Support NeoGAF

[Witchfinder General]

Still don't know why the church doesn't just say God made evolution.

But there's the pickle; If the church fully backs evolution with natural selection then it places God at such a distance as to all but make God irrelevant and fit for worship. Why worship a creator who's only contribution was to kickstart the universe (say the big bang) and then not do anything else.

 

[Mgoblue201]

The only thing I ask of this thread is that it doesn't become a theology discussion.

reproductive advantage you mean. survivals a moot point really unless its purpose is fecundity, While your point is true, its a rule that applies only to any specific adaption. minor local variation seems to be the rule in biology, probably because it keeps getting second chances.

that said, someone above mentioned a fairly significant difference in infant mortality rates so that might not apply in this case.

The two things that always obfuscate a discussion about evolution are conceptual and linguistic. For instance, is natural selection a mechanism or merely an outcome? Do species, individuals, or genes evolve? How do we define any of these words? Physics, especially on the quantum scale, is ultimately more mind bending, but evolution is deceptively difficult to grasp.

Anyway, by survival I did ultimately mean the propagation of the unique trait, yes, which definitely has to do with reproductive success. If I understand you correctly, though, you seem to be talking about a trait that has already become a large part of the population. I'm talking about the trait arising and disseminating through the population. But I suppose it also depends upon what one means by becoming "fixed" in the population.

And I believe that I was the one who mentioned the infant mortality thing. It was in the original NY Times article.

 

[weekend_warrior]

WHY WE STILL GOT MONKEYS YO? WHY WE STILL GOT MONKEYS?!

 

[grumble]

But there's the pickle; If the church fully backs evolution with natural selection then it places God at such a distance as to all but make God irrelevant and fit for worship. Why worship a creator who's only contribution was to kickstart the universe (say the big bang) and then not do anything else.

There are lots of ways to make that totally fine.

1. Make the soul even more distinct conceptually from the body

2. Make God occasionally having his hand in the 'pie', tweaking things here or there (loosely guided evolution)

3. Make God affect your lives in ways that aren't directly related to preventing you from having kids (example: warm up sun so it's hotter on Day X)

 

[Dresden]

to the OP--

why not add a little section with some recommended reading?

Like:

 

[Zozz]

Looks like the thread is getting off to the start I thought it would. Let's wait for the bible folks to come troll and it will be completed. A mod should should tidy up the thread title, deserves better.

 

[Drkirby]

But there's the pickle; If the church fully backs evolution with natural selection then it places God at such a distance as to all but make God irrelevant and fit for worship. Why worship a creator who's only contribution was to kickstart the universe (say the big bang) and then not do anything else.

You won't go to heaven if you don't?

 

[BananaBomb]

But there's the pickle; If the church fully backs evolution with natural selection then it places God at such a distance as to all but make God irrelevant and fit for worship. Why worship a creator who's only contribution was to kickstart the universe (say the big bang) and then not do anything else.

Kickstarting the universe is not small feat. The Church could say God came up with the perfect physical laws that he knew would spawn humans which would be his masterpiece etc.

 

[KingGondo]

Surprisingly good OP, well done.

The problem with trying to convince the most vehement creationists of evolution is that scientific evidence is not the reason they believe what they do. Therefore, explaining the fact of evolution (no matter how eloquently) is simply an exercise in futility.

At any rate, here's hoping against hope that this thread will turn into a thoughtful discussion of evolution, and not into the troll-fest religion debate it is likely to become.

 

[ant_]

" THERE'S NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!!!! "

"Actually, there's plenty .. documenting changes from fish to amphibian, etc. Even humans have transitional fossils."

"SHOW ME THEM OR YOUR WRONG!! "

This is what happens to me. Sure I could say the names but I think they expect me to pull them out of my pocket or something.

 

[The Technomancer]

Kickstarting the universe is not small feat. The Church could say God came up with the perfect physical laws that he knew would spawn humans which would be his masterpiece etc.

No, I get the basic point he's trying to make. A God that is detached, setting in motion the processes of physics and evolution eons ago is hard to reconcile with a God who is personally invested in his "chosen" people, watching over our daily actions. And since that latter idea is what most people take comfort in (the main reason people are religious in my experience), then you have a bit of a conundrum.

Its a similar, although less notable issue with the whole fact that there are literally trillions of stars and planets out there, billions of galaxies. When faced with that scale, it becomes harder to accept that our single little planet is special or unique.

