Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

I'm currently reading a book on 'why 50 people with phds believe in creation' as part of a swap with a friend at work. I lent him Carl Sagan's Cosmos in return.

One thing that baffles me in all the arguments that creationists put forward is their appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically they state that:

a) In a closed system, entropy increases (ie available energy decreases over time)

I have no problem there, its part of the definition of the 2nd Law.

Then they state:

b) Evolution sees a decrease in entropy over time - ie more complex organisms have evolved from primitive single celled life and pre-biota complex molecules before that.

Again, I have no problem with that general description.

The part I *hate* to see them say then is that:

c) "Entropy increases in a closed system. Evolution sees an increase in order ('decrease in entropy') therfore evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics therefore God did it.

Their entire argument falls over on their failure to understand the difference between a closed and open thermodynamic system. They are falsely equating the Earth with a closed, thermodynamically sealed system. Now, in any system, in order to decrease the entropy you need to input energy or do work. You need an external energy source. Do we have one of those available to us here on Earth?

You fucking bet we do.

Spoiler

If you need a hint, go outside and look up

And since Earth is capturing a fraction of the total energy output of the sun, and the sun is continually losing energy out into open space, the solar system (which you can approximate as a closed thermodynamic system since the sun accounts for 99.9999% of the energy flux into/out of it) then the net entropy of the solar system is increasing in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Short version: we are the beneficiaries of a localised eddy in the solar energy stream.

 

[BocoDragon]

Why we still got girl-age threads?

 

[jamesinclair]

" 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 problem is this.


Ancestor -------????-------Human

SHOW ME THE MISSING LINK!

Ok, here it is.


Ancestor ---??----Erectus----???---Human

SHOW ME THE MISSING LINK!

Oh shit now we have two missing links. Well, lets fill them in....


Ancestor ---?? ---Habilis --??? --Erectus ----??---Heidelbergensis---???---Human

The missing links keep on multiplying!

For every link you find, there are two more missing. Which makes sense, considering theres an almost infinite amount of links in the chain.

 

[Yagharek]

For every link you find, there are two more missing. Which makes sense, considering theres an almost infinite amount of links in the chain.

Its a lot, but not infinite (and I know you know this, bare with me)...

Dawkins provided an example whereby if you held hands with your mother, and she with hers, and your grandmother with her mother etc etc all the way back with one ancestor per metre, after about 300km you would be looking at an ape that for all intents and purposes resembles any of the other great ape species.

And logically, if that ape held one of her other daughters hands who then held her daughters hand etc etc back down the line of progeny, you would eventually come to a modern chimpanzee. Your distant cousin.

 

[Alucrid]

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.

But why we still got tailbones?

 

[xbhaskarx]

xbhaskarx, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, evolution works. IN THEORY.

Good, someone got the reference.

 

[Socreges]

But why we still got tailbones?

That was going to be my reply since everyone was misunderstanding my post.

I did say "not exactly true" because if you're going to say "legs inside bodies", then you might as well say we've got tails inside ours.

 

[Dilly]

I still have my Evolution booklet from last year in High school. Maybe I'll translate something out of it, it's pretty straight forward and easy to understand but it's quite interesting.

 

[Mgoblue201]

From what I understand, whale embryos do indeed have hind limbs, and then they disappear. However, certain whales do maintain hind limbs throughout their lives. What's more, many of them have vestigial mammalian pelvises too. The creationist would then reply that the pelvis isn't really vestigial because it's connecting together muscles, but that isn't what vestigial means. It really means that the pelvis takes on secondary reduced functions. There is no reason why a whale should have a mammalian pelvis except for the fact that it evolved from mammals. It should look more like a fish, if there was any forethought put into its design.

c) "Entropy increases in a closed system. Evolution sees an increase in order ('decrease in entropy') therfore evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics therefore God did it.

If that was true, these idiots wouldn't be alive. Energy would become progressively more useless over time, and soon all chemical reactions on Earth would be impossible. Every time one of their enzymes inside of their bodies catalyzes a reaction, it must be breaking the second law of thermodynamics, according to their reasoning.

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.

Conversely, however, it's true that a trait could have a reproductive advantage and yet not be passed on, or even if it is passed on, it may not last for very long due to chance event. And saying that it survives does not necessarily portend that it always will. Selection is, of course, capricious. Anyway, it doesn't matter much. I usually use the word fitness, but I suppose that it's easy to be careless with words.

