Question About Evolution
02 Nov 2012, 7:36 am
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
I was discussing evolution with someone who buys into young earth creationism, and they asked me the usual "well if we came from Chimpanzees, why are there still Chimpanzees". I explained that we didn't come from Chimps, but rather a common ancestor we share with Bonobos and Chimpanzees that lived 6 million years ago. I also explained that physiologically, it probably would have resembled a chimp more than a human, but this is because the Chimp never left the trees, the original environment of the shared progenitor, so there were less physiologically apparent adaptations needed than the human ancestral line that split off and filled a new niche in the retreating forests that were being displaced by grasslands through climate change.
However, they hit me with a hard question I couldn't answer, and that's "why in recorded history hasn't a new species developed". They defined a species as a boundary in which a group of organisms can interbreed. The question was, more or less "why hasn't any group of organisms gone from a state of being able to interbreed within a wider circle of closely related organisms to a more restrictive circle?"I mentioned mules, but that doesn't really apply since they can't reproduce at all. I imagine that in the event that a new species does form, it probably would happen through the kind of intercourse that a donkey and horse (close enough to produce offspring but different enough to produce a freak or oddity) provide, but I don't know of any real world examples. If someone could fill me in on this, let me know.
They argued that a kind of meta-consciousness brought all the different life forms into being through intention and that, while different species can change form to a limited extent (Saber tooth tigers to Siberian Tigers/ Woolly Mammoths to Elephants), there is no organic based, common line of descension that all life shares, only commonality shared through a meta-physical intelligence.
However, they hit me with a hard question I couldn't answer, and that's "why in recorded history hasn't a new species developed". They defined a species as a boundary in which a group of organisms can interbreed. The question was, more or less "why hasn't any group of organisms gone from a state of being able to interbreed within a wider circle of closely related organisms to a more restrictive circle?"I mentioned mules, but that doesn't really apply since they can't reproduce at all. I imagine that in the event that a new species does form, it probably would happen through the kind of intercourse that a donkey and horse (close enough to produce offspring but different enough to produce a freak or oddity) provide, but I don't know of any real world examples. If someone could fill me in on this, let me know.
They argued that a kind of meta-consciousness brought all the different life forms into being through intention and that, while different species can change form to a limited extent (Saber tooth tigers to Siberian Tigers/ Woolly Mammoths to Elephants), there is no organic based, common line of descension that all life shares, only commonality shared through a meta-physical intelligence.
I wish by no means to offend any young earth creationists, but what you're describing only prooves that these guys are good a asking questions and are well adept at articulation and (often) masters of rhetorics.
Neither Constantine, St. augustine or any recent pope dismissed science in favour of Biblical literalism. Disrespecting science would also mean disrespecting God's ways.
Absolutely. The signature of God is truth, and if something is true, religion cannot deny, or else it is a false religion.
But... on that same token, science is always changing, and we shouldn't limit ourselves to possibilities, especially when evidence is so sparse for macro evolution.
We cannot hinge belief in God on the truisms of the day, especially when the text was never ment to explain science to begin with. This evolution theory may be totally discarded a thousand years from now, or many theories birthed out of it may offer better explanations, but as long as mans nature is still the same, the text will be as true then, 1000+ years from now, as it was for moses.
Huh?
Let me try to translate what you're saying here.
Basically you're saying that "we cant chuck christianity, because the theory of evolution might just be a passing fad."
But that assumes that you cant be both a christian AND believe in evolution.
Many do both.
And you just said yourself that "the bible was never meant to explain science". So if the bible was never meant to be a geology textbook then whats the issue anyway?
02 Nov 2012, 9:08 am
AnotherKind wrote:
First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.
So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.
02 Nov 2012, 9:16 am
piroflip wrote:
There was a species of butterfly that developed during the grimy industrial era of London.
It became a dirty sooty colour in just a few decades.
It became a dirty sooty colour in just a few decades.
