When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution

[Dash-X]

If religion provides the illusion of love and purpose, then I put forward that science provides the illusion of knowledge and control.

More people need to read what you are saying to understand your point of view vs. reading on for ways to argue a point. No one is swaying anybody (yet we still join in). We are just looking for a fight and an affirmation for our own beliefs. It's easier to think we are right in our decisions if everyone else agrees with us... but that isn't going to happen.

The accomplishments of science are awesome, but they can do just as much harm as good in the larger scheme of things (look at our planet and our problems). And the day to day quality of life hasn't really been improved (especially not for the human race as a whole). The issues we deal with are still the same but with a different layout and coat of paint.

Most of these new gadgets are pushing people farther apart from actual human connection and more towards solitude in distraction. The amount of unhappiness is insane because when our bodily needs are met, contentment comes from within and not from what we surrounded ourselves with. Science merely provides a different perspective and way to understand what we are observing.

And for what it's worth, I believe in evolution. But that doesn't answer the big question: "What should I do today?"

Thank you for taking the time to understand.

 

[bakan]

Do you actually believe what you are writing Dash-X, or do you just write it for the sake of winding up an idiotic discussion - ignoring a lot of benefits and just belittling them, not perceiving the change they bring and probably will bring if we don't end up killing each other before it happens?

 

[bombadilillo]

-snip-
Well first of all, major genetic mutations (sprouting extra limbs, for example) simply almost never happen. The first "legs" were likely mutations leading to stiffer, stronger fins... I'm not sure, this is conjecture on my part. I haven't done too much research on the topic. But apparently, neither have you.
-snip-

I do appreciate you detailing me up, but forgive me if I don't trust online sources as much as I used to, I'd rather take intellectuals at the escapists word for it. Like your fine self. I would also rather not research into it myself, since to be quite honest - I don't believe in the theory (for the reasons I stated above), I mean I wouldn't ask you to read through the entire bible if you didn't believe in god right?
I'm talking with you now because it's up for discussion so please forgive my lack of knowledge for I am only sharing my views.

I just see lots of holes in the general theory. For one - WHY would they need to evolve to get onto land? That's not natural selection, there's lots to eat underwater - so why mutate to get out of it?
Of course another thing plaguing my mind is: why did some mutate - and others didn't? I know it's down to sheer chance, but the food chains did eventually create themselves but when did it happen? I mean if the first herbivore on land had stumps, then eventually a carnivore on land appeared with similar. How come it didn't become an eternal loop of the herbivores who had mutated dying out because their mutation was so small it made them weaker and hence easier to be caught. Was it sheer LUCK that meant they managed to get around enough to evolve slowly over time? and if it was just luck - then why didn't bad mutations make it in? Like a third eye for example.

And that's another thing - why HAVE animals got this weird thing that they nearly all have 2 eyes, 2 ears and a nose on the head? Surely evolution would allow them (I know some have, but I'm talking about the majority here, but that's another discussion entirely right there) to mutate to be different to their advantage! Yet a lot of things seem quite similar. 4 legs limbs, 1 head and a tail. SO why did WE evolve like that? We suddenly got 2 arms, opposable thumbs etc? This is where I see a flaw, why did the ones WITH said mutations survive? Opposable thumbs could be considered a dis-advantage if we say - came from apes. Swinging from a tree, losing a digit to grip a branch with would be bad surely! As would the loss of ability to walk on all fours well. Standing up or at least - not walking so low down to the ground - would make us more visible to predators.



I do apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject but I hope you can understand that I simply see lots of holes in the theory, lots of it seems awfully lucky and down to chance.
Fact is - it is still a theory no matter what you say, so in the end it's just down to opinion, I just believe there has to be some other explanation. Perhaps one day we'll find it. Perhaps I'm wrong - but heck, I'm not calling the theory wrong - I'm just showing the reasons for why I see it as incorrect.
I'm just saying all that to make sure there's no flame wars. Discussion is what I'm here to do, not argue. If I wanted to change your views forcefully with nothing but stupidity I'd go to the Westboro Baptist Church forums. (no offence intended but my point stands.)

