-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My attempt at an Evolution thread! OhgodwhatamIdoing.
- Thread starter Kinitari
- Start date
- Status
Game Analyst said:
Well I can't speak for other people as to what kind of degree they have, but they certainly have some knowledge about it and are willing to do some research etc.
As for myself, I fully admit that I'm not an expert in evolution. I have a PhD in Immunology though, so I think I have a little bit more knowledge on biology (and evolution, especially for the immune system which seems to be a complete mystery for creationists) than a guy who went to medical school in the 60's.
How about you?
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Vol. 1 has fucking giraffes on it, a prime example of how evolution works...
And you don't need a degree to understand how evolution works, it's not the theory of relativity. The basic concepts are fairly simple, as is most of the evidence.
And you don't need a degree to understand how evolution works, it's not the theory of relativity. The basic concepts are fairly simple, as is most of the evidence.
DarthWoo said:
Typical evolutionist tripe. Of course he has a background in science - he's a qualified dentist.
Edit: I also like the fact that Stein gives his own documentary four stars. When even he doesn't think it's worth five stars, that's got to say something...
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
There is a faux humbleness at work here (a variance of the "we just want people to understand both sides of the debate" line of reasoning). You say that you are simply presenting another "view point", as if those videos can enrich people's understanding of science, but to creationists it's a matter of eternal importance: believing what an all-powerful deity supposedly did and said. From that perspective everything else flows from that act of creation. Creationists don't consider it a mere fact. They consider it a belief of vital importance. Nor is it a mere view point to scientists. Evolution helps underpin most of modern biology.Game Analyst said:
And would you even believe me if I ever said that there's nothing to gain from those videos? Would you believe, for example, actual biologists who say that Expelled is bunk? I would even bet that there isn't anything to critically analyze there: only things to expose as untrue. So there is little to be gained here. It's propaganda masquerading as science. Now if you had some kind novel argument, one would consider it.
EDIT: And what about you, anyway? Is the matter closed for you? How do you even know that you're right in your "view point"?
CountScary
Banned
Kinitari said:
Ah sorry, I typed ID and was thinking "creation," in that science can keep pushing what we know about how the universe came into being, but there will always be another step back we will not be able to explain (at least with our current minds) no matter how many previously unexplained steps we can explain.
That's more of a God/no God debate versus evolution and ID.
I remember on Fark there used to be this guy beverts, that was a staunch creationist. It may have been like arguing with a wall but at least he had the decency to engage in some discussion.
Besides the argument that evolution just can't be I have yet to see any evidence for creation presented while there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Our DNA shows how closely we are related to chimps and even mice.
Besides the argument that evolution just can't be I have yet to see any evidence for creation presented while there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Our DNA shows how closely we are related to chimps and even mice.
No, just no. Stop it. Countless facts don't contradict it, what you're referring to is skewed propaganda.Game Analyst said:
What is this anyway? Until very recently I thought Hitler's religious leanings, the support from German churches and Hitler's "divine quest from God" were common knowledge. That is until I was introduced to a bunch of Americans, who told me our version of history was wrong - and I'm going to hell for believing the world is about 4 billion years old.
edit: The thing is, the notion that evolution -> nazism seem like a very American thing. In Europe the things tied with fascism and nazism are very different.
CountScary said:
It's still tripe.
Any form of religion-based position in this will never be on the same footing as science, because science operates by a rigorous process that religious thought doesn't expose itself to. With science you test your hypothesis/theory and abandon or adjust it as required. With religion, and religion dressed as pseudo-science, your hypothesis ('God done it') is inviolate, so it's the evidence that has to change to accommodate it.
Jasup said:
There's plenty to suggest that Hitler wasn't a Christian (or not in any traditional sense, anyway). At the very best you can say that his religious beliefs are unclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views
SteveWinwood
Member
The ad for this page is amazing.
I will say I never understand why Hitler is brought up in these conversations about Darwin and Christianity. The man was a loon regardless what he believed and it says nothing about whatever system he supposedly subscribed to.
DarthWoo said:
His best piece of work has to be this:
"Proof that there is a creator: Well, because of creation! How could there be creation without a creator?!"
Mind blowing, I know.
y2dvd said:
Depends on what you're interested in. I personally really like this lecture by Kenneth Miller (who's a roman catholic, so much for the oppression on christian scientists by the evil atheist scientists). It's heavily focused on the Dover trial, but there's some good scientific stuff in there as well.
mclaren777
Member
As a 29-year-old with a degree in biochemistry from the University of Washington and a wealth of experience working at the Benaroya Research Institute, I feel more than comfortable discussing science with the rest of you.threenote said:
Your condescending remarks are not appreciated.
mclaren777
Member
Immature, condescending remarks would be equally inappropriate if they were aimed at him.DarthWoo said:
I like to think that people can respectfully disagree without name-calling and other unproductive antagonism.
mclaren777 said:
Well unfortunately the subject of evolution isn't something you "disagree" on, you either understand it or not. It baffles me how someone like you can manage to get a scientific degree. I guess American education is to blame as I've never encountered anything similar in the Netherlands.
Stridone said:
I once argued with a lawyer that claims you can use the bible to prove things in court as evidence that the Bible is acknowledge as fact. I had to tell him that that was about proving identities back when people use to kept their names in the family bible.
Of course, I live in Florida.
