When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution
- Thread starter IsraelRocks
- Start date
You tell him "That's your opinion and I can respect your difference in thought" and then you move on. No need to ruin a friendship over something like that.
to all of my quoters
False.
Evolution isn't proven, nor is it disproven.
Once again, Natural Selection is a proven process.
To prove evolution, we'd have to introduce elements that would cause evolution to occur, on a test subject, and then study them for thousands if not tens of thousands of years to proove it. And thats also keeping a control group that we have to make sure won't 'evolve' and test those as well. For one, we don't have the time/effort/money to do a study that long. No one wants to do a study, all scientfic facts (I know there's a name for it but I forget) are prove by multiple tests/retests and many different types of backing and studies that will proove them. Plus Darwin's main theory was Natural Selection, I remember reading something about birds, how he noticed there were like 20 different types of sparrow (is that it?) and each had their own strenght/weakness for their area. Ex, longer beak, smaller body, different color.
I'm not saying that Darwin's theory is all wrong, I'm a firm believer in Natural Selection. Just not evolution. When two of the top of the species breed, that doesn't create a new specie, that creates a 'aryian-esque' build for that specie. If there's something one is born with that doesn't allow it to live in the wild (albino) then it doesn't live.
Many people mix Natural Selection with Evolution and I do think Darwin said something about that as well. (I have read his book, but I don't recall everything from it)
EDIT:
Notice it's a Law of gravity, law of physics, law of (insert name of science thing here) and it's THEORY of evolution. A theory is a flawed fact, an imperfect fact. Stating yea, it's hightly likly that something like this can happen maybe, but we're just putting it out there.
I do not accept Evolution. No how, no way, why, how can an ape become a man (this isn't planet of the apes)
Also, while the Colbert Report is satire, it states facts, and gives views on everything, putting things in your head.
False.
Evolution isn't proven, nor is it disproven.
Once again, Natural Selection is a proven process.
To prove evolution, we'd have to introduce elements that would cause evolution to occur, on a test subject, and then study them for thousands if not tens of thousands of years to proove it. And thats also keeping a control group that we have to make sure won't 'evolve' and test those as well. For one, we don't have the time/effort/money to do a study that long. No one wants to do a study, all scientfic facts (I know there's a name for it but I forget) are prove by multiple tests/retests and many different types of backing and studies that will proove them. Plus Darwin's main theory was Natural Selection, I remember reading something about birds, how he noticed there were like 20 different types of sparrow (is that it?) and each had their own strenght/weakness for their area. Ex, longer beak, smaller body, different color.
I'm not saying that Darwin's theory is all wrong, I'm a firm believer in Natural Selection. Just not evolution. When two of the top of the species breed, that doesn't create a new specie, that creates a 'aryian-esque' build for that specie. If there's something one is born with that doesn't allow it to live in the wild (albino) then it doesn't live.
Many people mix Natural Selection with Evolution and I do think Darwin said something about that as well. (I have read his book, but I don't recall everything from it)
EDIT:
Notice it's a Law of gravity, law of physics, law of (insert name of science thing here) and it's THEORY of evolution. A theory is a flawed fact, an imperfect fact. Stating yea, it's hightly likly that something like this can happen maybe, but we're just putting it out there.
I do not accept Evolution. No how, no way, why, how can an ape become a man (this isn't planet of the apes)
Also, while the Colbert Report is satire, it states facts, and gives views on everything, putting things in your head.
So are you saying that you don't believe in evolution (for humans)? Because I'm pretty sure that it has been proven that it does exist. Also, I bet that when you think about it, you will also see more positive than negative examples. For instance, most people look somewhat like at least one of their parents, and look similar to their siblings.gmaverick019 said:
But some things are heritable while others aren't. And the outside world can affect different aspects of your character differently. Furthermore, a lot of randomness occurs in the evolutionary process. There are basically three main processes going on: selection, cross-over/combination, and mutation. Selection is about who gets to reproduce and with whom. In the paragraph you quoted I was mostly talking about that, because nowadays the weak are less likely to die and more likely to found a mate compared to the old days and other animals.
Then there is the way in which the parents' genes are combined to form the child's. Now, I have very little knowledge of what traits are and are not encoded in these genotypes, but I do know that the combination can be surprising. Here is a kind of contrived example, but I hope it gets the point across: let's say that both parents are not athletic because for both of them one leg is longer than the other. Let's also say that there is no "athleticness" gene, but there are "length of left leg" and "length of right leg" genes. If the child gets the "long left leg" gene from the father, and the "long right leg" gene from the mother, he will be much more athletic than either of them.
And finally there is random mutation, which could potentially let the child grow wings and make him super athletic (I guess). (It won't actually let him grow wings, because those mutations are generally a little smaller than that.)
