- it sometimes challenges school systems for teaching children about it. It also challenges books to become banned, which is really fucked no matter what way you think about it.
I guess I wouldn't want a child of mine learning intelligent design, so maybe I can see a segment of where you're coming from. You want a child to grow up believing what you think is right. When it comes down to it though you have to wonder if the word of the bible, or any religious text, has as much meaning in the world it does now. Does cutting one's hair seem as much as a sin as it did then? Or does wearing clothing of multiple animals (I think that's a real thing in the bible might've been one animal?) make you a sinner?
While we expanse in our universe, traveling through space, we're trying harder and harder to achieve God-hood, even though most people wouldn't want to say that. We don't want to die, we want to create, we want to explore. As we come closer and closer to this so called God-hood wouldn't our perspectives change on what is right and wrong? It certainly offers validation to ideas prospected earlier (see: Higgs Boson), and it helps our understanding of the world.
While a bit wordy, and I'm sorry for that, I have to wonder why people of God are so against the idea of evolution when there is more validation behind it than intelligent design. Do you guys think you are halting our advancement in anyway by saying these things? Do you think you're stopping our progress towards our own, personal, God-hood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
These two articles would be a great place to begin. Evolution has to be seen in light of how many "man-hours" are put into it (a number best written on a double exponent form). The span of a lifetime is next to nothing. If you want to use those terms, macroevolution is just microevolution on a larger scale.
The problem is that people like X5Dragon were told flat out lies about evolution in Sunday School or at home. Things like, "scientists still aren't sure about x" or "just a theory." And for some people that is all it takes. Once they've heard a "fact" from someone they trust and it meshes with their belief system their brain says, "case closed on that subject!" And all new information is considered to be from people who don't know as much or are confused or biased.
I still remember in Sunday School someone asked about Jesus coming back and taking all the saved to heaven and what would happen if they were doing something like driving, etc. The teacher told us it was a law that the two pilots on a commercial airplane couldn't both be saved because one would have to stay behind to fly the plane. They told this to a room full of children. They heard this "fact" somewhere and since it made sense in their world view they just accepted it as true and continued to propagate it. This is what happens with Christians saying all this crap like, "Micro-evolution, sure, but there isn't proof of macro-evolution."
I still remember in Sunday School someone asked about Jesus coming back and taking all the saved to heaven and what would happen if they were doing something like driving, etc. The teacher told us it was a law that the two pilots on a commercial airplane couldn't both be saved because one would have to stay behind to fly the plane. They told this to a room full of children. They heard this "fact" somewhere and since it made sense in their world view they just accepted it as true and continued to propagate it. This is what happens with Christians saying all this crap like, "Micro-evolution, sure, but there isn't proof of macro-evolution."
Do you understand what those words actually mean? Macroevolution has the exact same mechanism as Microevolution, the difference between the two is time scale. Microevolution still takes several generations to even see noticable changes, and Macroevolution takes several thousand, if not hundreds of thousands of generations, all through the same process of accumulating specific mutations. To say you "believe" in micro but not macro, is exactly the same as saying, "I believe it's possible to walk 10 feet, but walking for a mile is just impossible", it is exactly the same process, the only difference is time scale.
that's what they said about special relativity... and a lot of other things we take for granted nowcoolbiz said:
NOMatthew said:
NO
STOP
DON'T SAY IT
...goddamnit
I guess this is a little off the topic of bashing on mattj but something I noticed last year was that I pretty much believed in evolution on faith all through high school. There is not much testing of hypotheses that goes on in most biology classes or even most online debates about evolution. Instead of examples that compare evolution with competing theories on their merits I daresay that most evolution education is pretty much just regurgitation of the same basic facts without any real analysis. We're taught that evolution is correct in school (well, depending on where you go to school LOL) and if you have a conflicting view, you must be stupid or bad at science. So of course no one in these "scientifically enlightened" high schools likes to disagree.
Fast forward to about a year ago, I'm sitting there in biochem class learning about the mechanism of proton transfer through ATP synthase. The professor is explaining how some amino acids in the interface between the subunits of the enzyme make use of the pH gradient of the matrix so that the amino acids are preferentially charged along one side, which carries protons through the matrix in a rotating motion (that's the idea as I remember it, sorry if you just learned biochem and I butchered the explanation). But WTF? You expect me to believe that all that stuff just came together naturally? It sounds about as complex and perfectly triggered as the insides of a watch. Of course the standard regurgitated answer would be that this mechanism formed the same way as the complexities of the eye. At this point I basically realized that I'd been blissfully ignorant of evolution even after learning it in class and entering competitions on it.
What am I even trying to say... I guess it's that I realized that it's very easy to accept evolution on faith, even while you look down on religious people for accepting their beliefs on faith. Just because something is grounded in science doesn't prevent you from accepting it on faith.
I gave up on making the last half of this post sound pretty (think of how an Eo post sounds).
