-
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
Go to the religion thread which has been derailed several times on this subject of man made proofs of chance occurrences.Madman said:
No one is shying away from the subject (least of which me who brought it up against a sea of atheism). In fact just read it as others have brought up your point and I explained my POV as well/badly there as I would here.
It's just that I don't think this thread is meant for that (Neither was the religion thread but it is what it is) and, unlike other posts, I have no desire to disrespect others
here 
Ditto for the Puritanical evolutionary conservatives seanspeed, pandaman, & their ilk.
Joe Prodigy
Member
Lard said:
Whaaaaat? He was like the best part! HHH and Flair were jealous of his success and Batista just took a back seat to him.
That was a funny reply though.:lol
I'll pass on digging through or posting in the religion thread.JGS said:Go to the religion thread which has been derailed several times on this subject of man made proofs of chance occurrences.
No one is shying away from the subject (least of which me who brought it up against a sea of atheism). In fact just read it as others have brought up your point and I explained my POV as well/badly there as I would here.
It's just that I don't think this thread is meant for that (Neither was the religion thread but it is what it is) and, unlike other posts, I have no desire to disrespect others.here
Ditto for the Puritanical evolutionary conservatives seanspeed, pandaman, & their ilk.
For the attention of the OP:
I know its a different topic to evolution, but modern cosmology essentially is able to explain the existence of the universe without need to defer to supernatural origins. Many, many, many creationists/ID advocates seem unable to differentiate between - or arent even aware of the differentiation between - evolution and cosmology. That includes the main theories of both, evolution by natural selection and the big bang theory.
I have heard many creationists argue that evolution cant explain how 'a giant explosion made life' and I think that getting a background in cosmology itself would be a good complement to the biological references and concepts already stated. That could help people who arent familiar with these two fields of science to understand what each field relates to and what they each attempt to explain.
It is also an extremely elegant argument (zero total energy).
Cosmology = explanations for the existence of the Universe (origin might be a bad word to use due to the nature of time)
Evolution = explanation for the diversification of life and changes that facilitate speciation
(And for fans of intermediates, astronomy of stellar and solar system formation, knowledge of types of molecular clouds, supernovae and element production and complex organic chemistry are all topics that are fascinating reading for the steps required to bring about the conditions for life to emerge anywhere in the universe, including earth)
I know its a different topic to evolution, but modern cosmology essentially is able to explain the existence of the universe without need to defer to supernatural origins. Many, many, many creationists/ID advocates seem unable to differentiate between - or arent even aware of the differentiation between - evolution and cosmology. That includes the main theories of both, evolution by natural selection and the big bang theory.
I have heard many creationists argue that evolution cant explain how 'a giant explosion made life' and I think that getting a background in cosmology itself would be a good complement to the biological references and concepts already stated. That could help people who arent familiar with these two fields of science to understand what each field relates to and what they each attempt to explain.
It is also an extremely elegant argument (zero total energy).
Cosmology = explanations for the existence of the Universe (origin might be a bad word to use due to the nature of time)
Evolution = explanation for the diversification of life and changes that facilitate speciation
(And for fans of intermediates, astronomy of stellar and solar system formation, knowledge of types of molecular clouds, supernovae and element production and complex organic chemistry are all topics that are fascinating reading for the steps required to bring about the conditions for life to emerge anywhere in the universe, including earth)
speculawyer
Member
Like I said . . . many people have no problem reconciling this stuff. You are one of those people.Trojita said:
But that doesn't work for me. If the Bible is meant to be some spiritual/religious guide for me to follow then why would god put bogus mythical stories in it? Just to fuck with me? Yeah, you can say that they were put in there by man . . . but doesn't this god have enough power to keep such tripe out his big important book?
And if the book starts out with a whole chapter that I'm not supposed to take seriously then how am I supposed to take the rest of it seriously? Why doesn't it come with some guide that tells me when something is serious and when it is not.
Instead, we get thousands of different churches that interpret things differently . . . if this is supposed to be some universal truth then shouldn't it be clear and consistent?
Well, you just told me that the genesis creation story is a mythical fraud. The afterlife stuff comes from the same book . . . so why is that part not a fraud? We have no evidence to support it and it comes in the same book with other frauds so what is the logical conclusion to draw . . . . ?
Well . . . we are all afraid of death . . . so fuck logic. I wanna live forever, so I'll just believe it.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but you can't say that these things are not linked at all.
And again, the question was about the people that refuse to accept evolution. That crazy Australian creationist guy behind the creationist museum flatly comes out and says it . . . he feels that "We have to believe in the creation story . . . because if that isn't true then why should we believe in any of the rest of it?" And I completely agree with him on that . . . but instead of trying to make myself believe a old creation myth, I'll just toss out the rest of the mythology as well.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
JesseZao said:
It's clear that some things in the bible are parables. Jesus used them alot.
JGS said:
Basically. There is nothing interesting to talk about with evolution. It all comes down to the belief in the existence of a creator or the belief in the absence of one. Without bringing the higher power onto the table, evolution discussions are just scientific master race phalanxes ready to spear anyone who's dumb enough to reject evolution. I mean, what's to talk about if everyone here knows that evolution is real? You going to splooge over missing link skulls? Boring.