However, the idea of evolution is of course that the odds of getting a child with beneficial traits are better when the parents have those traits as well, and that is also my experience. Most smart people I know have smart parents. Most fat people I know have fat parents. Most athletic people I know have parents who were athletic in their day or at least into sports. And of course, evolution will only alter your innate traits and the environment and situation in which you live and grow up will have great effects as well.
I would have thought it would be bleedingly obvious that there wouldn't be a source, but I guess I was wrong. Try to think next time.Jamie Wroe said:
How does your beautiful little chain of causality reconcile successful scientists, both present and past, who have not subscribed to the theory of evolution?
You mean like in the two sentences surrounding that one?
Also, grammar is not the same thing as spelling.
Very few scientific theories are able to be proved absolutely. In fact, a scientific theory is not defined by its ability to be proved but rather by its ability to be disproved. If things had to be proved absolutely we wouldnt believe in gravity, quantum physics or Newton's laws. We don't NEED the whole fossil record to make a probably prediction/conjecture; the fossil record we already have provides clear evidence of human evolution.Andrew Pate said:
No, that is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. You're arguing against macro-evolution, yet the fact that DNA and fossil records indicate all species are related means nothing to you then? We can look back over history and see the slow and gradual changes between species over millions of years, these changes also correspond to our DNA. Either God is trying to trick us or evolution happened. Fact.Timberwolf0924 said:
EDIT:
Think you've quoted the wrong person!Sentox6 said:
Eh, live and let live, I guess. So long as he's not trying to brainwash anybody, it's all good.
I have a friend who doesn't like the moral implications of Darwinism, which I find absolutely ridiculous because there are none.
I have a friend who doesn't like the moral implications of Darwinism, which I find absolutely ridiculous because there are none.
The Human Race has known complicated astronomy going pre history. It was common belief not a thousand years ago that the world was flat. How do you know what you believe is to not be disputed? Some people need to make a study in Humility. Maybe a few hundred years from now Evolution will be something completely different from what it is today, or maybe it will be laughed at, as people today laugh at religion.IsraelRocks said:
False again, we are all not related. DNA from all organisms is made up of the same chemical and physical component, the same couple of nuclioosides. Just because the base of the base is the same, doesn't mean we're all related. Because then your saying that fish/people/animal/birds all came from the exact same creature at one point in time. That is impossible. Fact.Jamie Wroe said:
Yeah I'm the same way except I'm a Baptist (don't hate me, my parents raised me as a Baptist but I will probably change to some other denomination after I go to college). I bounce between faith and non-faith all the time.KeyMaster45 said:
I'm sorry, I kinda skimmed through the article. Did it say anywhere in there that the bacteria had to be reclassified? If not, then that's not evolution. Just because two brown haired cats have an orange haired cat (a genetic deficiency causes orange in cats) doesn't mean that the orange haired cat isn't a cat. Just because we can change the color of eyes in flies through unnatural selection doesn't mean their not flies. Now if the bacteria had to change genera or families, then you really have something. If not, come back when they do.Ketsuban said:
Firstly, I didn't catch your edit last time. Please educate yourself on what a scientific theory is and isn't. I'm done saying it, it's been said more times than I can count.Timberwolf0924 said:
Also yes all fish/people/animal/birds have the same great-great-great...ad infinitum grandparent. If you go back far enough you have the same ancestor as my pet dog, and me and you have a direct ancestor way before then. Why is that impossible?
First of all, you have it completely the wrong way around. Evolution is the collection of facts which can be quite easily be shown to be correct, while natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs in nature. If there is any serious controversy at all to be had about evolution, it is about the second point.Timberwolf0924 said:
Secondly, there is certainly good evidence to suggest that natural selection is indeed the process by which evolution occurs. Think of antibiotics-resistant bacteria [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance], nylon-eating bacteria [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria], or Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment]. These are all examples of evolution occurring in parts of populations while other parts remain unaffected; the only explanation offered so far is natural selection. Of course, it could very well be that a mischievous imp of a deity is mixing up the genetics just to confuse us, but that would be up to the claimer to prove.
1. the number of scientists that do not adhere to evolution is incredibly tiny compared to those that do.Sentox6 said:
2. most scientists that don't believe in evolution are not biologists and thus can't be referred to as an authority on the topic(you wouldnt ask a biologist about quantum mechanics now would you?).
3. most of the biologists that do not believe in evolution will freely admit that they base their views on religion(which does not have any factual claims).
4. The few biologists that don't believe in evolution and will present their own ideas and evidence(ie. Do science) but no contending theory has the amount evidence that evolution does.
Point being, until those who do not agree with evolution present an alternate theory AND significant data to back it up their opinion means squat.
lol, Why would I hate you? Same religion different ideas about how to go about it. Sure the differences may make for a good debate but there's no reason to hate another denomination just because they don't see eye to eye with another.Warlord211 said: