ChatterBank5 mins ago
Why Don't (Some) Theists Educate Themselves About Evolution?
57 Answers
This question has been prompted by a number of posts by theists who question evolution.
The observed evidence for evolution is staggering. The recorded evidence is monumentally voluminous. The fossil record is replete with intermediary species and linked biological ancestry and commonality in biophysiology. In fact, you'd have to be blind not to see it.
Yet there are some people who deny its existence based upon a few books written over 1800 years ago. They base their disbelief - or rather their scepticism of observable evidence - on passages written in their "holy" books. Nothing in the Bible, Torah nor the Koran repudiates the concept of evolution; they simply fail to mention it.
Further reading:
http://
http://
http://
The observed evidence for evolution is staggering. The recorded evidence is monumentally voluminous. The fossil record is replete with intermediary species and linked biological ancestry and commonality in biophysiology. In fact, you'd have to be blind not to see it.
Yet there are some people who deny its existence based upon a few books written over 1800 years ago. They base their disbelief - or rather their scepticism of observable evidence - on passages written in their "holy" books. Nothing in the Bible, Torah nor the Koran repudiates the concept of evolution; they simply fail to mention it.
Further reading:
http://
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad - "... Birdie, I did not invent the source as you suggest, however, if you'd care (or anyone else) to Google the opening lines of your second paragraph, you'll find a source of exactly your entire quote... but a word of warning... the source is under a website listed as ".php" which is often an adward site and can cause some problems if not handled correctly. Why that is, I don't know..."
I have done as you suggested - I have copied the first couple of sentences from my second paragraph and plugged them into Google. Guess what? The only links that result are hijacked circular links to MY OWN QUESTION on Answer Bank. As you say, when you click on them they don't send you to AB, they try and send you to some dodgy websites (something called "mysuperslim.com" when I Googled).
That is not my doing however. If some unscrupulous toad is using random AB questions in order to trick people into clicking on their links that's hardly my fault is it?
Once again Clanad - I haven't copied and pasted my question from anywhere else. If you've been fooled into thinking I have due to the above "hijack" that's your problem.
I ask again, do the decent thing and apologise.
I have done as you suggested - I have copied the first couple of sentences from my second paragraph and plugged them into Google. Guess what? The only links that result are hijacked circular links to MY OWN QUESTION on Answer Bank. As you say, when you click on them they don't send you to AB, they try and send you to some dodgy websites (something called "mysuperslim.com" when I Googled).
That is not my doing however. If some unscrupulous toad is using random AB questions in order to trick people into clicking on their links that's hardly my fault is it?
Once again Clanad - I haven't copied and pasted my question from anywhere else. If you've been fooled into thinking I have due to the above "hijack" that's your problem.
I ask again, do the decent thing and apologise.
Jim360… your reasonable approach to the question demands a reasonable response in so far as my reasoning for making a "mountain out of a molehill" species wise.
Here's the problem… reading the various references one finds that the disagreement between those that study such things to the nth degree don't usually stop at disagreeing on the definition or even the method of determine species. The lack of such agreement leads, ultimately to downright hostility on even assigning dates, taxa or relevance to various samples.
When that happens, I think it's reasonable for laymen to raise the question about, not only who's correct, but questions about the validity of their interpretations.
No where have I said this to ally invalidates evolution. It's just that even a definition of "evolution" is often in question among such professionals. By that I mean one can often find definitive studies on changes caused by many factors, over time… but even then there's enough disagreement to raise questions…
As you
re probably aware, we are now seeing the debate (raging, depending on the source) of DNA/RNA and exactly how either (especially DNA) is affected by mutations. By that I mean, one camp disputes DNA's susceptibility to mutations other than in DNA's coding or sequencing while the other side is now more closely defining DNA's action in the regions of non-sequencing or "Junk" non-coding regions…
Time was when this was "styled" science, so to speak.
