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

[Raynooo]

OH MY F***ing GOD, LORD FORBID, SOMEONE CHALLENGES EVOLUTION.

That's when you consider that evolution is backward thinking based on faith only. In that situation CREATION is the "theory" that thinks of itself as an unquestionnable faith and that is also the old idea struggling not to die.

Scientists spend most of their time challenging their former teachers' ideas because nothing feels better than shoving it up their tight old butts. Also this is how science work.

When religions come up with a scientific theory (read : experiments and proof other thant a book that's holy because it freaking says so IN THE BOOK) that fits better than the evolution one, then there can be a debate. Right now religious fanatics (because not all religious are indoctrinated enough to believe creation litterally) are trying to compare things that can not be compared.

Tl;dr :
- creationism is the old theory therefore they're the conservatists here
- religion do not speak in term of science
- saying a book says the truth because it litterally says "what's in this book is true" is not science AT ALL
- good science books explain with experiments why what they say is true
- evolution theory does not fit in high school books, if these are your source then you don't know it all. It takes much more pages than the Bible or whatever your holy book is.

 

[squeekenator]

What a moron. I'm glad no one else in history ever dared disagree with or challenge the scientific consensus of his/her contemporaries. Otherwise they might have been laughed at in a social forum.

*rolls eyes*

why does everyone always ignore posts like this, 10/10

Because if you look at the overwhelming majority of people who challenged the popularly-held beliefs, those people were completely wrong and had no idea what they were talking about. Claiming that it's a good idea to challenge evolution because someone once pointed out that, actually, the world is a sphere makes just as much sense as encouraging everyone to shoot themselves in the head with a nail gun because that totally once cured some guy's depression.

 

[standokan]

Leave him be, his opinion, try to get used to it, he´s your friend.

 

[Spineyguy]

Michael Behe's Argument from Irreducible complexity highlights the fact that there are structures within cells which could never have worked unless they were complete. The Flagellum motor found in human sperm cells, for example, would not work if any of its parts were missing. Now ignoring the minute chance that the components of the motor actually could occur randomly, the probability of which is so close to zero as to be negligible, even in the context of billions of years of evolution, this biological mechanism could be seen as 'evidence' for intelligent design.

Now this argument is full of holes, but without looking really quite deep into the origins of the Flagellum motor and its evolutionary heritage, it's difficult to object to this argument. So if your friend follows one of these well thought-out arguments then he's not the Torah-bashing nut-job that he would appear to be.

Ah, Behe. That silly.

He's mentioned in QualiaSoup's Irreducible complexity cut down to size [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU] video. It really contains all you need to know to dismiss the "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution.

I was made to sit through that video twice in a critical thinking lesson, and let me assure you it covers a fraction of the gaps in the AfIC.

And yes, it is a silly name.

 

[Nayr]

Just because he does not believe in it is not a big deal, everyone has their own views of how the world works. I do believe evolution is how life progresses (being a biology major, I feel my opinion can be backed up)but if they don't believe so that is their choice and should not be something you are concerned with.

Just ask him for proof of why people do not belong in the idea of evolution, personally I doubt he can back up a point strong enough to counter evolution. I am fairly religous but I do not let it cloud my judgement of how the world works. But what his opinion is on it should not be a big deal in a friendship.

 

[Player 2]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Snip

I'll admit up to this point I have been vague so allow me to specify certain points so that the discussion is less broad.
For my point I use human evolution as an example. As well as assuming that the chimpanzee is our closest relative as per modern evolutionary theories.
If you have an issue with this don't bother replying because it will just be semantics otherwise.
The human being as 46 chromosomes. Yes?
The chimpanzee has 48.
Currently the most people agree that what happened was a single chromosome pair combine.
This is fundamentally wrong as that would create 47.

I'll answer this first as you seem to have misunderstood an explanation given to you before. It was not one chromosome form each pair that fused, both chromosomes from each pair of chromosomes fused into one, to form two chromosomes. The fused pair of chromosomes is Human Chromosome #2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2], it has centromeres in the middle (where they shouldn't be) and two telomeres (one is inactive, it should only have one).

