Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News2 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.
I have asked many of the popular Qs as disprove of the bible.... how did the kangaroos get to Noah's ark, what of the fossils that proof life existed hundreds of millions of years ago etc. and the usual answer is that God put the dino bones there to make us wonder. You can't argue with that logic, a bit like answering a toddler who asks 'why?'
I have no problem with theists, as long as their believe does not impair my enjoyment of life, which most of them do. Beside the obvious bible bashers and ridiculous imaginative friend worship, the fact that they enjoy many financial benefits such as tax relief really gets on my goat.
I have no problem with theists, as long as their believe does not impair my enjoyment of life, which most of them do. Beside the obvious bible bashers and ridiculous imaginative friend worship, the fact that they enjoy many financial benefits such as tax relief really gets on my goat.
The reason that theists deny evolution is that it completely and utterly destroys their belief in the mumbo jumbo that forms the basis of their religion. I have a colleague that still thinks the earth is 6000 years old, despite visiting the Grand Canyon a couple of years ago !
So they ignore the facts that are inconvenient to them....its a simple as that.
So they ignore the facts that are inconvenient to them....its a simple as that.
It would provide more benefit for the non-theististic side of the argument if the providers of long and generally boring references were read and understood by the provider… such as this key and repetitious statement from the above provided references:
2.0 Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.
The article then extends for pages and pages and contains differences, mostly major, in explaining how definitions of speciation are accepted or denied throughout the scientific community. This included subparagraph is important:
2.5 Why This is Included
What is all of this doing in a discussion of observed instances of speciation? What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. The biological species concept has been very successful as a theoretical model for explaining species differences among vertebrates and some groups of arthropods. This can lead us to glibly assert its universal applicability, despite its irrelevance to many groups. When we examine putative speciation events, we need to ask the question, which species definition is the most reasonable for this group of organisms? In many cases it will be the biological definition. In many other cases some other definition will be more appropriate.
3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?
In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.
Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.
Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.
Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs.
2.0 Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.
The article then extends for pages and pages and contains differences, mostly major, in explaining how definitions of speciation are accepted or denied throughout the scientific community. This included subparagraph is important:
2.5 Why This is Included
What is all of this doing in a discussion of observed instances of speciation? What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts. The biological species concept has been very successful as a theoretical model for explaining species differences among vertebrates and some groups of arthropods. This can lead us to glibly assert its universal applicability, despite its irrelevance to many groups. When we examine putative speciation events, we need to ask the question, which species definition is the most reasonable for this group of organisms? In many cases it will be the biological definition. In many other cases some other definition will be more appropriate.
3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?
In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.
Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.
Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.
Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs.
The incoherence concerning definitions of species cannot be minimized; whether discussing it only within the scientific community or in comparison to scientific creationism (yes, it does exist).
It's instructive to understand even Darwin's views on the subject. I'll try to be brief:
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.
This problem dates as early as to the writings of Charles Darwin. While Darwin wrote the following in On the Origin of Species, Chapter II:
"No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation."
He readdressed the question in The Descent of Man, specifically discussing the "question whether mankind consists of one or several species," where he revised his opinion, writing:
"It is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation."
Sources: Hanage, William P. (April 2013). "Fuzzy species revisited"
Wilkins, John (2010-10-20). "How many species concepts are there?". London: The Guardian.
"Darwin 1859 p. 59". Darwin-online.org.uk.
It's instructive to understand even Darwin's views on the subject. I'll try to be brief:
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.
This problem dates as early as to the writings of Charles Darwin. While Darwin wrote the following in On the Origin of Species, Chapter II:
"No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation."
He readdressed the question in The Descent of Man, specifically discussing the "question whether mankind consists of one or several species," where he revised his opinion, writing:
"It is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation."
Sources: Hanage, William P. (April 2013). "Fuzzy species revisited"
Wilkins, John (2010-10-20). "How many species concepts are there?". London: The Guardian.
"Darwin 1859 p. 59". Darwin-online.org.uk.
Clanad -
Wait a minute. I was forgetting one of my other posts. It was about the psychological condition known as "projection". In response to another theist (Theland) who also thinks that evolution is nonsense, I posted the following quote from Wikipedia:
"... [those suffering from the condition] defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."
It would appear that you too are suffering from this condition known as "projection". You cut and paste a very long non-answer and then falsely accuse me of doing something similar. Astonishing really. I'm always being informed by the theists on here and in the real world that having faith compels one to be honest and decent. On the strength of your false accusation, I would beg to differ.
Wait a minute. I was forgetting one of my other posts. It was about the psychological condition known as "projection". In response to another theist (Theland) who also thinks that evolution is nonsense, I posted the following quote from Wikipedia:
"... [those suffering from the condition] defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."
