But that wouldn't be good! Cause then we'd float out into space and our heads would explode!Doug said:
Why do people reject evolution?
- Thread starter disgruntledgamer
- Start date
Yet in this very thread, people who challenge science are being accused of stupidity, narrow-mindedness etc. Basically religion was the "theory" thousands of years ago and some people still cling to it. Just as in another thousand years, evolution might be considered quaint and the followers of that old theory mocked and ridiculed (i'm guessing telepathically?). Though if you doubt that science is the new religion, take a look at how people defend it in this thread. To the "science side", the "religious side" are the heretics. Normally I hate fence-sitters, but in this case, having a sense of perspective is really helpful.Callate said:
Maybe not with mudskippers, but we've seen changes in laboratory environments, and Darwin saw it within his own lifetime.wulf3n said:
You're free to not "fully believe" it all you want, but it's on par with not believing other observable phenomena. Do you not fully believe in fire or gravity?
You can always find someone to say something stupid about just about anything. That should in no way degrade the notion itself.
However, I cannot make you believe in it any further than I can make the Insane Clown Posse understand how magnets work.
Oh for the last time we already have! We've observed both Micro and Macro evolution in the laboratory, in fact I've done this personally.wulf3n said:
Seriously I feel like a broken record here, I keep saying it and giving examples and links and they keep asking.
So is math a religion as well? Because I'm pretty sure that if I said the Pythagorean Theorem was false and that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is actually equall to the cubed root of the other two sides multiplied together, there would be quite a few people accusing me of stupidity and defending the Theorem.Nimzabaat said:
As a Christian, I firmly believe that evolution (science) has its place to be taught in school, and creation (religion) has its place to be raught in churches. It's really not all that hard. You don't go to school to be indoctrinated; you go to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmatic (+ science).
As for what I believe... I believe the Bible gives us an oversimplified explanation of where we come from. How would you explain biological science to a person 2000 years ago that didn't even have a concept of cellular biology, let alone genetics? Yeah... I believe in the Bible, but I don't believe it is meant to be taken literally. It says God made man, but it never said how.
That's my two cents anyway...
EDIT: Do I believe in evolution? Yes.
As for what I believe... I believe the Bible gives us an oversimplified explanation of where we come from. How would you explain biological science to a person 2000 years ago that didn't even have a concept of cellular biology, let alone genetics? Yeah... I believe in the Bible, but I don't believe it is meant to be taken literally. It says God made man, but it never said how.
That's my two cents anyway...
EDIT: Do I believe in evolution? Yes.
Absolutely! And its been around for a LONG time. The simple answer is EVERY SINGLE one of your cells contains a VERY basic example of two cells working together. Its your mitochondria.Balmong7 said:
I dont know how scientifically literate you are so ill explain from the start. Almost all cells which take part in active processes use ATP to do so which is the cells "Energy" if you like stored in the form of ATP. The mitochondria is a little organelle inside your cells that produces this. Youre also aware your cell has DNA right? Are you aware that in fact not ALL of it is in the lovely nucleus DNA centre of the cell. A totally different load of DNA is in your mitochondria. Why are there two sets of DNA in your cells? Both are defined as "human" DNA but carry quite different information.
Its also inherited slightly differently from regular nucleus DNA. So how did this happen? The main theory is that previously the mitochondria was its own distinct cell floating around collecting nutrients to produce its own ATP very efficiently. Eventually a larger cell mutated to engulf the mitochondria. This larger cell gathered the nutrients needed for the mitochondria to produce ATP much more efficiently while at the same time harvesting the ATP the mitochondria produced. A relationship formed that was symbiotic. This occurred to the point where the larger cell learnt to "read" and copy the DNA inside the mitochondrial DNA to produce MORE mitochondria inside itself.
When cells divided from here on out the mitochondrial DNA divided too and went with it. Since this new relationship worked better than all the others the original cells, both the lone mitochondria and the larger cell, died out if they didnt adapt. This happened once. And only once. And from then on the mitochondria was the main energy producer for all life as we know it for a few million years. This is a basic outline of how two cells came together to work in symbiosis.
A study was also done on algi because modern algi forms a multi celled organism from 16-50000 cells large it is the best example of the simplest multicelled organism. The cells differ in function and all play a seperate role. By looking at the different levels of complexity researchers came up with this timeline:
1) ~223 million years ago, a species of single-celled green algae began forming aggregates of cells stuck together by a glue of secreted proteins and sugars (and we can see species which do this today).
2) Also ~200 million years ago, the rate of cell division began to be controlled genetically. Unlike single-celled organisms, which reproduce whenever the surrounding environment is right, the new multicellular algae began controlling exactly how many daughter cells they produce. This is a critical step towards establishing a multi-cellular body-plan with genetically controlled dimensions.
3) Roughly 10 million years later, the cells of some multicellular algae species began to orient their whip-like flagella in the same direction, so that all of the flagella would work together to control the swimming direction of the organism.
4) By ~100 million years ago, some of the algae species had established separate reproductive germ cells, and ever since then, various volvocine algae species have developed more cells with highly specialized functions.
2) Also ~200 million years ago, the rate of cell division began to be controlled genetically. Unlike single-celled organisms, which reproduce whenever the surrounding environment is right, the new multicellular algae began controlling exactly how many daughter cells they produce. This is a critical step towards establishing a multi-cellular body-plan with genetically controlled dimensions.
3) Roughly 10 million years later, the cells of some multicellular algae species began to orient their whip-like flagella in the same direction, so that all of the flagella would work together to control the swimming direction of the organism.