So assuming it was possible to combine chromosomes it would require TWO pairs to unite.
This would create a chimpanzee with the with a genome containing 46 chromosomes and equal amount which is a requirement for mammalian reproduction.
For this off shoot of a chimpanzee to breed I'm sure we would all agree it requires either a partner of equal chromosomes or else it would create sterile off spring.

Firstly, the theory of evolution never claims that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, nor did they evolve from monkeys. Humans evolved from creatures called Hominids. Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution] is the line that human evolution took if you are interested.

To answer your your second point, there has been no change in the amount of chromosomes by the fusion of the two pairs, one pair has simply become inactive, this would not cause sterility nor require another hominid with the same mutation for replication to be viable.

This would be omitting the fact that even if a chimpanzee with 46 chromosomes were to meet another opposing sex chimpanzee with 46 in their own troupe open to breeding that they would have combined the SAME pairs of chromosomes other wise their centro-mere would not match and thus the entire process fail.
So at this point we have assumed that two chimpanzee have met as a reproductive couple in the same troupe with two combined chromosome pairs that are the same pairs and thus synchronised with each other.
Well the fact is that research has shown that chromosomes can't combine or separate. (of course they can in the reproductive sense but I mean in a fundamental level two of our 46 can't combine to leave us with 45) unless this research is false (which I am not saying it isn't). The idea is that two chromosomes would meet and thus it would have two centro-meres. This can not happen nor can there be no centro-mere. So the chances of it happening at all are according to research impossible or if we say possible but very rare it would be extremely rare to the point where it has never been observed either naturally or experimentally.

Can you cite this research for me so that I can read it? I've never heard of it.

Translocations and inversions in DNA will produce a fertile living offspring however chromosome based mishaps will not produce sterile young. (down syndrome)

Down Syndrome is caused by the creation of an additional chromosome, not the fusion of two normal chromosomes.

So unless there was some amazing moment where chromosomes could combine and or split we did not come from the chimpanzee. Even if there were such a moment the likelihoods of it happening twice in the same offspring is tiny the chance of it happening to another that was available for reproduction even more minuscule.
It is by that logic that I refute Darwin's claim that we are descendant of the chimpanzee.
I do not claim to be a biologist. This is simply what was drawn to my attention. Like I said in the original post I am willing to accept any counter evidence. (condescension NOT needed cadet)
Anyway that's what I got.

I think I've explained all this, but let me know if I've missed something.

 

[Cowabungaa]

It's trickly to explain but it's one of those ideas that most people believe rather than truly understand because when you actually start thinking it all through it makes less and less sense to people that can't picture the kind of timescales we're talking about. I had this problem when I tried to explain things like sedimentation to people, you tell them 'millions of years' and they mentally picture like fifty or sixty.

I just get a bit aggravated with people saying this guy's stupid for not taking on sheer faith what they've taken. Most people only think it's true because they've been told it is, most of them would be incapable of actually deciphering the evidence because as a rule humans tend to think of things like species (and rocks) as unchanging. The real kicker is when you tell them evolution is still happening, most people are comfortable with the concept of that being how the animals all got their leg and wings but they then picture our world as being 'finished'.

I guess all I want to say is it's sheer good fortune most of the people here believe in evolution rather than the six day creation because either way they're using belief and they'd most likely believe whichever they were told first.

Well, nothing I can't disagree with here. It's a sad truth indeed, especially because the fact of evolution ain't that complicated if you ask me. Hell, it can be explained in comic form [http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html], go figure. Given, it's a long comic, and the ending is a bit silly; simple natural processes? Simply my ass.

 

[habsJD]

Admittedly I haven't read all the posts in here, there seems to be several hundred of them, some comparable in length to a short novel, but I do feel the need to comment on what seems to be a sense of intolerance. Christians are often targeted as being the ones who are intolerant, and often rightfully so, but no one bats an eye when it happens to them. Why is it so bad for someone to believe that humans were created by a higher power? Why is it a problem if that person is a teacher? If they're teaching the curriculum, where is the problem? Aren't we entering the realm of religious discrimination by implying that there is a problem? It's a person's right to believe what they want, if it isn't in line with what you believe, let it go, debate it if you want and if you find a willing partner, but without consent it's just verbal rape.