Here's the problem… reading the various references one finds that the disagreement between those that study such things to the nth degree don't usually stop at disagreeing on the definition or even the method of determine species. The lack of such agreement leads, ultimately to downright hostility on even assigning dates, taxa or relevance to various samples.
When that happens, I think it's reasonable for laymen to raise the question about, not only who's correct, but questions about the validity of their interpretations.
No where have I said this to ally invalidates evolution. It's just that even a definition of "evolution" is often in question among such professionals. By that I mean one can often find definitive studies on changes caused by many factors, over time… but even then there's enough disagreement to raise questions…
As you
re probably aware, we are now seeing the debate (raging, depending on the source) of DNA/RNA and exactly how either (especially DNA) is affected by mutations. By that I mean, one camp disputes DNA's susceptibility to mutations other than in DNA's coding or sequencing while the other side is now more closely defining DNA's action in the regions of non-sequencing or "Junk" non-coding regions…
Time was when this was "styled" science, so to speak.
Clanad - "... Birdie says of course he/she has read her own links, yet fails to understand what the links are saying."
As I've previously stated, I have read and understood the links. It is you who doesn't appear to understand. Once again, the old "psychological projection" rears its ugly and disingenuous head.
Many people have now taken issue with your deliberate obfuscation of the argument yet you seem unable to respond in any coherent way to any of those criticisms. For example, you say, "... in fact species arise in the fossil record fully formed, remain that way for a greater or shorter time period and disappear..." and you quote Stephen Jay Gould, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.".
In your mind, this demonstrates that evolution isn't happening. The fact that few intermediary fossils have been found is because of two things: a) intermediary species are extremely difficult to identify and b) fossilisation happens exceedingly rarely. So rarely in fact that,
"... Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today—that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each—will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on Earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousand has made it into the fossil record. That in itself is a stunningly infinitesimal proportion. However, if you accept the common estimate that the Earth has produced 30 billion species of creature in its time and Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin’s statement (in The Sixth Extinction) that there are 250,000 species of creature in the fossil record, that reduces the proportion to just one in 120,000. Either way, what we possess is the merest sampling of all the life that Earth has spawned. Moreover, the record we do have is hopelessly skewed. Most land animals, of course, don’t die in sediments. They drop in the open and are eaten or left to rot or weather down to nothing. The fossil record consequently is almost absurdly biased in favor of marine creatures. About 95 percent of all the fossils we possess are of animals that once lived under water, mostly in shallow seas..." [Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything]
Despite this vanishingly small likelihood of finding intermediary species, palaeontologist have done just that - despite the fact that you think that the word "species" cannot be defined.
As I've previously stated, I have read and understood the links. It is you who doesn't appear to understand. Once again, the old "psychological projection" rears its ugly and disingenuous head.
Many people have now taken issue with your deliberate obfuscation of the argument yet you seem unable to respond in any coherent way to any of those criticisms. For example, you say, "... in fact species arise in the fossil record fully formed, remain that way for a greater or shorter time period and disappear..." and you quote Stephen Jay Gould, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.".
In your mind, this demonstrates that evolution isn't happening. The fact that few intermediary fossils have been found is because of two things: a) intermediary species are extremely difficult to identify and b) fossilisation happens exceedingly rarely. So rarely in fact that,
"... Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today—that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each—will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on Earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousand has made it into the fossil record. That in itself is a stunningly infinitesimal proportion. However, if you accept the common estimate that the Earth has produced 30 billion species of creature in its time and Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin’s statement (in The Sixth Extinction) that there are 250,000 species of creature in the fossil record, that reduces the proportion to just one in 120,000. Either way, what we possess is the merest sampling of all the life that Earth has spawned. Moreover, the record we do have is hopelessly skewed. Most land animals, of course, don’t die in sediments. They drop in the open and are eaten or left to rot or weather down to nothing. The fossil record consequently is almost absurdly biased in favor of marine creatures. About 95 percent of all the fossils we possess are of animals that once lived under water, mostly in shallow seas..." [Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything]
Despite this vanishingly small likelihood of finding intermediary species, palaeontologist have done just that - despite the fact that you think that the word "species" cannot be defined.
