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

[Turing '88]

Evolution works like that in what we have observed.

Or do you think that everything in evolution only happens because one person mutated blue eyes, and had a bunch of babies? Or do you think it happens gradually? So we'll have a nub within the next 1 million years that'll turn in to an arm?

Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.

My academic advisor has a similar problem with evolution. Evolutionary theories about speciation and how we went from basic chemistry to complex life aren't falsifiable, because the underlying mechanisms they represent are supposed to operate over time frames that are too long to conduct experiments over.

Even if we could design a million-year experiment to test evolutionary theories, there's no guarantee that there will be any humans around to see the experiment completed.

Yes, so instead we watch organisms that have very short generation lengths, and watch them change over observable time frames either by small or large amounts. (i.e. bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics) Which we have done numerous times. We also look at evolution experiments we have been running unknowingly for thousands of years - domestication of animals. We have through selection bred dogs to be massively different in size, height, temperament..etc.

Given an even longer time frame we could develop them into even more distinct animals with even crazier differences if we desired it.

We also look back at the fossil record and find fossils that we can see are intermediate forms or current species. Finally we look at and compare DNA, using it to see how closely related two organisms are. The results all match up very well and give a very accurate picture of the evolutionary 'tree'.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

You can not disagree on evolution. It's a fact. It's proven. It would be like disagreeing on the existence of Elvis Presley.

 

[cahtush]

Give him an involuntary facepalm and ask him about lucy and other fossils, our similar skeletons, our similar DNA and other stuff like that.

 

[DanDeFool]

Evolution works like that in what we have observed.

Or do you think that everything in evolution only happens because one person mutated blue eyes, and had a bunch of babies? Or do you think it happens gradually? So we'll have a nub within the next 1 million years that'll turn in to an arm?

Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.

My academic advisor has a similar problem with evolution. Evolutionary theories about speciation and how we went from basic chemistry to complex life aren't falsifiable, because the underlying mechanisms they represent are supposed to operate over time frames that are too long to conduct experiments over.

Even if we could design a million-year experiment to test evolutionary theories, there's no guarantee that there will be any humans around to see the experiment completed.

Yes, so instead we watch organisms that have very short generation lengths, and watch them change over observable time frames either by small or large amounts. (i.e. bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics) Which we have done numerous times. We also look at evolution experiments we have been running unknowingly for thousands of years - domestication of animals. We have though selection bred dogs to be massively different in size, height, temperament..etc.

Given an even longer time frame we could develop them into even more distinct animals with even crazier differences if we desired it.

We also look back at the fossil record and find fossils that we can see are intermediate forms or current species. Finally we look at and compare DNA, using it to see how closely related two organisms are. The results all match up very well and give a very accurate picture of the evolutionary 'tree'.

Yes, I was aware of these facts. My point (which was my advisor's point, I guess) is that it might take a million years to see a bacteria evolve into a paramecium, or to get a dog to evolve into a porpoise. Also, I don't know of any experiments that have been able to get single-celled life forms out of component chemicals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an evolution-basher by any stretch of the imagination. I just agree that evolution can't be tested like, say, theories about electromagnetism or gravity, and that limits how definitively we can say that we understand the underlying processes.

 

[Turing '88]

-snip-

My good sir, I only asked for you to counter said arguments which I put up, I don't know a lot about the subject, but heck I wouldn't read into it if I don't believe it - I won't read the bible if I don't believe what is in it will I? I'm just stating my own conclusions of outlining facts around evolution. If you'd care to correct me, I'd much rather appreciate it than you calling me an idiot.
I DID say it was open for discussion. I did say I don't know much about the subject, so please if you're such a genius educate me and explain how my arguments are wrong. I'd love to hear it, I'm always open to new original ideas and theory's.

Can you please explain what argument you've made that hasn't been refuted? I had a look at your last few posts but honestly couldn't see any that haven't been responded to already?

 

[LostintheWick]

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?"

 

[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.

 

[GraveeKing]

-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.)

 

[Turing '88]

Yes, I was aware of these facts. My point (which was my advisor's point, I guess) is that it might take a million years to see a bacteria evolve into a paramecium, or to get a dog to evolve into a porpoise. Also, I don't know of any experiments that have been able to get single-celled life forms out of component chemicals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an evolution-basher by any stretch of the imagination. I just agree that evolution can't be tested like, say, theories about electromagnetism or gravity, and that limits how definitively we can say that we understand the underlying processes.