Who cares if someone doesn't believe human evolution is a fact. I have questions myself. I believe God created us. I don't know how He did it, whether He snapped his fingers and everything was there, or if He slowly guided evolution on its course. I lean towards the latter, but part of believing in God requires faith and it doesn't really bug me that I may never really know the answer. Evolution does not cleanly answer the entire question of how we came to be here. It provides many solid starting points and explains a lot, but the odds against certain things just naturally evolving are astronomical. Blood clotting for example is a multi-step process that would completely break down and cause very minor wounds to be easily fatal if just one step was missing. How did that come about by a random mutation? Eyes are also rather complicated to have been just chance. Guided evolution, or intelligent design seem much more plausible to me than the alternative. Believing in astronomical odds in the absence of God seems to me to require more faith than believing in God. As I said before though, this is my belief and if you choose to disagree with me that's your right.

As a side note, I haven't seen his film, but based on the premise, it seems to me that Bill Maher is a fucking dick. Most religions give a sense of hope or comfort to the individual. Some people call it a crutch. In each individual, whether it is a crutch or not, why would you want to take that away from them? Christians preaching makes sense, they want others to be able to spend eternity in Heaven and avoid the tortures of Hell. If they're wrong, nothing happens, or whatever the bad side of the afterlife is for whichever religion is correct (the Mormons of course). What's the best afterlife that atheists have to hope for? Nothing. Worst case scenario? If any of the religions are correct, you end up in the unbelieving afterlife, which is usually the bad one. So maybe it's safer to believe in something, maybe it's more comforting to believe in something. But what do you or they have to gain if you convince them that all religions are wrong? Their beliefs are their choice just the same as your's are your's.

 

[BringBackBuck]

Three things -

(1)

"Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion"

You're at college yet you spelt it 'collage'. People make spelling errors all the time but if you're going to tell a story about smart people it helps if you get the details right. If only for the sake of credibility.

See that's where everyone in this thread has gone wrong. This was not a typo.

Collage buddies don't tend to have the best handle on biology or philosophy. Especially before nap time.

 

[squeekenator]

As a side note, I haven't seen his film, but based on the premise, it seems to me that Bill Maher is a fucking dick. Most religions give a sense of hope or comfort to the individual. Some people call it a crutch. In each individual, whether it is a crutch or not, why would you want to take that away from them? Christians preaching makes sense, they want others to be able to spend eternity in Heaven and avoid the tortures of Hell. If they're wrong, nothing happens, or whatever the bad side of the afterlife is for whichever religion is correct (the Mormons of course). What's the best afterlife that atheists have to hope for? Nothing. Worst case scenario? If any of the religions are correct, you end up in the unbelieving afterlife, which is usually the bad one. So maybe it's safer to believe in something, maybe it's more comforting to believe in something. But what do you or they have to gain if you convince them that all religions are wrong? Their beliefs are their choice just the same as your's are your's.

Pascall's Wager is actually totally wrong. Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

 

[ezeroast]

Leave him be, his opinion, try to get used to it, he´s your friend.

yea this ^^^^

No point ruining a friendship over things that dont matter in the slightest.

Edit: well dont matter unless its a field you are specificly studying and building a career out of.

 

[orangeapples]

I wouldn't have representatives in the first place, so that'd be a non-issue with me. Anyone who would claim to be my representative is per definition talking out of their ass.

And if they would keep on claiming I told them so I myself would state in a public press release or something that that is not what I told that person.

That didn't answer my question. my question was about other people who listen to you accepting that person as being a proper representative of you.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Evolution does not cleanly answer the entire question of how we came to be here. It provides many solid starting points and explains a lot, but the odds against certain things just naturally evolving are astronomical. Blood clotting for example is a multi-step process that would completely break down and cause very minor wounds to be easily fatal if just one step was missing. How did that come about by a random mutation? Eyes are also rather complicated to have been just chance. Guided evolution, or intelligent design seem much more plausible to me than the alternative. Believing in astronomical odds in the absence of God seems to me to require more faith than believing in God. As I said before though, this is my belief and if you choose to disagree with me that's your right.

Let me just put this out of the way; 'astronomical odds' are bullshit. Chemistry doesn't work with odds all that much; if you put 2 chemicals together in a certain environment, they'll do the same thing again if you copy everything. Life isn't mathmatical, life is chemical.