4) By ~100 million years ago, some of the algae species had established separate reproductive germ cells, and ever since then, various volvocine algae species have developed more cells with highly specialized functions.
Source: http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/how_singlecell_organisms_evolve_multicellular_ones
Putting it there would deny it's Scientific basis and lend credence to the idea that people can just "believe things are false" and then they are.TehCookie said:
To an extent. Read your last line, I take that as my moto in life, and whilst I'll accept scientific theories as truth without fully investigating - thanks to the fact that if I hear about them, the generally are strongly supported by experimental data - but I will always prefix things that I have not researched myself with "Apparently". Until I know the reasons behind the scientific theory and understand it to, at the very least, a reasonable degree, I won't come out and say that it is outright fact.Therarchos said:
It is also the reason I am an agnostic rather than an atheist.
With that sort of way of looking at things, its not hard to find arguments for or against things, as I have little bias when entering into a debate about a scientific theory, as in the past religious people have done experiments to try and prove that certain aspects of the bible and such are plausible - which I have always found interesting, whether from the aspect of explaining something god has supposedly done through natural phenomenon, or linking natural phenomenon to match something that god is said to have done [There is a slight difference, though its hard to get across on the internet] - and I search for the truth, rather than what some people say is the truth.
Of course, this doesn't guarantee that I've found the truth, merely what is likely closest to it from the information I have on hand, which I will re-evaluate each time new information is uncovered.
The religious authorities and supporters see it as a battle to fight every step of the way, so as they retreat in the face of evidence and public opinion, they use similar tactics to the cigarette companies - deny every link along the logical chain until it's proven to exhaustion and they've been embarrassed. Cultivate a group of people who'd deny the nose on their face if it protected their unreasoning faith. Oh, plus people don't like being compared to apes and monkeys, despite the critical similarities - they put down these clever creatures, because they consider it demeaning to be compared to them, like they'd resent being compared to *severely* retarded people because that's about how smart our nearest relatives are - no more than a not particularly bright young child and unable to communicate in our language. They really should be looking at the similarities from a dispassionate point of view or a positive one that realises how smart an ape or large monkey is compared to a dog, a pig or similar.
Honestly I am more surprised so many people do believe it. Sure, it has heaps of evidence. How many average people actually understand that evidence? I am interested in the topic and I don't know enough about it to put up a convincing argument for it.
Sure I could go on about fossils, but other then that I can't prove shit.
I do believe in it though.
Sure I could go on about fossils, but other then that I can't prove shit.
I do believe in it though.
DNA similarity speaks louder than fossils of which there are precious few for obvious reasons.. (recycling of materials by other lifeforms, mechanical damage in the soil by plant roots and erosion.
Personally I'd think many people would not worship it due to the world having all these 'facts' since the dawn of time. Sure I believe in evolution and to me it makes 'sense' but that sense is due to other people just like those in this thread. Many, MANY things found in the average household today was deemed impossible at one point, not by uneducated fools but by the best and brightest of the age and the ONLY fact I believe will be the only true 'fact' that remains constant is what everyone claims is 100% proven undeniable fact of today will be laughed at by children in schools 100 years from now.
From a more "theistic" perspective, I always found the premise behind evolutionary change managing to develop to the point where we're at now without any sort of "celestial" influence hard to swallow. Of course, the very existence of said deity to influence the aforementioned evolutionary process isn't any easier to swallow, and adds all sorts of incalculable complications/baseless assumptions just for the sake of boosting the statistical likelihood of things like abiogenesis and DNA development occurring (which really just comes off as contradictory and wouldn't sit well with Occam's Razor, methinks)
Of course, the actual validity of evolution is really undeniable at this point. As much as I empathize with religious folk, there's no real excuse to not accept whats staring you right in the face. I don't particularly care too greatly for biology, and even I get frustrated when I hear the perpetual misunderstandings spew forth from people's mouths when they talk about evolution. If you're going to contest something, for the love of God at least understand what you're contesting.
Of course, the actual validity of evolution is really undeniable at this point. As much as I empathize with religious folk, there's no real excuse to not accept whats staring you right in the face. I don't particularly care too greatly for biology, and even I get frustrated when I hear the perpetual misunderstandings spew forth from people's mouths when they talk about evolution. If you're going to contest something, for the love of God at least understand what you're contesting.
I don't think that quite addresses the question I had. I have seen more precise charts on evolution but nothing as accurate as the man/ape model that provides a model for all species just that of a link between man and ape and/or other primates. If the current model of evolution is so accurate then it should be able to be applied to all forms of life that possess DNA. If not then we may only be dealing with 1% or less of the whole picture of evolution on this planet.Quaxar said:
It is quite a stretch to base a claim that the current evolutionary model is 100% correct on perhaps less than 1% of of the evidence of evolution. I do appreciate the reply though, I may be digger for a bigger answer than the world can provide at this point.
To address the OP sometimes it seems that most evolutionary theory is used, not by the researchers but mainly by individuals to disprove creationism more than actually provide a clear picture of the origin of life on this planet. I think that may be why so many hardline creationists try to find ways to deny or discount evolutionary theory. Maybe we need to step away from the "see you are wrong" attitude and try "look what we found, what do you think?" for a change. Also I don't see the harm in people believing in creation if it makes them happy.
Because evolution is so fucking slow that no human will ever be aware of its process. And we humans like immediate evidence. And the moment humans do evolve into something else, we still won't be able to tell the difference because its SO FUCKING SLOW.