Poll: Do you support evolution?

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Retsam19 said:
Uhh, my first point wasn't saying that evolution has no application. I said it didn't deserve as much controversy, (and in fact, I was even speaking at the time about religious implications of evolution). I wasn't saying "Scientists should stop believing evolution". But, why the crusade?
What crusade?

Why is there such an effort to get every last person in this country to acknowledge evolution as the one true path to biological-origins-of-man enlightenment?
Other than the existence of a movement that tries to discredit it via misinformation and lies, how is evolution different than every other scientific discipline? Would you say that there's an effort to get every last person in this country to acknowledge atomic theory as the one true path to basic-building-blocks-of-matter enlightenment?

(And I suppose I'm just supposed to ignore that the practice of vaccination is considerably older than the theory of evolution. And for that matter that animal husbandry have been going on for about 10000 years now, without needing to believe that humans evolved. And I honestly don't want to ask about how understanding the origin of man will help us to deal with climate patterns)
Just because vaccinations and animal husbandry predate the formalized understanding of evolution doesn't mean evolutionary theory is important for those fields. That's like saying chemistry isn't important for medicine because we had some medicines before we had chemistry.

The ridiculousness of your statement that there is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Newtonian Physics speaks for itself. But here, I'll help. Find a heavy object; Hold it out in front of you; Let go. Congratulations, you've just generated more evidence for Newtonian Physics! (And probably annoyed everyone around you and possibly below you, you jerk)
I'm too lazy to look up a source right now, but evolution is more well-supported than the theory of gravity.

But... yeah. This is pretty much why I stay out of these arguments. I can post literally anything about my opinion on evolution, and if it's not "I agree with evolution" the response will be "You don't understand evolution, here let me explain it to you more." It get tired of "You disagree with me, you must be ignorant." Honestly, it's condescending, frustrating, and simply not true. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.
In the case of evolution not believing in it requires ignorance. The evidence is so overwhelming that there is no way to come to any other honest conclusion. We've seen it happen. Repeatedly.
 

Retsam19

New member
Dec 6, 2010
60
0
0
In the case of evolution not believing in it requires ignorance. The evidence is so overwhelming that there is no way to come to any other honest conclusion. We've seen it happen. Repeatedly.
Well, the evidence is overwhelming that I'm not going to get any shred of respect, or really any intellectual stimulation from continuing this conversation. The evidence so far is overwhelming. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.

So yeah. I think we're done here. As before, if anyone wishes to contact me (for something other than to tell me just how ignorant I really am), private messages are available.

[Exit stage right]
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Retsam19 said:
Well, the evidence is overwhelming that I'm not going to get any shred of respect, or really any intellectual stimulation from continuing this conversation. The evidence so far is overwhelming. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.
First, I am speaking to you with respect.

Second, no, don't trust me. If you look up a little ways on this page you'll see where I posted a link to a good place to start learning about the evidence. Evolution isn't a position of faith. You don't need to trust in the people saying it's true--you can examine the evidence like with any other scientific theory.

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.
Because it's true. Though I suppose it depends on how you're calculating it. If you count each dropped object as a different piece of evidence than the existence of gravity has more evidence (though that doesn't help with the theory of gravity at all, since you're not gaining any new information from each object dropped). However if you're going by categories of evidence evolution wins by a landslide. And if you want to talk about which is better understood, evolution again takes the lead.

http://www.enallagma.com/wordpress/2011/12/phenomenon-versus-theory/

So yeah. I think we're done here. As before, if anyone wishes to contact me (for something other than to tell me just how ignorant I really am), private messages are available.
You understand that "ignorant" in this context is not an insult, right? It simply means you aren't knowledgeable about a particular subject. And since you're denying things which have been proven to be true, the polite thing to assume is that you're simply ignorant (the other option is that you're a liar).
 

Aurion

New member
Dec 21, 2012
79
0
0
Retsam19 said:
Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.
You (and seemingly almost everyone who brings up gravity and evolution together) are missing a very simple point.

We know how evolution works. And we know why evolution occurs.