As for blood clotting, here's a start. [http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html] And we've learned quite a bit about the evolution of eyes [http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml] as well. Intelligent Design has zero credit in the scientific community no matter what you personally believe, it has nothing actually going for it.

Mind you, of course it's true that the fact of evolution isn't fully explained yet. With science, of course, there's never a 100% knowing, that goes against the principle of it.

As for taking it away from people; because this kind of religion, the kind that meddles with the "how" and tries to just say "magic did it", slows down progress. There's many different kinds of faith, and this is the sort of faith that doesn't coexist with science.

I suggest informing yourself on evolution and the theory surrounding it before forming an opinion. I suggest that for everyone, for opponents and proponents alike. Generic Gamer is right; too many people just take people's worth for it. That goes against the principles of science itself.

What's the best afterlife that atheists have to hope for? Nothing.

Who says I want it? It doesn't even make sense; how can an eternity of happiness be happy if you don't know unhappiness? Life is defined by contrast.

That didn't answer my question. my question was about other people who listen to you accepting that person as being a proper representative of you.

I did answer that; I would not have representatives, so I would personally, publicly state, to the entire freakin' world, that I do not have representatives for my knowledge of nutrition if one keeps claiming that he/she is. They could call me, interview me, email me, ask me in person, the answer would be the same; that guy is talking out of his ass.

If people would keep believing them despite me personally telling the whole world, and not just whispering into an individual's mind, then they'd be idiots.

 

[Tsaba]

snip

I'm just trying to point out, points in human history where people where laughed at and/or put down in a public forum and/or killed for believing other than what is accepted. That's the "backward thinking" I was trying to identify.

I think that people who believe in evolution and creationism can accomplish a lot more if they are willing to work together with open minds instead of working in their narrow perspectives on what they believe. There's no telling what we can accomplish as long as we don't care who gets the credit.

 

[fer-]

But that immediately disqualifies them from intellectual discourse on the matter, just as much as someone who advocates setting fire to computers as a form of fixing them should not speak as an 'opinion' on how to handle hacking.

The thread creator isn't talking about intellectual discourse on _this_ topic, he is saying (paraphrasing) 'WTF how can someone think this way?' after talking about how smart he thought this guy was on other things.

Studying comp sci its not like just because this guy may think aliens seeded earth doesn't mean he won't be able to architect code or work out an algorithms complexity. Smart with computers doesn't mean he is got to be 'smart' in everything nor that he can't have faith in something that empirical evidence may not support wholly.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein - http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24949.html

I don't have a religious bone in my body, but I respect those that have faith in that sort of thing, personally I just don't. However, I don't feel superior to someone that has faith nor go 'WTF, i thought you were smart!'

 

[Sentox6]

I view this as important as currently only around a quarter or a third of American's accept evolution

Oh nooooo. How terrible. That means... really nothing very important at all.

What effect would it have on our world if suddenly everyone subscribed to evolution? Perhaps a slight rise in depression rates, but I suspect essentially nothing would change.

People's perspectives on economic policy matter. People's perspective on social justice and moral obligation matter. Hell, people's perspectives on the metric versus imperial system matter. I could go on forever.

I can't think of one good reason why an individual declining to accept that evolution correctly describes the history of the world we live in matters one damn bit.

The fact that you, like many native English speakers, cannot identify the correct context for the use of the apostrophe concerns me an awful lot more than what you think of evolution.

 

[orangeapples]

We're on page 7 of this and no one is going to convince anyone else here against whatever they came in here with...

Since we've gotten to page 7 and everyone has gotten nowhere, and this argument has always gotten nowhere; we're all losing.

I'm leaving. Have fun with the next 10 pages of going nowhere. Bye.

 

[tzimize]

I'm not sure how to comment. It does seem weird, but then again I'm not going to look down on someone because of their beliefs.

I am

Beliefs are not holy. If someone believes chocolate is made of oil I am going to laugh at them and take them for a fool, just as I will laugh at anyone believing anything without a shred of rational argument behind it.

And for the stupid record: I'm talking about dinosaur oil, not vegetable oil or cocoa butter.

OPs post wasnt the most coherent so I dont have too much to say on that.