But my point is that while we can't see the actual process we can see it's effects. If we then look at the massive changes we can observe in the fossil records as well as the fact we know how old these fossils are we can make very good estimates about when species diverged and what they diverged into. This correlates very nicely with the DNA evidence. I don't know what else you want, we can observe evolution on the small scale, and extrapolate from that the large scale (for large organisms) and for bacteria we can observe large changes in relatively short time frames.

Add to that we can see evidence of large scale evolution in DNA, fossils and human domestication of animals. Darwin made prediction about how his theory could be strengthened, but more importantly how it could be falsified. He has been right so far, every single fossil we dig up strengthens his argument and more and more often intermediate stages of supposedly 'irreducibly complex systems' are found in nature or fossils.

 

[LewsTherin]

Postmodernism is a *****.

Also, is it that he doesn't agree with evolution in regards to humans, or has thrown out the whole concept? The latter would be silly, as microevolution is observable in everyday life. Macroevolution has fossil evidence, sure, but is the more disputed commonly, so I can see how he might be iffy with it.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip-

Can you please explain what argument you've made that hasn't been refuted? I had a look at your last few posts but honestly couldn't see any that haven't been responded to already?[/quote]

Thank you for at least being polite about it. Makes a nice change... it just seems to me that's it's very much down to chance, and if mutation happens so much, why do we all look so similar. I mean don't get me wrong - I believe in genetics, DNA mutation but not to a state where a brand new species is created, THAT has been observed, but we can't really prove that there was a huge development over past million (or however many years you'd like to claim) years.

With all that said, I don't believe god suddenly beamed us all down on to this planet perfect and ready - god no. But I do believe there's a lot more to the theory of evolution than we currently know, I can't tell you what and I understand why people don't believe me but the fact this thread exists does prove that I'm not the only one who can see that it's not perfect.

 

[Shadowkire]

I had a similar experience to the OP's. Except I took it better, because it doesn't matter.

It doesn't, how does the human race evolving from some kind of ape or springing from the imagination of a super-powered being thousands of years ago effect anything today? The answer is it doesn't. Even scientists working on something that has to do with humans AND apes are not effected by this, the similarities are there regardless of how we came to be.

 

[thewinner194]

Yeah, he's clearly a bit spiritual believes in something higher than himself. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

 

[[atomi|c|adaver]]

That would never happen. I don't have friends that are that ignorant.

But, if it were to happen, they would no longer be my friend. Simple as that.

(I am a bio major, so evolution is a central concept to me and my studies.)

It has had over 150 years of credibility, with no other more popular theory being accepted by the scientific community.

 

[Turing '88]

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?

Less competition is one reason, if all/most animals are in the sea the land will have less competitors . Safety from predators is another, none or fewer on land at this point, even if the evolved creature spends a short time on land it helps a little. There are a myriad of possibilities really.

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.

Nope, it's not luck. Every intermediate stage has to provide some benefit or the organism will not be selected more often to reproduce. At best a neutral gene can exist, but never a negative one and usually a neutral one has some cost at the end of the day.
Edit: Just to add, the 'stump' adds a benefit. Some creatures born with a stump aren't near land, their stump is a hindrance so they die. All the animals mutate at the same rate in the big picture, however only the 'best' mutations produce more offspring. That's part of the reason why we fall apart so much at old age. Evolution has no reason to extend your life past the point where you've finished reproducing. If anything, society, science, intelligence are all just more and more elaborate mechanism of our genes 'trying to ensure', as it were, that they are copied.

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?

A combination of us all evolving from the same ancestors and certain traits (2 eyes to see in depth, legs to move, hands to grab and manipulate) are very helpful so are common.

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.

True, but the thumb allows us to manipulate objects better. Some apes can already use tools, this gave humans an even better ability to use them.

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.

It's only a theory in the same way electromagnetism and gravity are theories. Once you've researched it you'll see it makes perfect sense and is backed by mountains of evidence. There is no debate about evolution in the scientific community. Hope some of this helps.

 

[bakan]

-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.)