Count Dookkake
Member
Evolution |OT| of This is why we still got monkeys.
iapetus said:
The "Hitler used/studied Darwinism" is a last ditch misdirection attempt by Creationists anyway. Even if Hitler was entirely inspired by evolutionary theory and he used it to justify his atrocities, that doesn't make evolutionary theory false and the fact of evolution wrong.
There are plenty of real things in this world that people have perverted for evil.
I just wish more people would call out anyone arguing "but Hitler..." as avoiding the issue instead of responding with arguments on what Hitler may or may not have been inspired by, and whether or not he was religious.
krypt0nian
Banned
mclaren777 said:
So many dollars wasted on your "education"
BronzeWolf
Banned
mclaren777 said:
So you are a schooled idiot, I see
Are you appealing to authority here? As someone said, this isn't quantum physics, the basics behind the theory of evolution are surprisingly simple, you don't need a degree to understand them. And you demonstrate that a degree does not necessarily confer rationality
threenote said:
Let's be fair. I'm not sure comprehension is the issue there, but just clashing with personal beliefs. I'm not sure what's worse though.
But at the same time, I don't understand how can anyone with a good understanding of biology back Behe and co up when they are obviously and definitely WRONG.
Kinitari said:
Because they often use it as a weapon in arguments against religion. I'm not saying that Atheists doubt evolution, but it would be naive to suggest that they don't contribute to the 'controversy' surrounding it.
Not all atheists mind you, but a large number certainly do.
Monocle said:
Missed the point.
benita said:
I understand what you're saying a bit better. You think that if Atheists didn't use Evolution to remove God from the picture, that the religious would be less defensive about the whole thing - I'd almost agree with you, except I'd argue that the religious shot first, and the Atheists seem to almost always be on the defensive
. Of course that's just opinion, and I wouldn't use it in an argument.Kinitari said:I understand what you're saying a bit better. You think that if Atheists didn't use Evolution to remove God from the picture, that the religious would be less defensive about the whole thing - I'd almost agree with you, except I'd argue that the religious shot first, and the Atheists seem to almost always be on the defensive
I can agree with that
BUT, in some ways I don't think Dawkins helps the issue. He often comes across as being hell-bent on using evolution to somehow disprove the existence of God and it really does nothing but stir a hornet's nest.
PflargBlarg
Member
benita said:
The only way they coexist is through reducing god to a god of the gaps and you might as well not bother believing at that point.
Wormdundee said:
I disagree. This is the kind of statement that starts these arguments.
If I were a religious person it would not be unreasonable to believe that god was instrumental in crafting the evolutionary process itself.
No matter which side of the fence you're on, there's no sense in being reductive.
If I throw a bunch of stones down a hill and only the perfectly round ones reach the bottom, I still threw the stones.
Kinitari said:
I think maybe he means that sometimes atheists can derail a conversion about evolution by saying that since evolution is correct God is dead or something. I fail to see how that adds to any controversy about evolution though. It's just a minor distraction. I hate it when people try to make some balance out of an issue. In the case of evolution one side is clearly wrong and the other just has some vocal extremists acting obnoxious.
I do hope the dogpile on mclaren777 did not scare him off. I'm still waiting for him to answer people's questions and provide some explanation for creation besides the old 'life is just too complicated to have evolved' argument.
electroshockwave
Member
I'm not really sure how cognitive dissonance caused by holding conflicting ideas is happily coexisting.
Religions are usually anthropocentric and make it seem like God intimately involves himself in human affairs. That doesn't really gel with the idea that it took a couple of billion of years for us to evolve from single celled organisms without any assistance from God.
Religions are usually anthropocentric and make it seem like God intimately involves himself in human affairs. That doesn't really gel with the idea that it took a couple of billion of years for us to evolve from single celled organisms without any assistance from God.
While looking over Benaroya Research Institute's website I saw a link in the sidebar for their published papers. This is the first paper on the page:
Complete HOX cluster characterization of the coelacanth provides further evidence for slow evolution of its genome
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 107: 3622-3627, 2010
Here's a link to the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3622.full.pdf
mclaren777, it seems like your colleagues have no problem with accepting evolution, paleontology, or geology in their line of work. In fact, they seem to be providing further evidence of evolution in an interesting paper on these Hox genes. What is your take on this?
Complete HOX cluster characterization of the coelacanth provides further evidence for slow evolution of its genome
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 107: 3622-3627, 2010
Here's a link to the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3622.full.pdf
mclaren777, it seems like your colleagues have no problem with accepting evolution, paleontology, or geology in their line of work. In fact, they seem to be providing further evidence of evolution in an interesting paper on these Hox genes. What is your take on this?
electroshockwave said:
The point i'm making is that the ideas are not truly 'conflicting'. If you're familiar with the Catholic faith you'll know that the Church's catechism is constantly evolving. I understand that some people find this to be a convenient way of masking the 'gaps' in the religion but I think it's actually quite a mature way of evolving the doctrine of the faith to keep pace with the world as it evolves.
I certainly don't have the breadth of knowledge to discuss this in depth but I DO see where you're coming from.
What I take issue with is the argument that proof of evolution is also proof that God doesn't exist which is a concept that many atheists, Dawkins included, believe.
slidewinder
Banned
Bullshit.benita said:
slidewinder
Banned
Which is an entirely reasonable thing to say, and enormously different from what you claimed before.
- Status