 

[Always-honest]

but where is the evidence?

 

[Yagharek]

If that was true, these idiots wouldn't be alive. Energy would become progressively more useless over time, and soon all chemical reactions on Earth would be impossible. Every time one of their enzymes inside of their bodies catalyzes a reaction, it must be breaking the second law of thermodynamics, according to their reasoning.

Indeed, but that comes down to their inability to understand the second law in the first place. They simply forget that sure, if we had no energy input on this planet eventually it would wind down to death for all, but whilst we have a sun outputting energy and plants photosynthesizing it, evolution is perfectly natural.

To your example, I guess that means a creationist using the 2nd law would be defining themselves as a 'closed system'. Not even breatharians go that far.

 

[Socreges]

From what I understand, whale embryos do indeed have hind limbs, and then they disappear. However, certain whales do maintain hind limbs throughout their lives. What's more, many of them have vestigial mammalian pelvises too. The creationist would then reply that the pelvis isn't really vestigial because it's connecting together muscles, but that isn't what vestigial means. It really means that the pelvis takes on secondary reduced functions. There is no reason why a whale should have a mammalian pelvis except for the fact that it evolved from mammals. It should look more like a fish, if there was any forethought put into its design.

One of the coolest little details that I learned several years ago which had never occurred to me earlier is that while fish swim in a horizontal pattern, whales move through water in a vertical pattern. Their spine bends just as a running cheetah's would.

 

[PuppetSlave]

I liked this when I was in school as an example of natural selection.

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

 

[danwarb]

One of the coolest little details that I learned several years ago which had never occurred to me earlier is that while fish swim in a horizontal pattern, whales move through water in a vertical pattern. Their spine bends just as a running cheetah's would.

"If snakes swim on land, dolphins gallop through the sea!" I think that's from Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth'.

 

[Zeppu]

We didn't like evolve from anything. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, how can like, an African American person evolve from a white person? We're different skinned!

 

[Always-honest]

We didn't like evolve from anything. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, how can like, an African American person evolve from a white person? We're different skinned!

i'm hearing a deep southern accent while reading this

 

[Dead Man]

The problem is this.


Ancestor -------????-------Human

SHOW ME THE MISSING LINK!

Ok, here it is.


Ancestor ---??----Erectus----???---Human

SHOW ME THE MISSING LINK!

Oh shit now we have two missing links. Well, lets fill them in....


Ancestor ---?? ---Habilis --??? --Erectus ----??---Heidelbergensis---???---Human

The missing links keep on multiplying!

For every link you find, there are two more missing. Which makes sense, considering theres an almost infinite amount of links in the chain.

There was an article in NewScientist a few years ago that looked at this, buggered if I can find it now though. So frustrating.

 

[MrSerrels]

I'm currently reading a book on 'why 50 people with phds believe in creation' as part of a swap with a friend at work. I lent him Carl Sagan's Cosmos in return.

I'm an atheist, I believe in evolution. My wife is a Christian, and she is a creationist. So I totally respect the fact that you are even willing to read a book like that, I think it's awesome.

I'm currently reading a couple of creationist books, mainly because I like to be challenged, the same way that my wife is pretty well read in the other direction, despite her beliefs. We always do swaps like the one you just described.

I think it's useful mainly because it's so easy to fall into the 'Creationists are dumb fundamentalists/People who believe in evolution are the superior master race', when there are people out there who have sensible reasons for not believing in evolution.

I just happen to utterly, utterly disagree with them.

 

[Feep]

I'm an atheist, I believe in evolution. My wife is a Christian, and she is a creationist. So I totally respect the fact that you are even willing to read a book like that, I think it's awesome.

I'm currently reading a couple of creationist books, mainly because I like to be challenged, the same way that my wife is pretty well read in the other direction, despite her beliefs. We always do swaps like the one you just described.

I think it's useful mainly because it's so easy to fall into the 'Creationists are dumb fundamentalists/People who believe in evolution are the superior master race', when there are people out there who have sensible reasons for not believing in evolution.

I just happen to utterly, utterly disagree with them.

Not attacking you or your wife, or anything, but I cannot understand this mindset.

There are no sensible reasons for not believing in evolution. I often say, if someone were to come up to you and claim that 3 + 4 equaled 8, would you respect their belief? Could you understand them, and let it lie?