You're thinking of the peppered moth. Even before the industrial revolution, black moths existed, but they were frequently taken prey by birds and were thus rare and often didn't get to pass their genes on. After the trees became discolored, the tables were turned and black moths actually got places where they could camoflage themselves. White peppered moths still exist, but they're the minority now, given that they're usually eaten before they passs their genes on.
02 Nov 2012, 9:29 am
JNathanK wrote:
AnotherKind wrote:
First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.
So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.
I cant figure out what she is saying either.
Either (a) she KNOWS that the bacteria didnt evolve into worms- but that that spurious idea momentary flashed across her mind. So even though she knows its wrong- its somekind of metaphor for evolution- even though it happened on a tinier timescale than real evolution. Even this doesnt really make sense to me-but whatever.
Or (b) She really IS under the impression that bacteria in potatoes can become maggots. In which case she is both hugely wrong AND doesnt understand evolution.
In fact she reinvented the disproven Medeaval theory of Spontaneous Generation-which has nothing to do with evolution.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
02 Nov 2012, 10:11 am
naturalplastic wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
AnotherKind wrote:
First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.
So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.
I cant figure out what she is saying either.
Either (a) she KNOWS that the bacteria didnt evolve into worms- but that that spurious idea momentary flashed across her mind. So even though she knows its wrong- its somekind of metaphor for evolution- even though it happened on a tinier timescale than real evolution. Even this doesnt really make sense to me-but whatever.
Or (b) She really IS under the impression that bacteria in potatoes can become maggots. In which case she is both hugely wrong AND doesnt understand evolution.
In fact she reinvented the disproven Medeaval theory of Spontaneous Generation-which has nothing to do with evolution.
Medieval Spontaneous Generation? Nah, it's not completely disproven. Just rebranded as an unproven origins theory--the idea that life can spontaneously form out of soap bubbles.
And no, I'm not kidding. Unproven =/= disproven. We HAVE disproven that worms spontaneously spring out of rotten meat and vegetable matter. Abiogenesis hasn't been proven or disproven, but it is a valid scientific hypothesis.
02 Nov 2012, 10:22 am
AngelRho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
AnotherKind wrote:
First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.
So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.
I cant figure out what she is saying either.
Either (a) she KNOWS that the bacteria didnt evolve into worms- but that that spurious idea momentary flashed across her mind. So even though she knows its wrong- its somekind of metaphor for evolution- even though it happened on a tinier timescale than real evolution. Even this doesnt really make sense to me-but whatever.
Or (b) She really IS under the impression that bacteria in potatoes can become maggots. In which case she is both hugely wrong AND doesnt understand evolution.
In fact she reinvented the disproven Medeaval theory of Spontaneous Generation-which has nothing to do with evolution.
Medieval Spontaneous Generation? Nah, it's not completely disproven. Just rebranded as an unproven origins theory--the idea that life can spontaneously form out of soap bubbles.
And no, I'm not kidding. Unproven =/= disproven. We HAVE disproven that worms spontaneously spring out of rotten meat and vegetable matter. Abiogenesis hasn't been proven or disproven, but it is a valid scientific hypothesis.
The idea that life AT ONE POINT IN TIME in the FAR distant past billions of years Gradually evolved from non life-probably through millions of years of intermediate steps--is not the same thing as thinking that maggots spring overnight from pototoes or rotton meat all of the time on a daily basis. Abiogenisis is not the same thing as spontaneous generation.
02 Nov 2012, 12:10 pm
I meant to say that I've made a connection with those maggots with evolution that now I know it didn't occured over a short time (I didn't know what to believe at that moment because I have never seen such a disgusting thing in my whole life and I thought they evolved from bacterias inside the potatoes but then I was thinking more about it and I understood that evolution can't occur in a short period, then I remembered about different snippets of information and lots of images came through my mind, so it suddenly made sense for me)
The reason why I didn't believed before in the theory of evolution was because I used to think in the same way as the most of the christians, that evolution can't be true because monkeys don't evolve anymore nowadays. Anyway, I was heavily indoctrinated since childhood (my father was a priest) so I couldn't understand it without making this (ridiculous?) connection. It is perfectly understandable for me that you don't understand what I say since english is not my native language.