 

[Bentendo]

Still don't know why the church doesn't just say God made evolution.

Pretty sure some religions do say that... unfortunately mine doesn't -_- *sigh*

 

[Monroeski]

subscribed.

contribution planned.

Subscribed.

No intention to contribute, though.










Maybe, though. not sure.

 

[Pikelet]

And now we play the waiting game for the usual suspects...

 

[Witchfinder General]

No, I get the basic point he's trying to make. A God that is detached, setting in motion the processes of physics and evolution eons ago is hard to reconcile with a God who is personally invested in his "chosen" people, watching over our daily actions. And since that latter idea is what most people take comfort in (the main reason people are religious in my experience), then you have a bit of a conundrum.

Its a similar, although less notable issue with the whole fact that there are literally trillions of stars and planets out there, billions of galaxies. When faced with that scale, it becomes harder to accept that our single little planet is special or unique.

Bingo, you explained it better than I did.

 

[Trent Strong]

Keep in mind, there is more EVIDENCE for The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection than there is for Gravity.

Again. There is more EVIDENCE for evolution than there is for gravity. That's a fact. No one understands WHY gravity happens. We have ideas, mathematical models of subatomic particles that might exist, but there is no evidence for any of it. We can DESCRIBE the effects of gravity with great accuracy, but we do no have any evidence for how or why it acts on the physical world as it does.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a well documented phenomenon. We have observed speciation, in the wild and in the laboratory. The genetic underpinnings are quite well understood and documented. We have an extensive fossil record that is really irrefutable.

IF you're questioning the methods scientists use to date fossils, you don't know anything about evolution.

IF you're questioning "transitional species", you don't understand evolution. EVERYTHING is a transitional species. It's a nonsensical term.

IF you don't accept evolution via natural selection as your origin, you don't understand the theory and the vast, vast, VAST array of evidence supporting the theory. Chances are also good that you are ignorant of what a scientific Theory actually is.

Uneducated people seem to feel totally free to adopt their own uninformed, superstitious opinions on the origins of humanity, but every single other scientific theory goes totally unquestioned. If you're questioning evolution, why aren't you also unconvinced by the massive quantity of evidence for electricity? Or germ transmission of disease? Oh, it's because those don't directly contradict your particular creation myth.

Yeah.

In conclusion, you don't have an option. Evolution via Natural Selection is a fact. It's where you came from. It's where I came from. That doesn't diminish the importance of life. Not having been hand-molded by an omnipotent creator god doesn't mean your life has to be completely meaningless. There's a whole universe out there full of mystery and majesty, and evolution has blessed us with the cognitive faculties to comprehend it. Instead of clouding your mind with superstition and religious fictions, look outward to the universe as it IS and try to understand it.

The way you phrase that doesn't make any sense. We don't know what causes gravity, but of course we have all the evidence in the world that gravity exists. We see and feel gravity all the time, everywhere, every day.

 

[mckmas8808]

Still don't know why the church doesn't just say God made evolution.

Because it totally goes against the Christan belief. Scripturally speaking Adam was a perfect man. He screwed up and sinned. Jesus about 4,000 years later died for the sin of Adam and ever other human, so show that a perfect human (Jesus) could live on Earth and not sin.

If God created humans through evolution then that whole above story would make no sense.

 

[jett]

Because it totally goes against the Christan belief. Scripturally speaking Adam was a perfect man. He screwed up and sinned. Jesus about 4,000 years later died for the sin of Adam and ever other human, so show that a perfect human (Jesus) could live on Earth and not sin.

If God created humans through evolution then that whole above story would make no sense.

Hmm? Protip: the Catholic Church accepts evolution.

 

[mckmas8808]

The way you phrase that doesn't make any sense. We don't know what causes gravity, but of course we have all the evidence in the world that gravity exists. We see and feel gravity all the time, everywhere, every day.

And we see evolution happen all the time too on a molecular level, yet for some reason people refuse to recognize that.

 

[mckmas8808]

Hmm? Protip: the Catholic Church accepts evolution.

Yeah and the Catholic Church is dumb as shit for saying that. It goes against basic logic to believe God used/uses evolution to create humans. The Catholic church just said that so that more people could either join their church or not leave. Plain and simple.

 

[BananaBomb]

The way you phrase that doesn't make any sense. We don't know what causes gravity, but of course we have all the evidence in the world that gravity exists. We see and feel gravity all the time, everywhere, every day.

What you see all around you is the effect of this presumed "gravity." Gravity is a much more complex issue that is much more general and has much more insane implications (like the fact that the universe is filled with anti-grav that causes it to expand faster than the speed of light). It's much more likely that "gravity" as you understand it is totally wrong than evolution is. Natural selection is a theory whose symptoms, causes and everything in between are perfectly explained and documented.

edit: Saying that we see "gravity" the way you put it is like saying we see "evolution" by looking at the fact that there are different types of organisms.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

But.. but... the shape of bananas! And crocoducks!

i hope that as soon as we finally "reverse engineer" an undeniably dinosaurian morphology in a modern avian, that they present it to kirk cameron and a crowd of creationist onlookers

 

[Alucrid]

Yeah and the Catholic Church is dumb as shit for saying that. It goes against basic logic to believe God used/uses evolution to create humans. The Catholic church just said that so that more people could either join their church or not leave. Plain and simple.

While I doubt their intention is genuine they conformed their beliefs and the theory of evolution to co-exist. It should also be noted that the Catholic Church believes that the stories in Gensis are simply parables.

 

[BreakyBoy]

The way you phrase that doesn't make any sense. We don't know what causes gravity, but of course we have all the evidence in the world that gravity exists. We see and feel gravity all the time, everywhere, every day.

Strictly speaking, you don't see it, all you do is feel it or see the effect that the laws of gravity have on objects.

 

[mckmas8808]

While I doubt their intention is genuine they conformed their beliefs and the theory of evolution to co-exist. It should also be noted that the Catholic Church believes that the stories in Gensis are simply parables.

Ah. So that's how they pull it off then. Okay that explains it all then. If they don't think the Adam and Eve story is literal, then it would be okay for them (logically speaking) to believe God uses evolution,

 

[Trent Strong]

Strictly speaking, you don't see it, all you do is feel it or see the effect that the laws of gravity have on objects.

What you see all around you is the effect of this presumed "gravity." Gravity is a much more complex issue that is much more general and has much more insane implications (like the fact that the universe is filled with anti-grav that causes it to expand faster than the speed of light). It's much more likely that "gravity" as you understand it is totally wrong than evolution is. Natural selection is a theory whose symptoms, causes and everything in between are perfectly explained and documented.

edit: Saying that we see "gravity" the way you put it is like saying we see "evolution" by looking at the fact that there are different types of organisms.

You can't see or feel laws. People feel some kind of 'force' pulling them toward the ground, and they see that almost every other object is pulled toward the ground by some 'force'. The name of this force is 'gravity'. There is no question that this force exists, and we have all the evidence that anyone could possibly have about anything that it exists. There may be some strict physics definition of 'gravity' that I don't know, but when the average person talks about gravity they're talking about this force. From dictionary.com: "The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

 

[Haly]

I think what they mean is that we know what gravity does and how it effects things but we don't know how it works nor what causes it.

In that sense we know much more about evolution. Gravity in comparison is like a black box, we're just glad it's working and holding the universe together.

 

[Brashnir]

Ah. So that's how they pull it off then. Okay that explains it all then. If they don't think the Adam and Eve story is literal, then it would be okay for them (logically speaking) to believe God uses evolution,

Nobody with half a brain can possible think the Adam story is literally the beginning of all Humanity.

A brief timeline of the story:

God Creates Adam
God Creates Eve
Temptation, fruit and serpents. Original Sin.
Adam and Eve have kds - Cain and Abel
Cain Kills Abel
Cain leaves and goes to the land of Nod.
Cain gets married.

Read that last sentence again. Cain marries a person who can't exist if you read the Bible the way idiots read it.

 

[Haly]

I think there were people outside the garden but they were primitive.

Maybe I'm getting my stories mixed up.

 

[KHarvey16]

You can't see or feel laws. People feel some kind of 'force' pulling them toward the ground, and they see that almost every other object is pulled toward the ground by some 'force'. The name of this force is 'gravity'. There is no question that this force exists, and we have all the evidence that anyone could possibly have about anything that it exists. There may be some strict physics definition of 'gravity' that I don't know, but when the average person talks about gravity they're talking about this force. From dictionary.com: "The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

And this is also precisely true for evolution. The change we see in the fossil record and over the course of many fruit fly generations we've decided to name evolution. It exists and it is a fact. Our attempt to explain it, like gravity, is scientific theory.

 

[parasight]

Evolution is a mystery.