Fast forward to about a year ago, I'm sitting there in biochem class learning about the mechanism of proton transfer through ATP synthase. The professor is explaining how some amino acids in the interface between the subunits of the enzyme make use of the pH gradient of the matrix so that the amino acids are preferentially charged along one side, which carries protons through the matrix in a rotating motion (that's the idea as I remember it, sorry if you just learned biochem and I butchered the explanation). But WTF? You expect me to believe that all that stuff just came together naturally? It sounds about as complex and perfectly triggered as the insides of a watch. Of course the standard regurgitated answer would be that this mechanism formed the same way as the complexities of the eye. At this point I basically realized that I'd been blissfully ignorant of evolution even after learning it in class and entering competitions on it.
What am I even trying to say... I guess it's that I realized that it's very easy to accept evolution on faith, even while you look down on religious people for accepting their beliefs on faith. Just because something is grounded in science doesn't prevent you from accepting it on faith.
I gave up on making the last half of this post sound pretty (think of how an Eo post sounds).
I went to Catholic high school myself, and (naturally) one of the themes in my education that kept popping up was that everything requires a certain degree of faith to accept. And really, that's true. Scientific theories are borne of induction, and at the end of the day when applying science you have to have faith that what has happened a million times will, indeed, happen the next time you observe the system. There is no guarantee. Furthermore, even logic forces you to presuppose axioms in order to get anywhere - ultimately, you must have faith that those suppositions are so basic and intuitive that they must be true. Still, the point of intellectual disciplines is to reduce that "faith" element as far as possible when presenting conclusions.
Because intellectual thought needs to aim to reduce this "faith" element when coming to conclusions, science education in secondary school (and all education, really) should focus more on using evidence to support conclusions. As it stands, science education until (and often up through) uni is mostly "accept these facts". And while I'd like for more scientific thinking to go on in secondary school for just the reason you described, the fact of the matter is that this just isn't the case. The theories taught in high school are, indeed, based off of collective observations and careful reasoning, but as far as the high schooler knows it's just another "fact" relayed from somebody they're supposed to have a good deal of "faith" in.
And that's why it's scary that ID might be taught alongside evolution in biology classrooms. The high schoolers can't tell the difference, even though collective observations massively support one theory whereas the other hypothesis is not supported by evidence outside of "shit's complex, yo". Furthermore, ID merely serves to validate a pre-existing worldview without providing useful predictions about future observations, which makes it pointless as a scientific hypothesis even if it is "true."
The difference is that theologians are not the only ones who study the question "does god exist?" Philosophers also study this question and the majority of philosophers are atheists. Did you read my earlier reply?
Also, there is no reason to be mean to x5dragon, his position is wrong but we should respond with evidence and not insults. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
it's funny because this is very much like a standard fallacy employed by some people arguing for creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy#The_.22watchmaker.22_analogy
Hi, apologies ahead of time for not actually coming up with something yet for this topic, but earlier in the year for our discussion session for evolution, we reviewed an article that is so painfully relevant to this topic and the main conversations present here that I simply must share with you a 7 page research paper (against my better judgment).
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0wHlNy0xjKwLTVUOHhUQktMdjg
I urge everyone to read it, since the author's main goal is to reconcile evolutionary theory with theology. I'm curious what all of your thoughts are on this paper.
It's not as dense and unfathomable as other research papers, I promise!
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0wHlNy0xjKwLTVUOHhUQktMdjg
I urge everyone to read it, since the author's main goal is to reconcile evolutionary theory with theology. I'm curious what all of your thoughts are on this paper.
It's not as dense and unfathomable as other research papers, I promise!
Honestly, there are two completely separate issues. The first is that some people do not accept evolution because it conflicts with a personal belief of theirs. Who cares? So long as these people are not biologists, then that's fine. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether the farmer who grew my corn believes that the corn was sprung into being by a higher power or that the corn evolved from simpler organisms. The farmer's belief does not detrimentally affect anyone.
The second issue is the elimination of the concept of evolution from classrooms, and THIS is worrisome. This practice stops people from becoming educated biologists and is an active hindrance to our society. I think we can all agree that not teaching evolution in schools is wrong. That being said, I would love to hear an opposing side, so I can megaquote your post and talk about how wrong you are.
The second issue is the elimination of the concept of evolution from classrooms, and THIS is worrisome. This practice stops people from becoming educated biologists and is an active hindrance to our society. I think we can all agree that not teaching evolution in schools is wrong. That being said, I would love to hear an opposing side, so I can megaquote your post and talk about how wrong you are.
I actually disagree, considering that people like this are no small minority in america and their votes count just as much as yours or mine.
aaaand this occurs BECAUSE of the previous point, where ignorant politicians get voted into office by ignorant voters who are never challenged on their beliefs and blindly believe whatever they were raised to believe. Attacking this stance but ignoring the beliefs that create this stance is pretty squarely in the "attack the symptom, not the cause" territory.
so basically these issues are completely intertwined instead of separate
- Status