Additionally, my quotation from Gould is offered not to vandalize evolution, but, rather, to simply state that an eminent paleontologist, such as Mr. Gould (now, sadly, deceased) even recognizes the effect of that fact on the possible lack of validity of some leaps of faith by science to ascribe absolute, iron-clad truth to their definition of evolution.
It isn't offered, as you accuse, as my attempting to prove certain segments of evolution may be suspect. I find that reasonable and your reliance on "projection" as accusation is indefensible… especially when sources say the malady was first defined by Freud, among others… As you may be aware, other psychological experts state "...Some studies were critical of Freud's theory. Research supports the existence of a false-consensus effect whereby humans have a broad tendency to believe that others are similar to themselves, and thus "project" their personal traits onto others. This applies to good traits as well as bad traits and is not a defense mechanism for denying the existence of the trait within the self.
Instead, Newman, Duff, and Baumeister (1997) proposed a new model of defensive projection. In this view, people try to suppress thoughts of their undesirable traits, and these efforts make those trait categories highly accessible—so that they are then used all the more often when forming impressions of others. The projection is then only a by-product of the real defensive mechanism. Some studies were critical of Freud's theory. Research supports the existence of a false-consensus effect whereby humans have a broad tendency to believe that others are similar to themselves, and thus "project" their personal traits onto others. This applies to good traits as well as bad traits and is not a defense mechanism for denying the existence of the trait within the self.
I find it humorous that your lengthy quote of Bryson can easel be read as contrary to your closing assessment of the quote. He's actually saying it's amazing, with such a lack of real, dependable proof, that any coherent judgement can be reached, not that that incoherence is "...Despite this vanishingly small likelihood of finding intermediary species, palaeontologist have done just that…".
It isn't offered, as you accuse, as my attempting to prove certain segments of evolution may be suspect. I find that reasonable and your reliance on "projection" as accusation is indefensible… especially when sources say the malady was first defined by Freud, among others… As you may be aware, other psychological experts state "...Some studies were critical of Freud's theory. Research supports the existence of a false-consensus effect whereby humans have a broad tendency to believe that others are similar to themselves, and thus "project" their personal traits onto others. This applies to good traits as well as bad traits and is not a defense mechanism for denying the existence of the trait within the self.
Instead, Newman, Duff, and Baumeister (1997) proposed a new model of defensive projection. In this view, people try to suppress thoughts of their undesirable traits, and these efforts make those trait categories highly accessible—so that they are then used all the more often when forming impressions of others. The projection is then only a by-product of the real defensive mechanism. Some studies were critical of Freud's theory. Research supports the existence of a false-consensus effect whereby humans have a broad tendency to believe that others are similar to themselves, and thus "project" their personal traits onto others. This applies to good traits as well as bad traits and is not a defense mechanism for denying the existence of the trait within the self.
I find it humorous that your lengthy quote of Bryson can easel be read as contrary to your closing assessment of the quote. He's actually saying it's amazing, with such a lack of real, dependable proof, that any coherent judgement can be reached, not that that incoherence is "...Despite this vanishingly small likelihood of finding intermediary species, palaeontologist have done just that…".
With the possible exception of Maths I don't think much in life has iron clad truths. Most belief in what is true rely on agreement on what is and isn't reasonable doubt. As such open to discussion. I get the impression a large majority of the scientific community see no reason to seriously doubt evolution. Unlikely to have every t crossed and i dotted.
The OP states;//This question has been prompted by a number of posts by theists who question evolution.//
I haven't read through all these repetitious posts, but all I can say is that only seriously weird cave-dwellers would today deny evolution of the species, - the process can be seen all around us. But to say in the OP //The fossil record is replete with intermediary species and linked biological ancestry and commonality in biophysiology// is simply untrue.