 

[noah111]

Thanks for the thread, even as one who generally understands it all it was still a good little read. Anyway, that 'human' jump from L to M to N are too big (specifically in comparison to the rest) imo.

Hell many of the other transitions are quite small as well, seems like we'd find more differences in the skulls of the races on the planet today than some of those ape/human skull differences.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

The only thing I ask of this thread is that it doesn't become a theology discussion.

Considering this thread is pretty much a reply to the 1-2 creationists on this board, fat chance.

*checks topic*

Yeah, too late and it's page 2.

Decent OP though. Discussing the specific biological components is pretty fascinating.

 

[Trent Strong]

And this is also precisely true for evolution. The change we see in the fossil record and over the course of many fruit fly generations we've decided to name evolution. It exists and it is a fact. Our attempt to explain it, like gravity, is scientific theory.

:lol I believe in evolution. It was just the way he phrased his post that bugged me.

 

[Pandaman]

Updated the OP with some more crap, I'll make it more cohesive tomorrow, it's late now. I really appreciate all the suggestions though, if you want to post more, i'll throw them in next chance I get. I just want to make this as comprehensive as possible.

just a small correction, but the skulls images demonstrates a transition from B-N, the skull labeled A is that of a modern chimp. its as distinct from B as N is.

The two things that always obfuscate a discussion about evolution are conceptual and linguistic. For instance, is natural selection a mechanism or merely an outcome? Do species, individuals, or genes evolve? How do we define any of these words? Physics, especially on the quantum scale, is ultimately more mind bending, but evolution is deceptively difficult to grasp.

heh, i do not disagree. there are so many different levels to grasp and by its very nature, nothing stays the same for long.

but since you asked i just have to answer in the hopes someone picks up a conversation!
natural selection is a consequence.
species evolve, genes are selected, individuals muck up an otherwise elegant process by falling off cliffs.

Anyway, by survival I did ultimately mean the propagation of the unique trait, yes, which definitely has to do with reproductive success. If I understand you correctly, though, you seem to be talking about a trait that has already become a large part of the population. I'm talking about the trait arising and disseminating through the population. But I suppose it also depends upon what one means by becoming "fixed" in the population.

mmm. I think we're talking about the same thing, but i'm quibbling over the word you used to name it.
i don't like to use survival because it precludes some very real possibilities. ultimately a trait can spread and become dominant in a population and lead to its doom, since selection occurs on the genetic level, the well being of the individual or the group in the long term does not always factor in. its perfectly possible for a trait to evolve that grants a massive reproductive edge, but compounds over many generations into the extinction of the group.

a closeish real world example would be sex determining genes, as any X gene evolved to either disable the Y SRY gene or doubles up on DAX in the absence of SRY would have a natural reproductive advantage because of how XY reproduction works. such a thing would massively skew the female/male ratio to the detriment of the species, perhaps even to extinction.

I see survival as more of a consequence than a result.

And I believe that I was the one who mentioned the infant mortality thing. It was in the original NY Times article.

convenient! :lol

 

[Socreges]

Gravity doesn't usurp the position of man as the apple of god's eye nor destroy the idea there is hierarchical list of animals where man is at the top. Also, gravity still makes it easy to believe in a creator where evolution makes it much harder.

Well, yeah. That was pretty much what I was trying to imply.

 

[PumpkinPie]

If the sea suddenly rose and everything was under water but Humans found a way to live in the water, would we eventually grow gills?

I watched a programme about Whales, did you know they actually have legs inside their bodies from when they used to be Hippo-like creatures that roamed the land? Amazing.

 

[Haly]

If the sea suddenly rose and everything was under water but Humans found a way to live in the water, would we eventually grow gills?

No, probably not. We'd scramble to make floating islands and continue to try to live like land dwellers there.

Evolution doesn't guarantee survival, sometimes species die out. In your scenario if water suddenly appears out of nowhere and there was no land left we'd be proper fucked.

 

[KHarvey16]

:lol I believe in evolution. It was just the way he phrased his post that bugged me.

Didn't mean to imply the contrary! Just pointing it out.

 

[Pandaman]

Kickstarting the universe is not small feat. The Church could say God came up with the perfect physical laws that he knew would spawn humans which would be his masterpiece etc.

 

[Byakuya769]

I was expecting blood, but what I got was a pretty good OP. Hopefully it helps people to understand things a little better.

 

[Lesath]

If the sea suddenly rose and everything was under water but Humans found a way to live in the water, would we eventually grow gills?

