Evolution (quick) Masterclass

[LotusMegami]

Ignorance due to lack of knowledge is easy enough to correct.

Ignorance due to unwillingness to learn is #^%$ing exaperating.

Clarified enough? I mean there is no point in debating with someone who needs to be educated. You need to explain instead - if no one listens then you'll never get to the part where you refute what they learned from the preacher.

 

[Humphreys]

No, as far as I can tell, they don't accept it because they don't understand it. If they really understood evolution, they would be able to see that it is an inevitable aspect of life, and therefore as far beyond "acceptance" as the sun.

However, there is the aspect that some of them at least choose not to understand it. Or choose to not understand it.

Well, as far as macro-evolution is concerned, I wouldn't go that far, and where us all sharing a common ancestor is concerned, I'd certainly not go that far.

Sure, I believe in both, and the evidence is sufficient to warrant belief, and a good level of confidence, but anyone professing anything close to certainty is stretching.

 

[arthwollipot]

I disagree. I think the evidence is sufficient to warrant something close to certainty. Not absolute certainty, mind you, but near enough as dammit.

 

[drkitten]

Well, as far as macro-evolution is concerned, I wouldn't go that far, and where us all sharing a common ancestor is concerned, I'd certainly not go that far.

Why not? In what way is the evidence insufficient?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Why not? In what way is the evidence insufficient?

I'd say the fossil record. We don't have a complete and comprehensive fossil record that shows every species that has existed as well as the transitional forms.

Ofcourse, the more fossils we find, the fuller the picture. And the fuller the picture, the better macroevolution looks.

However, creationists jump on the fact that there are gaps in the fossil records, as well as the difficulty in proving macroevolution can occur in a lab, to say that maybe/probably microevolution occurs but macroevolution doesn't.

The trends dictate otherwise, but since creationists think they already have all the proof they need (Genesis), they simply say it is up to the "atheist evolutionists" to come up with more substantial proof.

Nevermind the fact that we haven't found evidence of a man with no belly button, a garden with a tree protected by a flaming sword, a snake that talks, or any evidence that the universe was created in the order that Genesis depicts, whichever of the two versions you look at.

If you really think about it, creationists that really understand evolution yet question the prospect of macroevolution occuring are either deceptive or plain disingenious. Their hearts and motivation might be in the right place, but the tactics, I consider, are unChristian.

In a way, it shows how science is better than religion in the terms of honesty.

For a religion, the assumptions are made and never questioned. Then, the criteria for truth is limited to only whatever evidence can be used to fulfill those assumptions, which if looked at critically, is a form of deception. Any person who questions the assumptions or the evidence is considered a fool for not recognizing truth according to the preconceived dictates of that religion.

For science, assumptions are made based on previously observed and validated experiences. The criteria for truth is simply that which is consistently observed under controlled conditions. The evidence can either fulfill or call into question previous assumptions, and with enough testing, new truths are discovered and old assumptions are improved upon. Any observation or assumption made in science is open to scrutiny and testing if a person questions the evidence. A person is only a fool if they knowingly manipulate the evidence to fulfill some preconceived assumption or desired result, a practice universally recognized as deceptive and treacherous (and often criminal).

If truth is a virtue, science wins by a landslide. Science implicitly demands honesty by anyone who wants to participate. And everyone is encouraged to participate. And even if they don't, they can still reap the benefits.

I ask Christians, if God created the universe, and the laws of this universe are consistent (and so far have been), then God is consistent in his message and dictates. What religion has maintained the kind of consistency that God evidently exhibits through His universe? Has Christianity through the Bible given humanity any sort of consistent depiction of its Creator? Has every insight into the nature of this universe provided by the Bible square with what we now understand to be reality through science? Why do science and Christianity continue to diverge as science progresses forward in understanding God's designed universe while Christianity remains stagnant and unable to verify its most important assumptions?

Why does the number of Biblical style miracles occuring in this world decrease as people's knowledge and understanding of this world increases. And why do people cling to ancient third person accounts of such miracles when they pale in comparision to the sheer brilliance and extraordinary truths science continue to discover everyday?

There is a trend that is all to clear to those who are willing to simply examine it. However, any call to that sort of examination continues to be suppressed by either wide-spread ignorance or concentrated deception.

Ignorance and lies are the foundation for any successful religion. Look no further than its most ferverent adherents to find the evidence.

 

[Humphreys]

Why not? In what way is the evidence insufficient?

We're looking so far back into the past, for a start.

You just can't be close to certainty, in my opinion. Plus, there is so much we don't understand about the process of evolution, we still could be wrong.

But where the sun is concerned, we're not going to be wrong if we conclude it exists. The difference between the two cases is very significant.

 

[drkitten]

We're looking so far back into the past, for a start.

You just can't be close to certainty, in my opinion. Plus, there is so much we don't understand about the process of evolution, we still could be wrong.

We've got better evidence for common decent than we have for the planet Pluto. For Pluto, we've basically just got one type of evidence (telescopes in various frequencies), while for common decent, we've got dozens of major threads of evidence, all suggesting the same thing.

Are you certain that Pluto exists? If so, what's the difference?

 

[Humphreys]

We've got better evidence for common decent than we have for the planet Pluto. For Pluto, we've basically just got one type of evidence (telescopes in various frequencies), while for common decent, we've got dozens of major threads of evidence, all suggesting the same thing.

Are you certain that Pluto exists? If so, what's the difference?

The example was the Sun, not Pluto, but even so, I think that telescopes are far more reliable than implicative fossils, and experiments that prove micro-evolution.

I'm about 99% sure Pluto exists based on the evidence, 95% sure macro-evolution occurs, and 85% sure we all share a common ancestor, fyi.

I'm as certain as I can be about anything that the Sun exists.

 

[scotth]

Humphreys, the evidence from evolution is so much broader than the fossil record.

Here is just one of a nearly endless list of discoveries that support evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

This one discovery, all by itself, is dramatic evidence. The great thing about these scientific discoveries is that if you doubt their veracity you are free (encouraged even) to check for yourself. This is evidence that is reproducible by anyone who takes the time.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd say the fossil record. We don't have a complete and comprehensive fossil record that shows every species that has existed as well as the transitional forms.

Of course we don't. The planet would be buried under miles of fossils if the creationist strawman were true. But things like the (very) recent transitional find are not so much evidence to support an uncertain claim as they are pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that fit into exactly the right places. We know what the picture looks like, we just haven't found all the pieces yet. Every new transitional gives us a little more of the picture that we know must be there.

Ofcourse, the more fossils we find, the fuller the picture. And the fuller the picture, the better macroevolution looks.

True, but we already know what the full picture looks like (pretty much). Not exactly mind you - there are details yet to be filled in. But the picture is clear to a fair bit more than 85% certainty (in, of course, my not-so-humble opinion).

 

[Humphreys]

Humphreys, the evidence from evolution is so much broader than the fossil record.

Here is just one of a nearly endless list of discoveries that support evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

This one discovery, all by itself, is dramatic evidence. The great thing about these scientific discoveries is that if you doubt their veracity you are free (encouraged even) to check for yourself. This is evidence that is reproducible by anyone who takes the time.

I know, I completely agree. Only someone foolish, understandably ignorant, or someone with an agenda, would reject evolution, in my opinion. I like to think that most are just ignorant, which is completely understandable. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, as look as you're willing to learn.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Creationists have got to get up with the revolution in DNA molecular evidence for evolution, or they are really and truly going to sound like biological luddites when they keep harping on the ho-hum fossil record.

~~ Paul