Unfortunately, evolution is slightly more complex than 3 + 4, and thus, people without a very basic understanding of science can have trouble with it. But the situation is analogous. Evolution is backed up by mountains of indisputable evidence.

 

[the_concierge]

Not attacking you or your wife, or anything, but I cannot understand this mindset.

There are no sensible reasons for not believing in evolution. I often say, if someone were to come up to you and claim that 3 + 4 equaled 8, would you respect their belief? Could you understand them, and let it lie?

Unfortunately, evolution is slightly more complex than 3 + 4, and thus, people without a very basic understanding of science can have trouble with it. But the situation is analogous. Evolution is backed up by mountains of indisputable evidence.

You read my mind. That said, I would like to hear what people do consider 'sensible' reasons for not believing in Evolution.

 

[MrSerrels]

Not attacking you or your wife, or anything, but I cannot understand this mindset.

There are no sensible reasons for not believing in evolution. I often say, if someone were to come up to you and claim that 3 + 4 equaled 8, would you respect their belief? Could you understand them, and let it lie?

Unfortunately, evolution is slightly more complex than 3 + 4, and thus, people without a very basic understanding of science can have trouble with it. But the situation is analogous. Evolution is backed up by mountains of indisputable evidence.

My reasoning for this is simple: there are people out there that know infinitely more about this subject than me, and they don't believe in evolution. Therefore I tend to have a little more respect for people that don't share my belief, and I don't judge them for believing something different.

 

[Feep]

My reasoning for this is simple: there are people out there that know infinitely more about this subject than me, and they don't believe in evolution. Therefore I tend to have a little more respect for people that don't share my belief, and I don't judge them for believing something different.

With the stranglehold religions still have on this populace of six and a half billion, there will always be some contingent of "smart" people who believe incorrect things. The number who believe in Creationism over evolution is incredibly small, but of course, the number of people who believe in something is never (nor should it be) a convincing argument.

But the wonderful thing about science is that you don't have to believe. A man could tell me the constant of gravitation here on Earth is 9.8 m/s^2, and I could tell him to go fuck off, but if I set up a very simple experiment, I could very easily verify that it is, in fact, 9.8 m/s^2.

If Creationists want transitional fossils (a term that makes very little sense, once evolution is understood), well, you can go see them. Very simple thought experiments (the incredible amount of genetic trash in our DNA, the leap from the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the apes to the 23 pairs in humans and how our 2nd pair is the fused offender) are effective as well. Admittedly, most people do not have the knowledge of expertise to understand genetic sequencing, but the point is, you *could*. You *could* go see it yourself, and verify it yourself. Yet the Creationists, of course, do not. It would break their fragile shell of lies, a barrier thrown up to keep them safe in the rigid, unchanging beliefs of their religion.

 

[Jex]

With the stranglehold religions still have on this populace of six and a half billion, there will always be some contingent of "smart" people who believe incorrect things. The number who believe in Creationism over evolution is incredibly small, but of course, the number of people who believe in something is never (nor should it be) a convincing argument.

Not only that, but simply relying on experts as some kind of useful tool is dangerous Experts and Studies : Not always so trustworthy.

If you don't attempt to scrutinise the information people give to you then you're being very unwise.

 

[MrSerrels]

With the stranglehold religions still have on this populace of six and a half billion, there will always be some contingent of "smart" people who believe incorrect things. The number who believe in Creationism over evolution is incredibly small, but of course, the number of people who believe in something is never (nor should it be) a convincing argument.

But the wonderful thing about science is that you don't have to believe. A man could tell me the constant of gravitation here on Earth is 9.8 m/s^2, and I could tell him to go fuck off, but if I set up a very simple experiment, I could very easily verify that it is, in fact, 9.8 m/s^2.

If Creationists want transitional fossils (a term that makes very little sense, once evolution is understood), well, you can go see them. Very simple thought experiments (the incredible amount of genetic trash in our DNA, the leap from the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the apes to the 23 pairs in humans and how our 2nd pair is the fused offender) are effective as well. Admittedly, most people do not have the knowledge of expertise to understand genetic sequencing, but the point is, you *could*. You *could* go see it yourself, and verify it yourself. Yet the Creationists, of course, do not. It would break their fragile shell of lies, a barrier thrown up to keep them safe in the rigid, unchanging beliefs of their religion.