The thing is all your questions have been answered time and time again and there is abundant information on exactly what you are asking. I cant give you bullet points for answers because that would be as simplistic as your questions. Heres a try. 2 eyes because there were original archetypes for different critters and evolutionary "cousins" should be similar. Opposable thumbs and walking upright are an advantage for not living in trees, correct, because they moved to the plains...That herbivore loop you mentioned didn't happen cause they would have died out, you are right, but see why that happens? look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation there are examples of 1 type of fish breaking into predatory species and herbivore species.

The whole problem with these debates is, no offense, you didnt try to draw flames and im not trying to flame you. But you are ignorant. There are good scientific answers to every question brought up here. People havent bothered to research themselves and say well theres xxxxx problem with it. Is there really? You dont know, you think there are problems but nothing you have sited is one.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

The concept of evolution is based on what is considered "empirical evidence", but the rules of empiricism literally do not apply to it. We have never experienced evolution for ourselves. We can make hypotheses, but that it literally the fullest extent of our understanding. Therefore, hardcore evolutionists have to ignore the defined rules of empiricism in order to forward their "empirical evidence" and claim evolution as truth. It is not true empiricism. They need to make a leap in logic. They might not consider it a leap; holding out hope for the "Missing Link" to be discovered and vindicate their beleifs.

This, in other words, is faith. Faith in experiments, and faith in Darwin.

Evolution has become a religion in itself.

Therefore, evolutionists, do not look down on religious people who question it. You are playing by their rules in your understanding.

Except, of course, where it has been observed, and tested, and how anyone with a microscope and a handful of short-lived insects can cause it to happen. Whereas alternate hypotheses have yet to do this?

That's fine tho, you can ignore evolution. Enjoy taking antibodies for every malady and then wondering why it stops working.

And yet, the Missing Link remains just that. Missing. You take it on faith that because something happens to the simplest life forms that it also happened to us. You might call on Lucy and other skeletal fragments from Africa, but I've never seen an ape change into a human. Your faith against mine. Let's call it even.

For the record, I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design. I'm pretty much exactly where the OP's friend is in terms of that philosophy. I don't see religion and evolution as mutually exclusive, I just think that humanity is...different. And as you type your rebuttal, think about what you do. Have whales invented language, or birds computers, or cats rhetorical techniques?

 

[DarkRyter]

You show him a box of mice.

Proceed to randomly stab a knife into the box until only the fastest mice are left.

Let those fast mice breed.

Repeat process until mice are super fast.

Show friend super fast mice.

Grin.

 

[maswell]

Well, I wasn't going to post anything here b/c an internet forum usually isn't the best place to have this kind of discussion but what the hey. If one is going to try to have a serious discussion, the escapist forums are not the worst place to do it.

The thing a lot of people have to realize is that we all see this issue and in fact every issue through our own paradigm. Our own world view. We are all in fact wearing some shade of glasses through which we see the world. Many facts can be interpreted differently since we all see the world slightly differently.

One person might say 'look how similar this fox and this wolf are, they probably had a common ancestor they both evolved from.'
Another person might say 'look how similar this fox and wolf are, they probably had a common creator who designed them in similar ways.'

This shouldn't be an opportunity to ridicule one or the other but an opportunity to discuss why they hold this view or that. But when it comes down to it neither side should say that they have the definitive, uncompromising, SCIENTIFIC answer that is so completely irrefutable there is no reason to continue the discussion. No one was there at the origin of the wolf/fox or at least no one wrote anything down about it. And we can't exactly set up an empirical, repeatable, scientific experiment to see which one happened.

The fact is we DON'T know everything. Every view on origins takes some measure of faith b/c we simply can not study it in an empirical, repeatable way.

 

[PurePareidolia]

Of course evolution happens gradually, what are you talking about?

Oh, you discovered all the holes in the fossil record?

Sweet.

That question doesn't make any sense - the whole theory doesn't hinge on a complete fossil record - even a few transitional forms, such as oh, say, ALL OF THEM would lend supporting evidence, but as it so happens, we have an extensive fossil record, and we can use it to trace lineage back through hundreds of millions of years in many species. It's actually quite fascinating if you take the time to examine it - seeing where dogs branched off from cats and reptiles from mammals etc. Not to mention the extreme degree of knowledge we can find out from modern fossils - we've gone from being fooled by simple hoaxed 'mermaids' to being able to identify the colour of feathers on a velociraptor. Hell yes.

In any case, the reason it doesn't hinge on a complete fossil record, other than the fact it's easily reproducible in a lab with bacteria and stuff, is that it's easy enough to spot progression even with gaps of several thousand years, if only because changes are more obvious between forms. And the other cool part is those gaps let us make predictions, with great accuracy as to not only what transitional forms between what we have would look like, but where we should find them geographically and how deep they're probably buried. And it works. That's the measure of a strong theory - it makes testable predictions that work, allowing us to strengthen it.

Besides, you don't even know what a complete fossil record is - do you mean a single fossil for every single generation in a particular line of descent? a fossil representing each 'major' set of changes? ignoring the fact there's no definition of 'major' and hence no level of detail you'll be satisfied with. Do you mean one complete enough to establish the theory of evolution as the superior explanation for the facts of artificial and natural selection as well as the diversity and indeed origin of different species? And by origin I don't mean 'origin of life', I mean 'origin of diversity within life'. That's another thing people almost universally misunderstand when deciding to dismiss perfectly good science.

Science that is more proven, understood and complete than the laws of quantum physics that allow you to run your computer, I might add.

 

[Ketsuban]

Evolution.
-Gene Flow
-Allelic Drift
-Mutation
-Natural Selection

It falls under the category.
If a part of the "fact" is unproven, then it is not fact.

"Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms."

The things you listed are mechanisms used to explain evolution; they are theories, because they can only be used to predict future events, not proven. Evolution is a fact.

 

[Quinadin]

...Speciation not good enough for you? If you honestly believe that evolution makes that claim, then you do not know what the theory describes and need to learn about it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/4/vss1VKN2rf8

Alright, see I agree with what the video said, new types of animals but not really any new animals. I'll be reforming any future arguments accordingly.

Danke sehr.

 

[Turing '88]

Simple. Many today are born, work work work and then die. It's not science that changes this; science has not changed this; and science will not change this. It is a sociopolitical matter. Science can make better tools; those tools may provide a tad bit more efficiency, but the tools will always serve the bourgeoisie. Additionally, quality of life is about the same. People have more leisure time, but what do we do with this leisure time? Not much constructive. If we aren't watching ads that tell us how much we suck, we're buying products we don't need for who-knows-what-reasons. Some people write or produce art, but as a person who produces art for a living, I'll be quick to tell you that it's still work.

Back on the health front, many women still die in childbirth, and many children still die before their first birthday. As for whether I'm glad for scientific advancement when it saves the life of a friend or family member - I'll let you know when that actually happens. So far, of family members that have entered the hospital of serious problems (well, in one case, it was not-so-serious), Death is 5 for 5. And, I probably wouldn't have wanted any of them to live beyond the maladies that had claimed their lives. There is living and there is survival. The former means the world, the latter -- not so much.

IF by chance there is a virus that could wipe us all out, I'm 85% certain that it would have been manufactured in a lab somewhere, and in that case 90% certain that it was deliberately released on a certain population. Science is just as likely to damn humanity as it is to save it.

For all of the wonderful things you mention that science has done, you fail to mention the misery that its application brings. Even now, we sink massive resources into means by which to subdue other human beings with greater efficiency. "Now we are all sons of bitches." to paraphrase Bainbridge as his reaction to the project being worked on at the time. The same project that was ultimately needlessly deployed on a certain population. Also, if memory serves, science was used as justification for regarding a segment of the population as 3/5ths of a human being.

That science has contributed so much to survival is nothing significant considering that I value living. It's given us some cool trinkets, but none of them have really changed anything. People are born, people work, and people die. Science is the same as religion in that it is merely a tool to oppress in spite of all of the "good" that it accomplishes.

I for one am glad I was not born 1000, or even 100 years ago. My life is good, sure some parts of the world life is shit but that's because they haven't had the scientific advancements we have. I don't know whether to pity you for feeling like life isn't great or to be angry at you for not appreciating everything we have in this world. You're right of course about two major things, science has allowed terrible evils and living isn't the same as surviving. How though can you not be awed by the amazing things we as a species can do though? The Atom bomb can be used for great evil, it's fucking impressive though from the technical standpoint. For me science is a result in and of itself.

My main point to start with though was unlike religion science has results. You obviously disagree and so I can't continue this discussion. I didn't even know people thought like you did tbh, you 'win' because I don't know how to argue with you. I don't really understand your mentality and mindset - that's not an attack I just literally don't.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

Thank you, of all people, Roger Ebert.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I know what you are trying to say but that is a god awful argument as Gravity is a lot more observable than Evolution which is the problem.

OT: Ok I am opening this can of worms one more time but this time I am going to explain it nice and clearly. Evolution is scientific fact and it is a theory. As a theory it is not absolute fact and subject to change. Take for example our understanding of atoms and light and how that has evolved over the years. Yes evolution is observable and there just look at how we have the modern yellow desert banana. The problem is that we do not fully understand evolution and we find out new mechanics about how it works.

So yes Evolution as a Theory could be completely fucking wrong and in future years so many people on the internet could look like the biggest twats ever. Same as how light is still there but we now know that it is not a beam of particles or a wave but a photon.

Ah young grasshopper, now we come to the root of the problem, and it stems not from the facts or the theory, but from the pedantics of how people chose to phrase it.

People paraphase, calling it the 'theory of evolution', which causes the uninformed to make the assumption(understandably enough) that evolution is the thing being referred to as the 'theory'. This couldn't be further from the truth.

As you said, evolution is a fact. Full stop end of story. No, its not a fact and a theory (on that bit you are wrong), it is straight fact and that is all.

The theory part people refer to is actually "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".

Key word there being 'by natural selection'.
THAT is the theory. THAT is the part which is 'not absolute fact and subject to change' as you put it. (though as far as theories go, Natural Selection is a very solid explanation, for unless we make some truly world-shattering discovery in the field of evolution, its all but impossible that natural selection will be proven 'wrong')

However, because people are lazy and misinformed, they shorten it and call it 'the theory of evolution'.
This is bad... and wrong... and wrong... and bad... and deceptive.. and wrong.


((So, to simplify the explanation to a TL;DR version:
Evolution is fact, the theory is how evolution occurs.))


On a related note, another misconception like this stems from the word 'theory', scientific theories are not declared as such until they have solid proof. So theory doesn't just mean an idea or explanation like it does for the layman. In a scientific context it means an explanation which is not contradicted by fact and proper solid evidence which distinguishes it as a possible answer for the observed phenomenon

---
Bet you weren't expecting such a serious reply

No to be honest on this forum when I say evolution is just a theory I expect most replies to uninformed dribble salivating at the prospect of proving me wrong and that I don't know shit about science.

When I say evolution is a fact and theory I mean it in the same way gravity is a fact but there is theory behind if it that makes sense.

 

[Kiju]

First of all, it's "College", not "Collage". Guess it goes to show that your major isn't English, nor is it any of your classes at all for that matter.

Secondly, if he is a college student going through and he doesn't believe in evolution, then that's his problem. He can choose to believe what he wants to...

In my opinion, he's absolutely wrong about it, but arguing with people like that is impossible, and it's not even worth the effort to try and convince them otherwise. Evidence, proof, anything you show to them will merely be brushed off. Trust me on this one...