It is proper logic. The burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. If you had stopped at "I don't believe the evidence for abiogenisis." There could have actually been a discussion and explanations. However you turned it into "I don't believe the evidence for abiogenisis so god did it. Try and prove that he didn't!". Logically speaking you can't ever prove a negative.JGS said:
ps: You're also committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Which isn't productive for discussion.
You're twisting things. Someone asked me why I blaspheme abiogenesis & I answered with a question. Besides, I didn't turn it. Religion was already being discussed. It can't be helped. I guess it's a spin on keep your friends close, but your enemies closer...Nocebo said:
Further, I am not talking about religion anymore in the thread even now just explaining context which you aren't seeing apparently.
I entered the thread because people were incorrectly deducing things about religious folk rather than the focus of the thread (Uhh evolution) and implying incredibly lame reasons why the religious are a danger to evolution
lol ). That's insanity. At least a couple of people even made the very unscientific deduction that ALL people who don't believe as they do are exactly the same even with vastly different beliefs amongst all those people. Again insanity and the most bizarre and idiotic form of bigotry and prejudice I've seen in a while. That's some Inquisition conversion level stuff!
I agree that bringing up somethng unproven like abiogenesis was argument from ignorance and have already agreed to not discuss it further. Finally, if I committed a logical fallacy that isn't productive to discussion than why was a discussion with me attempted by the logical? That's a rhetorical question. No need to answer.
Has donexodus2's channel already been mentioned? He has a lot of interesting videos explaining evolution and related subjects.
Here he shows (amongst other things) that comparative anatomy can be used to verify predictions made by the theory of evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
Here he shows (amongst other things) that comparative anatomy can be used to verify predictions made by the theory of evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
No, the reasons are pretty legit.JGS said:I entered the thread because people were incorrectly deducing things about religious folk rather than the focus of the thread (Uhh evolution) and implying incredibly lame reasons why the religious are a danger to evolution
That wasn't the argument you were making. Nice spin though. Your wording makes it seem abiogenesis is some crackpot hypothesis. Unlike creation, abiogenesis has tangible evidence for it. What you said was along the lines of "Because I don't believe (or there is evidence for) A, B becomes a likely answer even though there isn't any substantial evidence for it.
You somehwere mentioned how evolution is almost always tied to abiogenesis, but this is only done by people who don't understand either theory (mostly creationists). I hope you won't say that the big bang theory somehow fits into evolution.
Evolution is about modification through descent.
Abiogenesis is how life started.
How abiogenesis works.
speculawyer
Member
Well played. Nice & respectful on both sides. And a typical outcome . . . "Uh . . . I'm bored or don't understand this science stuff . . . I'll just stick to my position. I'm more comfortable with it."Feep said:
No their not. Maybe you can find some better links than were used before.Nocebo said:
Nocebo said:
Oh no, let's make this clear. There is no spin needed. Abiogenesis is a crackpot hypothesis. It's not linked to evolution is the point.
I was asked why I did't believe abiogenesis.
Nocebo said:
:lol Not even remotely true. Well, it may be true that people don't understand either theory, but the media is guilty of it first (maybe they're religious but they accept evolution fine and dandy so that can't be it), then pretend scientists who get all their book smarts from wikipeida and Dawkins give a look of shock and awe that some does not think they go together like peas and carrots.
You prove my point by telling me the difference between evolution and abiogenesis - something I already know and proven by the posts you're throwing back in my face if you had paid attention.
Now you spin it into something imitating fact when it's not. So now this thread is going to become a how life got started thread rather than how life evolved thread.
Evolution is boring confirmed!
speculawyer said:
Not sure I can think of any other worthwhile way for the guy to respond.
I thought the way you presented the 23 to 24 chromosomes was too much "the only thing that would prove evolution is X. Oh hey look what we found! X!" Evolution is conjecture based on evidence, there aren't specific things that are hunted for to prove it. Things are found, then people try to make sense of it in their minds.
Feep said:
You did awesome I reckon. Didn't sound patronising, which is always the big danger because then no-one listens to you at all. The guy seemed quite reasonable, and a decent dude, and seemed to accept what you were saying.
I'm totally going to use that chromosome thing in future arguments.
I'll try and look some up when I have the time.JGS said:
Why is abiogenesis a crackpot theory? There is evidence for it after all.
Not sure why you think the media confuses the two so much. Do you have any examples?
Not sure I understand what you're implying here.
What's your problem? I didn't bring up abiogenesis. There is plenty of posts going on about evolution, stop trying to derail this thread please.
Madman said:
I see this said a lot on GAF, but I guess that people forget that there were a few early scientists that noted that God was their inspiration to learn more about the world and universe. Some people that believe in a creator actually want to understand the nature of the creation. There are even scientists today that are religious.
On to another point, while this thread is full of good information it displays some of the reasons that many people have with learning more of the subject. Many people can't stomach the constant religious bashing. There have even been atheists that have a hard time reading a book or watching a TV program on the subject.