You see, there are a lot of holes in your assumptions.
Take for example the upright walk, it is assumed that the first ones with upright walk happened to evolve in today's Africa.
Which leads to a multitude of possibilities why they HAD to evolve.
As the climate changed a lot of forests died out and for example savannahs formed.
This lead to problems with heat, detecting enemies in the grass, energy efficiency etc.
So the liveforms had to adapt as well (but had enough time to evolve, as you don't go through a natural climate change in a few hundred but thousands of years).

So just a bit of research or questioning your very own assumptions leads to plausible other ideas which can actually be explained by data we have given.

 

[Dash-X]

The problem with these arguments is they usually never get above scoffing each other.

Snip.

This.

Personally, I don't see how or why it matters. All the drama that comes from trying to determine where stuff came from just seems pointless.

What I will say is this: I find it funny that people who decry faith and champion science and evolution never realize that they are engaging in an act of faith themselves. In the big picture sense, Science is a religion too. Its core tenets ultimately being quantization of what can be experienced with the senses and proof or disproof based on empirical evidence and fact. It is held on assumption that what is experienced through the senses is reality. Last time I checked, reality was neither proven nor unproven. We cannot say for certain that we are not networked brains in jars just as we cannot say for certain that we are.

What I also find funny is that when told this, they react in much the same fashion as religious folks who are told that evolution is the only truth.

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

Please remember that next time you get sick and go to a hospital, or use your mobile phone, or your PC, or drive a car, or vaccinate your kids...etc To say science == religion is to say all those things aren't significant accomplishments.

Science has provided the world with a lot. Look at the results cutting edge science is always providing, then ask what has the religious method given the world? A few nice feelings and artistic works inspired by god, I'm sure that comforted people as they died in squalor before the scientific advancements we have today. Even the religious people who did advance science used the scientific method in the area they advanced.

Well, sorry to break it to you, but they aren't significant accomplishments. So people live a little longer and a little easier -- big deal. The quality of life for the average person is pretty much the same, we just found ways to draw it out over a longer period of time. The life of the average person is the same now that it has been for years. You're born, you're educated in one fashion or another, you do some kind of work (legit or not) to earn your bread, the powers that be screw you over, you birth another, and see to its education as best you could before you die. The basic components are all the same. The tools changed, the times changed, but the functions remained the same. What I'd call a significant accomplishment is something that could change the cycle I just mentioned. But seeing as to how neither science nor religion have accomplished this they are equal.

Peace.

I am honestly gobsmacked. How can you call all we have accomplished as a species insignificant? We have dramatically increases the quality of life for people in first world countries, the fact that we can have enough free time to debate things like this is testament to that. If it wasn't for what basically amounts to science we would be born, work work work and then die. Quality of life for the average person in has improved dramatically, if you believe otherwise you are ignorant and wrong.

Back on health for a second, what about the fact that many women died in childbirth? or that many children died before their first birthday? Are you not glad for scientific advancement when it saves the life of a friend of family member?

Just medicine alone has saved hundreds of millions of lives. Hell it may one day save humanity as a species, look at the damage small pox was doing before a vaccine was made. One day a virus might wipe us all out, but if that time comes I'll be hoping science can deliver once again.

Saying science, i.e. humanity, has done nothing significant is pretty much objectively wrong. We, or rather the best amongst us, have made a massive difference, even if it's only to ourselves.

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.

 

[Babitz]

Well evolution has always been a theory

And, like everything else in science, always will be.

Like gravity and electrons.
Just theories. No proof whatsoever. None. Zilch. Science sucks. Yeah.

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip-
It's only a theory in the same way electromagnetism and gravity are theories. Once you've researched it you'll see it makes perfect sense and is backed by mountains of evidence. There is no debate about evolution in the scientific community. Hope some of this helps.

I appreciate all the facts you've stated (and the fact you stated them politely), and I'm glad you've given me plenty to think about, I'll definitely consider the idea and read into this more at a later date.
But it's not the same way that gravity is a theory - we have proof of that, as we do of electromagnetism etc. But I don't see hard evidence around me, I mean not solid enough for me to consider anymore than a 'likely theory'.

With all that said, people much smarter(some longing to be and some actually scientists) than I have disagreed with the idea. Genetics is a great back-up for it. But still, too many details seem shaky. I could talk about this all day but in the end people less polite than your good self would start flaming me (again). I'll take your advise and look into this more. Have a nice day and thank you for all the information.