We know how gravity works. But why does gravity exist, as a force? We...really don't know.

Or, to put it in picture form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922.gif
 

Dinwatr

New member
Jun 26, 2011
89
0
0
Retsam19 said:
Well, the evidence is overwhelming that I'm not going to get any shred of respect, or really any intellectual stimulation from continuing this conversation. The evidence so far is overwhelming. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.
Anyone who can look at multiple fields of science--including some of the most practical and active fields of science--and say they won't get any intellectual stimulation from studying the subject fundamental to all of them has missed some rather large points.

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.
There's an old joke in fields related to evolution: we all think we have the best evidence. Not because the rest are bad, but because our own evidence is so astronomically good that we simply cannot believe that anyone else has anything to compare. In science in general the data are almost never as good as we see in paleontology, genetics, developmental biology, physiology, et al. supporting evolution.

Secondly, gravity has evidence against it. Dark energy can be interpreted as evidence that our understanding of gravity is wrong, as can the fact that we cannot reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics. Evolution has no such contradictory evidence. At best, specific tempos and modes of evolution have evidence for and against--but nothing in biology, since the 1930s or so, has been taken by any legitimate researcher as evidence against evolution. Biology as such supports the theory of evolution; the universe as such does not support the theory of gravity as currently understood.

So yeah. I think we're done here. As before, if anyone wishes to contact me (for something other than to tell me just how ignorant I really am), private messages are available.
If you are unwilling to see where you are ignorant, you will never learn. It's as simple as that. I currently have someone working under me that is my superior in terms of vertebrate anatomy. I didn't tell him to shut up about anatomy; I've been picking his brain for weeks.

It's not the natural selection and breeding that I have problem with, it's materialism and naturalism, which are not part of the scientific theory of evolution.
You are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Dr. Robert Bakker, an evangelical preacher who was instrumental in demonstrating that birds evolved from dinosaurs, would very strongly disagree with you.

But, why the crusade?
You are very confused as to what's happening, and buying into the Creationist story far too much. There is no crusade for evolution. Most of us would be perfectly happy to study the theory in peace and never bother other people with it. However, we can't. It's really as simple as that--if we want to be free to follow the evidence where it leads, we MUST speak out. What you are seeing is not a crusade, but a rigorous defense. And it is ALWAYS wrong to tell people to stop defending themselves when they are attacked without provocation.

Does it really matter what Joe the Accountant might be *gasp* wrong about a scientific theory?
You've obviously never had to discuss why you're not going to burn in Hell for all eternity for believing in that ebil Darwinism. Some of us have. Repeatedly.

(And I suppose I'm just supposed to ignore that the practice of vaccination is considerably older than the theory of evolution. And for that matter that animal husbandry have been going on for about 10000 years now, without needing to believe that humans evolved. And I honestly don't want to ask about how understanding the origin of man will help us to deal with climate patterns)
These this are older than evolution, yes. However, they were reactionary. Vaccination could only be used against pathogens already infecting people. Hell, the first ones used infected tissue from sick patients. Today, we can pre-emptively vaccinate people. Which is better, allowing corpses to pile up or solving problems before they arise? And as far as animal husbandry goes, it started with primative methods--but we didn't know how or why. Ever wonder why deer aren't domesticated, despite the fact that humans have hunted them for millenia? Ever ask what it would take to domesticate deer? Those are questions that are unaswerable outside of evolutionary theory.

As for climate change, the origins of man have nothing to do with it--but if you think evolutionary theory is limited to the origins of man, you simply don't know what you're talking about. There's no nicer way to put it. Every paleontologist I've spoken with (and it's a fair number) agrees that in order to see what climate changes will do to the biosphere we should examine what similar climate changes did to the biosphere in the past. These concepts require an evolutionary framework to even formulate, much less ask. If you're confused, Peter Ward has very good book called "Future Evolution", and in the first chapter he explains it far better than anyone can in a forum post.

I know you won't read it--and if you do, you probably are going to look for excuses to dismiss these arguments. However, hopefully other passers-by will see just how wrong your position is.