I think you're preaching to the choir buddy.

I agree with you. I've had this argument a million times and trust me, I'm on your side.

Maybe 'sensible' was the wrong word. All I'm saying is that there are people in possession of all the facts that don't believe in evolution. They have reasons for believing in Creation and it's worth investigating that viewpoint, from a scientific point of view.

One of my favourite quotes to come out of this whole debate is from Stephen Jay Gould:

"... if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."

We need to question ourselves, and our own position, even if it's just in order to reaffirm it. The fact is people have different ideas, they are often informed ideas, and they are sometimes different to ours.

I'd just like to reaffirm. I'm an atheist, I completely believe that evolution is a scientific fact. So there's no need to try and convince me of that fact! :lol

 

[Always-honest]

the biggest problem ofcourse is finding a person who has the patience, but also the talent to explain things in the easiest way possible.

Bas Haring did it in a dutch little book. Was a great read.

 

[jakershaker]

It's easy to make a summary of evolution:

People who believe in it: Smart

People who don't believe in it: Stupid

Luckily, the stupid people can't do anything about it in the long run. Science always win sooner or later.

Only people who argue against evolution are religious nuts or devils advocates.

Not even sure what the controversy is to be honest, there sure isn't any among the Biology scientist. This is like discussing if gravity exists :lol

 

[Feep]

I think you're preaching to the choir buddy.

I agree with you. I've had this argument a million times and trust me, I'm on your side.

Maybe 'sensible' was the wrong word. All I'm saying is that there are people in possession of all the facts that don't believe in evolution. They have reasons for believing in Creation and it's worth investigating that viewpoint, from a scientific point of view.

One of my favourite quotes to come out of this whole debate is from Stephen Jay Gould:

"... if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."

We need to question ourselves, and our own position, even if it's just in order to reaffirm it. The fact is people have different ideas, they are often informed ideas, and they are sometimes different to ours.

I'd just like to reaffirm. I'm an atheist, I completely believe that evolution is a scientific fact. So there's no need to try and convince me of that fact! :lol

Fair enough, but my quibble is the concept that the other side is "an informed idea". How is it informed? What evidence do they have? What evidence have they shown that stands up to even the most rudimentary of logical thought? I do not accept that their ideas have any substance or legitimacy.

 

[xbhaskarx]

One thing that baffles me in all the arguments that creationists put forward is their appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically they state that:

a) In a closed system, entropy increases (ie available energy decreases over time)

I have no problem there, its part of the definition of the 2nd Law.

Then they state:

b) Evolution sees a decrease in entropy over time - ie more complex organisms have evolved from primitive single celled life and pre-biota complex molecules before that.

Again, I have no problem with that general description.

The part I *hate* to see them say then is that:

c) "Entropy increases in a closed system. Evolution sees an increase in order ('decrease in entropy') therfore evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics therefore God did it.

Their entire argument falls over on their failure to understand the difference between a closed and open thermodynamic system. They are falsely equating the Earth with a closed, thermodynamically sealed system. Now, in any system, in order to decrease the entropy you need to input energy or do work. You need an external energy source. Do we have one of those available to us here on Earth?

You fucking bet we do.

Spoiler

If you need a hint, go outside and look up

And since Earth is capturing a fraction of the total energy output of the sun, and the sun is continually losing energy out into open space, the solar system (which you can approximate as a closed thermodynamic system since the sun accounts for 99.9999% of the energy flux into/out of it) then the net entropy of the solar system is increasing in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Short version: we are the beneficiaries of a localised eddy in the solar energy stream.

I had this same discussion with a creationist many years ago.

 

[jakershaker]

I think you're preaching to the choir buddy.

I agree with you. I've had this argument a million times and trust me, I'm on your side.

Maybe 'sensible' was the wrong word. All I'm saying is that there are people in possession of all the facts that don't believe in evolution. They have reasons for believing in Creation and it's worth investigating that viewpoint, from a scientific point of view.

One of my favourite quotes to come out of this whole debate is from Stephen Jay Gould:

"... if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."

We need to question ourselves, and our own position, even if it's just in order to reaffirm it. The fact is people have different ideas, they are often informed ideas, and they are sometimes different to ours.