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Who cares? Like others here have said, live and let live. He's not hurting anyone with his opinion and it's not like he tried to shove his concept of evolution down your throat. Some people just have different opinions and going out of your way to argue why he's wrong won't "enlighten" him and change his mind, trust me.

I never like to concern myself with what everyone else believes in because you don't have to believe in evolution or be an atheist to cure diseases or advance humanity.

 

[Biodeamon]

I'd smack him with a rolled up newspaper that had the latest article on upcoming science advancements

 

[SlasherX]

As I've said before evolution isn't a belief it isn't a theory it is a fact. It isn't agreeing it is rejected the fact that we evolve. I don't know how rational people reject this but they do. It has something to do with his religion. Religion takes the sense out of people.

 

[weker]

Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion that came to be about evolution at some point. what you need to understand before replying is that this guy is probably one of the smartest people out there, the guy is a certified genius.
He practices Judaism up to a certain degree (separates meat a dairy and other stuff) but calling him religious will be a vast exaggeration.

So when this guy, who is probably the smartest guy I ever met told me he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution it blew me away. To make things worse he said "there are some things that humans are meant NOT to understand. and we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

So..... WTF?!?!

Try telling him creationism is not a theory while evolution is.
In science a theory is rewarded to the most well proved explanation.
That is why evolution is a theory and creationism is a hypothesis.

 

[ElectroJosh]

The concept of evolution is based on what is considered "empirical evidence", but the rules of empiricism literally do not apply to it. We have never experienced evolution for ourselves. We can make hypotheses, but that it literally the fullest extent of our understanding. Therefore, hardcore evolutionists have to ignore the defined rules of empiricism in order to forward their "empirical evidence" and claim evolution as truth. It is not true empiricism. They need to make a leap in logic. They might not consider it a leap; holding out hope for the "Missing Link" to be discovered and vindicate their beleifs.

This, in other words, is faith. Faith in experiments, and faith in Darwin.

Evolution has become a religion in itself.

Therefore, evolutionists, do not look down on religious people who question it. You are playing by their rules in your understanding.

Except, of course, where it has been observed, and tested, and how anyone with a microscope and a handful of short-lived insects can cause it to happen. Whereas alternate hypotheses have yet to do this?

That's fine tho, you can ignore evolution. Enjoy taking antibodies for every malady and then wondering why it stops working.

And yet, the Missing Link remains just that. Missing. You take it on faith that because something happens to the simplest life forms that it also happened to us. You might call on Lucy and other skeletal fragments from Africa, but I've never seen an ape change into a human. Your faith against mine. Let's call it even.

For the record, I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design. I'm pretty much exactly where the OP's friend is in terms of that philosophy. I don't see religion and evolution as mutually exclusive, I just think that humanity is...different. And as you type your rebuttal, think about what you do. Have whales invented language, or birds computers, or cats rhetorical techniques?

There isn't a missing link, there are so many intermediary fossils show small modifications until we became humans. The idea of a "missing link" is very much a flawed argument and I will try to explain why.

According to evolution a species will alway reproduce and its offspring will be the same as there parents. But there are always mutations (and when I say always I mean that the average human is born with around 60 genetic mutations - most of them very insignificant but they are there) and over time modifications. Slowly these species continue to reproduce but then split off into two seperate populations which also reproduce. Now at no point will a species given birth to something of a different species their offspring will always be of their species.

However overtime these small changes in the different populations become more pronounced so that after 100 generations since the split they are both the same. After 1000 generations there are slight differences but they could still interbreed. After 10,000 generations the differences might be such that they could interbreed but produce sterile offspring and after 1,000,000 they may both be so different that they are called different species.

Now determining where the exact line is between the creatures becoming species one and then being species two is difficult because if you were able to line up all the fossils of each generation there would be no distinct sudden change. It would be easy to show that fossil #1 is a different creature to fossil #999,990 but the difference between #350,000 and #450,000 would be quite murky.