If you are going to talk about science then talk about science. I can understand that some theist can bring up religion on a forum or maybe the scientist is asked a question behind the camera. Even then it should be ignored and people should remain on topic. What is the point of bringing up or bashing religion in a book on science though? Maybe more people will take time to learn more about the subject if all that is kept out. I have seen many just turn away from it because of it.
Evolution does not prove that a deity does not exist. So there is no reason to even bring it up. It is as foolish as saying that a religious text can be read to figure out the age of the Earth.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
onipex said:
Perfectly said.
And it's a shame that the conversations are often steered towards that path by the same people who are supposedly sick of talking about it.
JGS said:
I found this an interesting, illuminating, and relatively easy to understand look at our current understanding of abiogensis as a chemically driven process which is feasible given the chemical makeup and natural geological processes of an early Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-bWvO3elLA
It is by no means a proven hypothesis, but components of the process are well understood and we are able to recreate an increasing number of events along the chain "in the lab".
I can see how people might be very skeptical, but I'd suggest it also doesn't qualify as "crackpot".
speculawyer
Member
What?JGS said:
It is the best scientific theory we have. That is hardly crackpot.
Granted, our knowledge is very limited since we are trying to explain something from billions of years ago with no direct physical evidence to examine.
Would you consider the talking snake theory better?
PumpkinPie
Banned
Religious nuts send them on a trip to the Galapagos islands if they want proof of evolution, the same animals with different features.
send them on a trip to the Galapagos islands if they want proof of evolution, the same animals with different features.People keep saying things like this, but there is a difference between animals with differentiating features (like a human with gills/fins) versus something completely changing into another form/species. I think it's undebatable that evolution exists, the part that's still undergoing criticism is the whole animal to animal part, as well as the obvious 'did it all start from a single cell organism'.PumpkinPie said:Religious nuts
One thing that makes many of us want to say 'of course' to these big evolutionary changes is the fact that we say 'what else would it be then?' which is unscientific of us tbh. Anyway, people need to calm down in general. Religious groups need to begin accepting the possibility that we came from other animals, whether they want to create excuses and loopholes in order to still believe in their version of god is up to them.
PumpkinPie said:Religious nuts
I am hesitant about sending people towards whom I am not amiably disposed on a holiday to one of the loveliest places on the planet, in the faint, whisper-in-a-thunderstorm faint, hope that they would be educated.
This post strikes me as sensitive and naive.onipex said:
So the sky is blue. There is a pretty significant consensus that the sky is blue. I think the sky is blue. Science thinks the sky is blue. The vast majority of properly educated people think the sky is blue. But there is a loud and disruptive portion of the population, let's call them fundamental Thiscrians, that refuse to concede that the sky is blue and even want opposing theories (the sky could perhaps be red?) taught in the classroom. Moreover, there has been a history of all conversation regarding the blue sky featuring interjections by Thiscrians with inane doubt about the sky being red and that we cannot actually prove that it is, instead, blue. 1/3 of the population believe that it is red and/or that we cannot prove that it is blue.
So how do you expect us to not talk about Thiscreans?
Sentry said:
The only people who criticise evolution for this are those who are unwilling or unable to both concede and fathom that cumulative minor changes over millions of years results in massive change.
Accepting "micro evolution" but rejecting "macro evolution" is a weak position.
The only difference is the amount of time. And you can't think of it as distinct species A transforming until it becomes distinct species B. As people have repeatedly pointed out, all species are 'transitional'. We are 'transitional'. There is no individual organism that is more a set species than any other. The only reason that species ever appear to be in stasis is because we perceive them over short periods of time.Sentry said:
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I know that people immediately try to label or define things, but technically human is a meaningless phrase. It is simply a label we've attached to a wide ranging group of individuals. What, for instance, is this essential "humanness" whereby you can start attaching different organs and functions and still have the same species? Why, then, have we labeled a dog as a separate species? It is basically just a domesticated wolf. If one can say, well I'd reach a dog by modifying a wolf, then why isn't the same true for humans? Why can't I modify a human and come away with a different species?Sentry said:
There really isn't a difference between your two definitions. To differentiate features or functions is to modify it until it may eventually become a different species. The difference between an amoeba and a cat is permutations in DNA. Neanderthals are closely related to humans so that they might or might not be considered the same species, yet I differ from them more than I differ from my parents. And Neanderthals differ by degrees from Homo rhodesiensis, etc. Sure, maybe you can say that humans and rhodesiesis are different species, depending upon how you define species, but can you say that humans and neanderthals are different species? What are your criteria? How would you arrive at that conclusion? What about cro-magnon?
We are not only humans, but we are also great apes and eukaryotes amongst other things.Sentry said:
How would you explain vestigial body parts like leg bones in whales and dolphins for instance? Why do flightless birds have wings? Why do females of a certain species of lizard attempt to copulate with other female lizards even though they basically reproduce by cloning themselves (meaning no fertilization needed). Why do dandelions still have sexual organs even though they also reproduce by a cloning process that doesn't need them?
The answers are evident when you accept one species can turn into another.
- Status