I'd just like to reaffirm. I'm an atheist, I completely believe that evolution is a scientific fact. So there's no need to try and convince me of that fact! :lol

No there are no people in possession of all the facts that don't believe in evolution. At least none who claims to be scientists or such. If you have all the facts and don't believe in evolution you are either stupid or have another agenda.

The quote from Stephen Jay Gould describes science. It's not about giving legitimacy to crackpot theories. Evolution has evolved A LOT since it was first discovered, and is being pushed all the time(now a lot with DNA sequencing). So evolution is our way to understand nature, it's not static, it changes when the evidence changes.

And no, in 99% of time when people have "informed ideas" that contradicts evolution they're not "informed ideas" but bullshit.

People have the right to claim whatever they want. They however don't have the right to say what they claim is scientific or "right" without giving the supporting evidence. Or saying that a scientific theory is wrong just because they believe something else.

 

[Nocebo]

Fair enough, but my quibble is the concept that the other side is "an informed idea". How is it informed? What evidence do they have? What evidence have they shown that stands up to even the most rudimentary of logical thought? I do not accept that their ideas have any substance or legitimacy.

I'd be surprised if these "informed ideas" and what have you aren't still the same old arguments from ignorance, misrepresented facts, quote mines, irreducable complexity and fine tuning of the universe. All of which have been refuted many times over.

 

[Veidt]

It's scary how much this explains everything.

 

[Witchfinder General]

Not only that, but simply relying on experts as some kind of useful tool is dangerous Experts and Studies : Not always so trustworthy.

If you don't attempt to scrutinise the information people give to you then you're being very unwise.

Fascinating article. Thanks for linking that. In fact, I've added the book Wrong to my Amazon basket.

 

[MrSerrels]

Fair enough, but my quibble is the concept that the other side is "an informed idea". How is it informed? What evidence do they have? What evidence have they shown that stands up to even the most rudimentary of logical thought? I do not accept that their ideas have any substance or legitimacy.

I'm currently about to start reading a Jonathan Sarfati book someone lent me, which is an attempt to refute The Greatest Show on Earth point by point. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll let you know if anything stands up!

I'm going to try to approach it with an open mind... :lol

 

[Mario]

When your faith based belief system is threatened by an opposing view, I imagine a perceived chink in the armour can subconsciously appear like a gaping hole, and how reasoned claims can be distorted into sounding like propoganda.

I can understand why those with a Creationist viewpoint remain dismissive of evolution.

Doesn't make it any less frustrating though.

 

[MrSerrels]

The quote from Stephen Jay Gould describes science. It's not about giving legitimacy to crackpot theories. Evolution has evolved A LOT since it was first discovered, and is being pushed all the time(now a lot with DNA sequencing). So evolution is our way to understand nature, it's not static, it changes when the evidence changes.

And no, in 99% of time when people have "informed ideas" that contradicts evolution they're not "informed ideas" but bullshit.

People have the right to claim whatever they want. They however don't have the right to say what they claim is scientific or "right" without giving the supporting evidence. Or saying that a scientific theory is wrong just because they believe something else.

Nah dude I agree with you, on almost every point (except I do believe that there are informed scientists who don't believe in evolution, but of course they're in the vast vast minority).

The reason that I presented that Stephen Jay Gould quote was not to give legitimacy to crackpot theories, only to state that we have to be open to questioning ourselves, and the nature of this debate makes it almost impossible to do so.

 

[Nocebo]

When your faith based belief system is threatened by an opposing view, I imagine a perceived chink in the armour can subconsciously appear like a gaping hole, and how reasoned claims can be distorted into sounding like propoganda.

I can understand why those with a Creationist viewpoint remain dismissive of evolution.

Doesn't make it any less frustrating though.

The mind is a wonderful thing isn't it?
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Nah dude I agree with you, on almost every point (except I do believe that their are informed scientists who don't believe in evolution, but of course they're in the vast vast minority).

Do you have evidence for this belief? : P j/k
Dawkins always drums up this example of this brilliant Geologist (I think) who basically choose to reject all the evidence against the Bible and quit his field of science because his religion came first for him, in his mind he couldn't reconcile the two.

 

[SmokyDave]

Excellent OP Kinitari.

I have an intelligent friend, no religious beliefs but does not believe in evolution (because he's an irritating fucking contrarian). I'll be printing off your OP and leaving it on his coffee table.