This is where creationists and IDers get the whole "missing links" from. When scientists come to classify fossils they put them into either or categories. From the above example Fossil #1 is in a seperate species to fossil #999,990. So thats easy. However because every other fossil is then classified as one or the other those who do not accept evolution say "well they aren't intermediaries because there is a gap between those species". If someone decided that to solve this issue they would name fossil #500,000 to be a new species and call that the intermediary (because it happens to fit neatly between the two) the opponents just say (and this happens a lot) "now there are two missing links you need to show" (as there is a gap between the species of fosssils #1 and #500,000 and a gap between fossils #500,000 and #999,999). Rather than see how fossils show the changes they claim don't exist they would rather play around with the fact that fossils always end up being classified as one species or another.

Also evolution has been observed as happening, sometimes, more rapidly than people thought possible. What has never been observed is Intelligent Design - never has been seen to happen.

 

[Dash-X]

Do you actually believe what you are writing Dash-X, or do you just write it for the sake of winding up an idiotic discussion - ignoring a lot of benefits and just belittling them, not perceiving the change they bring and probably will bring if we don't end up killing each other before it happens?

Yes. I do believe what I am writing - else I probably wouldn't have written it.

To illustrate why, let me tell you what I know of someone I admire - Ernesto Che Guevarra. If memory serves, he was a doctor, but next to no one remembers that first thing when they hear the name. Him and Fidel and about 70 other dudes went to Cuba to challenge the way things were there. They actually won. They went in to fight a superior force, and they won. THAT'S an accomplishment. Shortly thereafter, while setting the groundwork for the new Cuba, he tried to change the WHY of work. It failed, but at least he tried. The man even worked the field on what little spare time he had. He saw humanity, and where others saw nature or conditioning, he saw that people could be better. He sought to bring that out, and he started with himself.

While I don't care much for his politics on a superficial level I admire what he was able to accomplish. I can only hope to do something that measures up to a fraction of that before I keel over.

So, when it seems that I'm belittling scientific accomplishment, it's just that science isn't trying to change anything that really matters to me. The change science brings merely provides more efficiency for the same old same to continue. When science puts a stop to injustice; when science puts a stop to racism; when science puts a stop to hatred, then I will acknowledge science's achievements as great. Until that day, I will maintain my stance.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

Apparently not.

Never assume that religious people will act rationally with regard to anything threatening their views. Intelligence and rationality have very, very little to do with it once you get to that point.

In the end, there are no good arguments against evolution. The concept is so absurdly simple as to be nearly self-evident. If you believe that any traits are inherited from parents and you believe that some traits are more advantageous than others, you have evolution. All the basic concept really requires is inheritance, and given that children resemble their parents, you pretty much have to accept that. Once you have inheritance, selectional pressures will cause those with more favourable traits to survive better and pass them on better. Poof: evolution.

Religious people have a strong tendency to think that evolution is some sort of strange process independent of anything else, but all it really consists of is the realization that inheritance and selection pressure produce optimization. Successful things succeed.

If the issue is evolution of humans from other species, things get even worse for skeptics. We have a full progression of remains demonstrating evolution of humans from ancestors shared with apes. The idea that there is a "missing link" is both outdated and awkwardly mistaken with regard to basic cladistics. First, we have a tremendous number of intermediaries - enough to satisfy pretty much anyone. The notion that there are large gaps between the intermediaries is from about half a century ago and has somehow survived despite discovery of numerous intermediaries. Second, evolution produces continua of change, we simply carve it into discrete species for convenience. So asking for the species "between" other species is already weird. To make matters worse, if you follow that logic repeatedly you end up suggesting that to prove it at all we would need every single organism in the line of descent up to the most recent common ancestor.

Then you have the people who react with basic skepticism suggesting you "can't prove it either way anyway". This turns out to be a profoundly terrible philosophy. First, it immediately calls all of science into question. Even worse, it calls induction in general into question. You really, really don't want to do that. Doing so suggests that beliefs like "the sun rises each day, the sun will probably rise tomorrow" are irrational because induction cannot be deductively proven.

This is an argument you cannot lose. Sadly, it's also probably an argument that you cannot win thanks to his religious background.