I watched a programme about Whales, did you know they actually have legs inside their bodies from when they used to be Hippo-like creatures that roamed the land? Amazing.

Funny you should mention whales and ask a question about gills.

It's important to understand that evolution builds on what's there, not what once was, or may be. You can look at sea mammals and have a solid idea of what to expect in your scenario.

Think about it: selection would favor those who have physiological quirks that promote longer swim times and swim speed. Incremental improvements in these aspects can be selected for gradually. In contrast, suddenly having the ability to use the lungs as a gas exchange surface with salt water is not something our physiology supports.

 

[Chuckie]

Still don't know why the church doesn't just say God made evolution.

The Roman Catholic church kind of says that actually. Pope Pius XII already 'allowed' the theory for Catholics in 1950, even though he himself did not really like it. In 1996 Pop John Paul II said that the evidence of evolution was overwhelming.

So while the church does not 'say' God made evolution literally, they do not reject the concept and the previous pope thought the evidence was convincing.

 

[Mario]

Thanks for setting up the thread.

Some possible contributions for the OP.


- although having made the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis and suggested that is a subject for a different thread/discussion, I still think it would be useful to offer up the following starting resources for those who made be interested in finding out more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg



- link needed to perhaps the best intro book on the subject of evolution, The Greatest Show On Earth

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594787/?tag=neogaf0e-20



- I can't help but feel that it would be best to nip creationist challenges in the bud with some mention in the OP. Perhaps it would be useful to compell those who wish to put forward creationist counterarguments or commentary to watch this series of videos first, before they post or mount a serious challenge

"Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism - AronRa"
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#grid/user/126AFB53A6F002CC

At the very least, it would also provide those with a genuine interest in evolution more insight and answers to commonly raised Creationist questions and objections.



- From the same YouTube user, the following video might be a useful resource for understanding classification issues around human evolution, and makes the case that humans should still be considered both monkeys and apes

"Turns out we DID come from monkeys!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8

 

[Pandaman]

- link needed to perhaps the best intro book on the subject of evolution, The Greatest Show On Earth

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594787/?tag=neogaf0e-20

thats a funny way to spell 'the ancestors tale'
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0618005838/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Socreges]

I watched a programme about Whales, did you know they actually have legs inside their bodies from when they used to be Hippo-like creatures that roamed the land? Amazing.

That's not exactly true. Rather, whale fetuses have legs at early stages of development before losing them. Much like human embryos have tails before absorbing them later on.

 

[AFreak]

Will Monkeys speak in the next 100000 years? will I be reborn through a monkey in a million years?

They talk now through sign language.

Oh shit sons, I'm atheist but I'm about to make the perfect religion.

So, evolution is just firmware to god's big plan. the reason we aren't "perfect" yet is just because God hasn't released enough patches yet to make us whole. He's been updating us since he started.

Shit son, time to get a preacher's hat and get on a street corner.

 

[Dead Man]

That's not exactly true. Rather, whale fetuses have legs at early stages of development before losing them. Much like human embryos have tails before absorbing them later on.

I believe some whales still retain small vestigial leg bones within their tissues. I have no source for this other than some old tv doco I can't recall.

 

[Mumei]

That's not exactly true. Rather, whale fetuses have legs at early stages of development before losing them. Much like human embryos have tails before absorbing them later on.

I think he's referring to the vestigial hind leg bones in whales.

 

[Nocebo]

That's not exactly true. Rather, whale fetuses have legs at early stages of development before losing them. Much like human embryos have tails before absorbing them later on.

Actually it's somewhat true, but not in all cases. Vestigial limbs in marine mammals (and other creatures of course) are a fascinating and compelling evidence for evolution (the op should cover some in my opinion). There have been many cases of whales and dolphins in the wild having leg bones inside their bodies some even having toe bones attached etc. If you go to a museum where they have a whale skeleton you'll see these seemingly random little bones suspended from wires underneath it's tail, these are pelvic bones.
Example of dolphin with hind limbs:

This would be an extreme odity if it were not for the explanation evolution offers.

Whale thingies:

Found a link with a couple of interesting vestigial organs etc. if the OP wants to include something about it.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs-1.html
I like number 3:
"So basically, the females don't need the males; they just produce clones of themselves as a form of reproduction. Despite the fact that it is unnecessary and futile to attempt copulation with each other, the lizards still like to try, and occasionally one of the females will start to "act like a male" by attempting to copulate with another female." Saucy!