 

[MrSerrels]

Excellent OP Kinitari.

I have an intelligent friend, no religious beliefs but does not believe in evolution (because he's an irritating fucking contrarian). I'll be printing off your OP and leaving it on his coffee table.

I'm thinking of printing it off and leaving on my wife's side of the bed :lol

 

[Mario]

So, one of the things that has been really interesting to me about evolution is the simultaneous or co-dependent evolution of symbiotic systems. Sometimes used as an argument against evolution, symbiosis is actually considered by some a driving force behind evolution forcing faster change in organisms involved in symbiotic relationsips.

See:

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

"Symbiosis played a major role in the co-evolution of flowering plants and the animals that pollinate them. Many plants that are pollinated by insects, bats, or birds have highly specialized flowers modified to promote pollination by a specific pollinator that is also correspondingly adapted. The first flowering plants in the fossil record had relatively simple flowers. Adaptive speciation quickly gave rise to many diverse groups of plants, and, at the same time, corresponding speciation occurred in certain insect groups. Some groups of plants developed nectar and large sticky pollen, while insects evolved more specialized morphologies to access and collect these rich food sources. In some taxa of plants and insects the relationship has become dependent, where the plant species can only be pollinated by one species of insect."


For an example of how complicated symbiotic systems can become, see this short video

"Parasitic Mind Control"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSUU3E9ZoM

 

[Nocebo]

I might be a good idea to add to the OP how evolution relates to the real world in a practical sense in the medical field.
Does anyone know of any interesting articles with information about practical applications for the theory of evolution?
Here's a short one explaining the importance of understanding evolution to combat viruses:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IApathogens.shtml

 

[jakershaker]

I'm thinking of printing it off and leaving on my wife's side of the bed :lol

Seriously, you should make her go back to school.

Can't imagine the headache I would get if my girl came home and started talking creationist nonsense. It would be a deal breaker.

 

[Suitcase Test]

Bas Haring did it in a dutch little book. Was a great read.

"Kaas en de Evolutietheorie" [Cheese and the Theory of Evolution]

AWESOME book!

I read it over and over as a kid. Then a few weeks later I got a question about an excerpt from the book in a high school test. "F yeah, I got this one!"


Awesome OP by the way, didn't expect that when entering the thread!

 

[MNC]

Will read when I have time so tagged for now, but I admire your dedication OP. Nice OP!

 

[MrSerrels]

Can't imagine the headache I would get if my girl came home and started talking creationist nonsense. It would be a deal breaker.

That's the thing. She doesn't.

She's never once tried to convince me that evolution is bullshit. I've got myself quite riled up on the topic, especially when we started going out. In a way I've learned a lot about tolerance from the whole situation. I know that probably sounds trite, but it's really true.

Edit: I didn't want to pimp it, but fuck it. I write a blog about being an Atheist married to a Christian. If anyone's interested check out my first post here but I've written a decent amount about my 'situation' :lol

 

[Zeppu]

The thing I like about evolution, or rather 'The survival of the fittest' (or rather still, the survival of the fit enough) is that in reality it can be applied to pretty much everything even when evolution in the traditional sense isn't involved.

It's really rather simple actually. I'm just gonna go ahead and give a few examples.

Ever noticed how common it is to have rich people who just happen to also be graced with beauty? Let us consider an mediocre man who, by his own achievements has managed to make himself incredibly successful. He could either be a great businessman or a great athlete or just a charismatic person who was at the right time at the right place. So he ends up getting a lot of fame, success and money. Guess what happens next? He marries a supermodel. He isn't anything special, he probably wouldn't be in her league but since he has managed to change himself into something which a mate would be interested in, he managed to get on of the best specimens to 'mate' with. What happens? The offspring has a 1/4(ish) chance of getting the best traits out of both his parents, the business mind/athleticism/whatever from one side and the beauty/charisma/etc from the other as well as perhaps an inheritance of the money. This would in turn make the child more attractive to other potential mates. This is basically what Animal Planet is all about but for humans. Everyone tries to be the best 'mate' and fight for the best female which in turn strengthens the species.

As a completely different example, each of you can take their group of friends. Odds are very high that when you were kids, you had a million friends and you liked every single one of them and each had something special. In this analogy, one lifetime could essentially be split into eras or epochs to represent generations. One by one, each of your friends develops a 'mutation' which happens as you're growing up. By mutation I mean anything which affects the relationship between you and your friend. They may move away, become jackasses, buy a car, or prove again and again that they are reliable. Eventually the huge number of close friend one has starts decreasing until (usually) a tightly knit group of friends remains who have essentially evolved together and found themselves to be the 'fittest' for their own 'society', which in this case represents the group of friends itself. So basically through a single lifetime (usually more around 20-30 years) a sort of 'survival of the fittest' has happened between a group of people who have either adapted to be accepted or who inherently attract people towards them.

Even gadgets and technology. The Wii was the first baby to develop the 'motion control' mutation and was found to be the 'fittest' (if fittest is sales, and if sales is what large corporations care about). Same applies for the iPod with simple interfaces and iPhone with touch screen controls. Eventually the rest of the 'species' evolved to be like the first who developed the mutation and add some spice of it's own to the mix. The thing goes back and forth with each generation as a whole being better than the previous one. True, this isn't exactly the same since no transfer of genes occurs, but in reality the tech has evolved to imitate the fittest since it was the most successful.

Now this is on a very short and small timescale. Imagine this happening over millions and millions of years with actual genes and actual dangers of extinction. I could have a wrong perspective of the above but to me all of them are perfect analogies of how plausible and sensible evolution actually is.

 

[Salazar]

Anybody with a Kindle or other e-book device should read this book. It's free, and it is extraordinarily good.

http://manybooks.net/titles/gosseedmetext01ftrsn10.html

The book describes Edmund’s early years in an exceptionally devout Plymouth Brethren home. His mother, who dies early and painfully of breast cancer, is a writer of Christian tracts. His father, Philip Henry Gosse, is an influential, though largely self-taught, invertebrate zoologist and student of marine biology who, after his wife’s death, takes Edmund to live in Devon. The book focuses on the father’s response to the new evolutionary theories, especially those of his scientific colleague Charles Darwin, and Edmund’s gradual rejection of both his father and his father’s fundamentalist religion.

Beautifully written, agonising in parts, wonderfully contemplative.

 

[Always-honest]

"Kaas en de Evolutietheorie" [Cheese and the Theory of Evolution]

AWESOME book!

yup.

 

[Chuckie]

"Kaas en de Evolutietheorie" [Cheese and the Theory of Evolution]

AWESOME book!

I read it over and over as a kid. Then a few weeks later I got a question about an excerpt from the book in a high school test. "F yeah, I got this one!"


Awesome OP by the way, didn't expect that when entering the thread!

I only know 'Kaas' by Willem Elschot... but that has nothing to do with evolution :lol

 

[SmokyDave]

Anybody with a Kindle or other e-book device should read this book. It's free, and it is extraordinarily good.

http://manybooks.net/titles/gosseedmetext01ftrsn10.html

Beautifully written, agonising in parts, wonderfully contemplative.

Thanks for the recommendation, downloaded.

Technological evolution is pretty damned awesome too. I bet if Edmund Gosse realised how easily his writing could be recommended and shared in 2010 (Under 2 minutes, between Australia and the UK, no less), his mind would be utterly blown.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Indeed, but that comes down to their inability to understand the second law in the first place. They simply forget that sure, if we had no energy input on this planet eventually it would wind down to death for all, but whilst we have a sun outputting energy and plants photosynthesizing it, evolution is perfectly natural.

To your example, I guess that means a creationist using the 2nd law would be defining themselves as a 'closed system'. Not even breatharians go that far.

A more sophisticated version of this argument states that there simply isn't enough energy to make evolution over the course of four billion years possible, but of course physicists have eviscerated this argument with the pesky thing called math.

One of the coolest little details that I learned several years ago which had never occurred to me earlier is that while fish swim in a horizontal pattern, whales move through water in a vertical pattern. Their spine bends just as a running cheetah's would.

One of the whale ancestors, I believe, Ambulocetus, also swam like an otter. This was kind of a precursor movement to the whale.

Anybody with a Kindle or other e-book device should read this book. It's free, and it is extraordinarily good.

http://manybooks.net/titles/gosseedmetext01ftrsn10.html



Beautifully written, agonising in parts, wonderfully contemplative.

I downloaded it as a PDF. Is this contemporary to the time? I always have a curious fascination with reading about the thoughts of people in retrospection to certain events as they are occurring.