Now I'm sorry that I wrote about it, I don't like to be ridiculed .
_________________
Agnostic atheist. Hardcore determinist. Misanthrope. Objectivist. INTP.
AS: 165, NT: 44
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
02 Nov 2012, 12:29 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
AnotherKind wrote:
First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.
So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.
I cant figure out what she is saying either.
Either (a) she KNOWS that the bacteria didnt evolve into worms- but that that spurious idea momentary flashed across her mind. So even though she knows its wrong- its somekind of metaphor for evolution- even though it happened on a tinier timescale than real evolution. Even this doesnt really make sense to me-but whatever.
Or (b) She really IS under the impression that bacteria in potatoes can become maggots. In which case she is both hugely wrong AND doesnt understand evolution.
In fact she reinvented the disproven Medeaval theory of Spontaneous Generation-which has nothing to do with evolution.
Medieval Spontaneous Generation? Nah, it's not completely disproven. Just rebranded as an unproven origins theory--the idea that life can spontaneously form out of soap bubbles.
And no, I'm not kidding. Unproven =/= disproven. We HAVE disproven that worms spontaneously spring out of rotten meat and vegetable matter. Abiogenesis hasn't been proven or disproven, but it is a valid scientific hypothesis.
The idea that life AT ONE POINT IN TIME in the FAR distant past billions of years Gradually evolved from non life-probably through millions of years of intermediate steps--is not the same thing as thinking that maggots spring overnight from pototoes or rotton meat all of the time on a daily basis. Abiogenisis is not the same thing as spontaneous generation.
It's the same thing in principle. Life spawning from non-life? The Medieval view was that it could happen overnight, the scientific view is that it took billions of years for the exact initial conditions to occur for abiogenesis. The only difference is time and detectability. Someone of the Medieval period would have trouble detecting the spontaneous generation of a single-celled organism whereas a present-day scientist could conceivably witness it happen. A Medieval observer wouldn't have the means to explain apparent spontaneous generation but could show evidence that it happens. A current scientist observing the same thing would have the means to refute Medieval observations and explain what's really going on. And it's quite simple...leave a control substance like rotted meat in the open air exposed to flies and the identical substance in an experimental, protected condition. Come to think of it, it would have been possible even in Medieval times to do this, but more unlikely that anyone would have the presence of mind to concern themselves with it.
02 Nov 2012, 12:40 pm
JNathanK wrote:
So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.
Yeah. I can't understand theories without making associations or learning from experiences. Or maybe I'm too lazy to understand them.
That's why I said "Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations."... maybe they are smarter than me?
_________________
Agnostic atheist. Hardcore determinist. Misanthrope. Objectivist. INTP.
AS: 165, NT: 44
02 Nov 2012, 12:54 pm
It's been my experience that most people who preach evolution are more interested in being believed than in telling the truth.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
02 Nov 2012, 1:33 pm
AspieOtaku wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Most creationists are too stupid and ignorant when it comes to earths history and the origins of life because they are too afraid of picking up a science book and learn the truth.Their response would be oh snap the bible is incorrect about the planets history! They don realize that the earth is by far older than some 4000 year old book written by a bunch of desert bums!
Well, they are intelligent people. Its just they cling to their assumptions, because the familiarity those assumptions offer provides them comfort.
Right. because they're emotionally invested in their opinions and ideas. I think that could easily apply to people who hold wrong notions, as well as right ones. That's why I strive not to be attached to any set of assumptions. It allows me to, more clearly, entertain ideas without fully accepting them. Half the things I talk about with friends, I'm usually just playing devils advocate and don't fully buy into any of it. I'll talk about something way out there like space aliens intervening with our genetics, and I entertain the ideas as far as is necessary to understand all the connotations of it, but I don't fully embrace anything unless there's enough evidence to support it. Too many people won't give other ideas the time of day unless it helps confirm what they already believe. This needs to change if humanity wants to advance itself.