It would appear that you too are suffering from this condition known as "projection". You cut and paste a very long non-answer and then falsely accuse me of doing something similar. Astonishing really. I'm always being informed by the theists on here and in the real world that having faith compels one to be honest and decent. On the strength of your false accusation, I would beg to differ.
As usual, when engaging any of the Gang of 8 (or 10 or 12) one expects no answers but only counter questions and put downs… so be it.
Birdie's second opening paragraph is included in a posting on AnswerBank date June 22, 2015, but it's not now available for some reason…
The long quote I used in my original answer comes directly from one of the links provided by Birdie… the point of which is that it's an excellent discussion on the state of disarray in the biological community concerning what is and is not acceptable in defining taxonomic structure especially as applied to species definitions.
It seems logical to me that if one cannot adequately define "species" then one cannot further define the when, where and how of evolution.
There are facts concerning evolution, such as changes over time and response to outside influences, including DNA revisions… no doubt. However, this only affects rather limited changes in micro populations as also discussed in the Talk Origins links, if anyone cares to follow Birdie's guidance into "Why Don't (Some) Theists (or Non-Theists) Educate Themselves About Evolution?"
There's mounds of evidence as to why certain aspects of evolutionary theory is less than settled science…
Mikey, clarity and brevity are, in this case, defined by the links provided by the original questioner.
And… no Old G… you may claim fuzziness, but until both the tortoise and chimp are assigned to specific and undeniable species how can any other questions concerning their ancestor(s) be adequately discussed?
As I've already included, Darwin, himself asked, concerning the numbers of species applicable to Sapiens "..."It is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation."
Birdie, thanks for the meaningless but albeit, artful discussion of "projection".. Neat non engagement… and no, I am not a 'young earth' creationist… however, how does that answer address the fact that you haven't apparently, read the content of your own links?
Birdie's second opening paragraph is included in a posting on AnswerBank date June 22, 2015, but it's not now available for some reason…
The long quote I used in my original answer comes directly from one of the links provided by Birdie… the point of which is that it's an excellent discussion on the state of disarray in the biological community concerning what is and is not acceptable in defining taxonomic structure especially as applied to species definitions.
It seems logical to me that if one cannot adequately define "species" then one cannot further define the when, where and how of evolution.
There are facts concerning evolution, such as changes over time and response to outside influences, including DNA revisions… no doubt. However, this only affects rather limited changes in micro populations as also discussed in the Talk Origins links, if anyone cares to follow Birdie's guidance into "Why Don't (Some) Theists (or Non-Theists) Educate Themselves About Evolution?"
There's mounds of evidence as to why certain aspects of evolutionary theory is less than settled science…
Mikey, clarity and brevity are, in this case, defined by the links provided by the original questioner.
And… no Old G… you may claim fuzziness, but until both the tortoise and chimp are assigned to specific and undeniable species how can any other questions concerning their ancestor(s) be adequately discussed?
As I've already included, Darwin, himself asked, concerning the numbers of species applicable to Sapiens "..."It is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation."
Birdie, thanks for the meaningless but albeit, artful discussion of "projection".. Neat non engagement… and no, I am not a 'young earth' creationist… however, how does that answer address the fact that you haven't apparently, read the content of your own links?
I feel that one of the main reasons by theists that they do not understand evolution is that they fail to accept that the natural evolution of each species is a slow and gradual process, not an sudden event in that.... Hey, presto, now we have rabbits.
We have seen some surprisingly quick adaptations in evolutionary terms but this is always the result human interference. Another point is that 'breeds' of domesticated animals is not natural evolution, merely selective breeding promoting specific traits of the slight difference in each and every animal.
We have seen some surprisingly quick adaptations in evolutionary terms but this is always the result human interference. Another point is that 'breeds' of domesticated animals is not natural evolution, merely selective breeding promoting specific traits of the slight difference in each and every animal.
@clanad. Perhaps you might prefer to read some scientific opinions on the Cambrian 'explosion'. The rapid rise and decline of species is distributed throughout the last 1.2b years of Earth's existence, probably due to violent earthquakes which built most of the mountains. Many natural ice ages and global warmings have forced Evolution's hand on many occasions.
https:/
There is much misleading propaganda about ancient life, and in particular the dinosaurs. How often do we see an image or indeed animation of a Tyrannosaurus Rex attacking a Stegosaurus? The fact is that the T.Rex only evolved some 80mill years after the Stegosaurus so they would have never met.
https:/
There is much misleading propaganda about ancient life, and in particular the dinosaurs. How often do we see an image or indeed animation of a Tyrannosaurus Rex attacking a Stegosaurus? The fact is that the T.Rex only evolved some 80mill years after the Stegosaurus so they would have never met.
Latest Posts
Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News3 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
News11 mins ago
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.