The 'repleteness' exists only in the minds of those wishing to prove all (as PP says) is 'done and dusted'.
Wise man say; 'Don't believe everything you read on the internet'!
I haven't read through all these repetitious posts, but all I can say is that only seriously weird cave-dwellers would today deny evolution of the species, - the process can be seen all around us. But to say in the OP //The fossil record is replete with intermediary species and linked biological ancestry and commonality in biophysiology// is simply untrue.
The 'repleteness' exists only in the minds of those wishing to prove all (as PP says) is 'done and dusted'.
Wise man say; 'Don't believe everything you read on the internet'!
Debating with Creationists can be fun sometimes but I can't help feeling that its all a waste of time in the end. That daft colleague of mine who thinks the Grand Canyon is only 6000 years old is a perfect example of the intransigence of ignorance, so we have agreed to stop talking about anything remotely troublesome.
While I respect Clanads, and others right to believe this Creationist nonsense, I can't see the point of continuing the debate, so, like they say on Dragons Den....I'm out !
While I respect Clanads, and others right to believe this Creationist nonsense, I can't see the point of continuing the debate, so, like they say on Dragons Den....I'm out !
But do all scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life.
To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap?
Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made, you might learn something.
To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap?
Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made, you might learn something.
Life is basically a matter of using the resources in the environment to self replicate.
Mineral crystals replicate themselves. Life is really nothing more than incredibly complex crystal formations and no doubt came originally from mineral crystals that got carbon involved.
The leading hypothesis for abiogenesis is the serpentisation of olivine in hot alkaline vents on the ocean floor. This chemical process is identical to the most fundamental energy reaction found in every living organism. Moreover the minerals form in bubbles that are similar in size to primitive cells.
No it isn't a big leap of faith to imagine that such bubbles could eventually form a lipid membrane and float free of the structure.
What is a huge leap of faith is the notion that the universe began with the most complex entity in it. The religious talk about watches needing watchmakers yet give no explanation of the godmaker which by their logic would need an even more complex entity to build it. And on ad infinitum.
Mineral crystals replicate themselves. Life is really nothing more than incredibly complex crystal formations and no doubt came originally from mineral crystals that got carbon involved.
The leading hypothesis for abiogenesis is the serpentisation of olivine in hot alkaline vents on the ocean floor. This chemical process is identical to the most fundamental energy reaction found in every living organism. Moreover the minerals form in bubbles that are similar in size to primitive cells.
No it isn't a big leap of faith to imagine that such bubbles could eventually form a lipid membrane and float free of the structure.
What is a huge leap of faith is the notion that the universe began with the most complex entity in it. The religious talk about watches needing watchmakers yet give no explanation of the godmaker which by their logic would need an even more complex entity to build it. And on ad infinitum.
"The leading hypothesis for abiogenesis is the serpentisation of olivine in hot alkaline vents on the ocean floor. This chemical process is identical to the most fundamental energy reaction found in every living organism. Moreover the minerals form in bubbles that are similar in size to primitive cells.
No it isn't a big leap of faith to imagine that such bubbles could eventually form a lipid membrane and float free of the structure."
You can tell that to the marines!
No it isn't a big leap of faith to imagine that such bubbles could eventually form a lipid membrane and float free of the structure."
You can tell that to the marines!
Clanad - "... I find it humorous that your lengthy quote of Bryson can [easily] be read as contrary to your closing assessment of the quote..."
Really? If so, I find it humorous that you see a contradiction where none exists. The fact that something is extremely rare yet has been found, does not in any way present a contradiction of any description. That you think it does says a great deal about your ability, or rather, your willingness to look at the evidence dispassionately and without prejudice.
Really? If so, I find it humorous that you see a contradiction where none exists. The fact that something is extremely rare yet has been found, does not in any way present a contradiction of any description. That you think it does says a great deal about your ability, or rather, your willingness to look at the evidence dispassionately and without prejudice.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.