02 Nov 2012, 1:35 pm
Fnord wrote:
It's been my experience that most people who preach evolution are more interested in being believed than in telling the truth.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
This is like saying that all atheists are willing to pay 200,000 dollars (and cheat their families of insurance money and inheritane) to be put in a high tech feeezer after they die just because almost everyone scammed by Alcor are atheists.
02 Nov 2012, 2:06 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It's been my experience that most people who preach evolution are more interested in being believed than in telling the truth. They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean". Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
This is like saying that all atheists are willing to pay 200,000 dollars (and cheat their families of insurance money and inheritane) to be put in a high tech feeezer after they die just because almost everyone scammed by Alcor are atheists.No, it's like saying that anyone who wants you to join their Happy Jesus Fan Club is likely to be out of touch with reality.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
02 Nov 2012, 2:09 pm
Fnord wrote:
It's been my experience that most people who preach evolution are more interested in being believed than in telling the truth.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
They would have you believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that if a woman becomes pregnant, that means she wasn't raped; that all atheists are evil, devil-worshiping, mother-stabbing, father-raping, baby-eaters; that committing a crime in their god's name justifies that crime, no matter how heinous the crime may be; that depression is a sin caused solely by lack of faith in their god; that complaining is a sin; that cultural Diversity is a sin; that curing any deformity, disability, or disease by medical means is a sin; that deformed and mentally-retarded babies are their god's punishments for the sins of the babies' parents (unto the seventh generation); reading should be taught only to allow a person to understand their holy scriptures; reason is a tool of evil that is used solely to attack their faith; that science is part of an evil plan to unseat their god from his throne; and that sex is somehow "dirty", while violence against non-believers is "clean".
Then they wonder why membership in their Happy Jesus Fan Clubs is dwindling.
Oh, you're so persecuted.
This is nothing but a caricature, and ironically what atheists preach. Famous atheists like Dawkins and Harris do say science proves religion wrong and use it as a tool to attack their faith. The same way they do with reason, although poorly.
_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
02 Nov 2012, 2:35 pm
abacacus wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Evolution is not in contradiction with the text if it only meant believing in evolution. However, an evolutionist really - in the sense that it is used - is a metaphysical naturalist. Following the laws of naturalism, nature is a closed system of material causes and affects which can never be influenced by anything outside naturalism, and I'm talking of course specifically about the supernatural creator. In the final analysis, there is no God, or if one exists, its existence is irrelevant to how life and the universe came about.
That is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is our calling card. It is our declarative statement to the world, and it was one of the greatest revolutions in human history.
The bible is not here to explain science, but Genesis 1:1 is the one exception that the text makes because of all of the ramifications that follow in accepting God as a creator of the universe, and of you and me.
You are, of course, aware that Genesis is crock of bull when it comes to anything factual? I suppose if you wanted to argue it was some kind of metaphor a case could be made, but claiming something contradicts it and is therefore wrong (which is what it seems to me you're doing, I could be mistaken) is just plain daft.
Take, for instance, the idea of god creating everything in a week (well, six days and a seventh to rest if I remember correctly). That is, quite simply, not true. It has never been true, it will never be true. Denying that would place you firmly in the "false religion" camp by your *own* standards.
From internal evidence in the text, none of it amounts to the creationist literal interpretation of 6 literal days. None! The sun isn't even created on the first day, and our 24 hour period is relative to the earths rotation with a sun shining. In Genesis 1:14, there were no days, years, or seasons prior to Day 4 of creation. It is the creationists and a large body of Christianity really pushing this, and it isn't right.
I'm not arguing metaphorically, Genesis and the whole torah's genius had to have been written with divine guidance, it could not have just been written by brilliant men, we don't have anything since then that has been as true, powerful, with more human revolutions per sentence, per paragraph, per chapter, per book then this torah.
When I say it is in contradiction to Genesis 1:1, Im saying that evolution as it is understood in many atheist circles excludes the possibility that God had any hand in creation. Even if a God exists, it had no hand in the creation of the universe, and life on earth... all that we know and see had natural beginnings, and that is it.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
