Since its conception, this site has hosted several heated discussions on evolution and creationism. Unfortunately due to the fundamental differences in each camp, I feel that the creationists truly don’t understand Evolution nor do they appreciate the vast amount of human intellect and scrutiny that has been poured over it.
My goal with this article is not to humiliate creationists for their beliefs, but rather to educate them with respects to evolution. With countless evolutionary resources online, it is intimidating for the inexperienced to get started. This is where you guys come in. I want you to help build a solid reference on what evolution is and more importantly what evolution is not. There are many misconceptions about evolution that I think need clearing up.
Another aspect I’d like to tackle is some of the typical arguments that creationists use. One that comes to mind is the human eye. Creationists have long declared that the human eye is just too complex to have come about randomly. Well there are actually two problems with that statement. The first is that evolution can’t evolve complicated structures. The second problem is that creationists see evolution as random acts where things just magically happen.
I’d like everyone here to list the common misconceptions about evolution and the truths behind them.
If anyone else has thoughts on what should be covered here please share’em with us. My goal is to make this a permanent post that will serve as a resource for future debates.
I’ll start us off with this great resource for evolution. It’s heavy on videos, slides, and interactive exercises. Check out this short clip on the evolution of the eye and see how nature could be the greatest “designer” of all :)
Related posts:
- Evolution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evolution!
- Intelligent Design Is Apparent?
- Evolution — South Park Style
- Lord Spanky Speaketh Of Creation And Evolution
- Evolution Vs Creationism - Simpsons Style
March 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Talk Origins’ Index of Creationist Claims shoots down every creationist claim current in existence. That’s a good place to start http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
March 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
By arguing with the creationists you give there arguments substance. You cannot win a debate with someone so ignorant and closed minded. The best strategy would be to undermine there arguments not by structured debate but by ignoring them like spoilt children and if for example some legislation promoting it was raised then to deride those responsible for those idiocy. There can be no rational debate with the irrational.
I would however draw the exception at children as there minds may still not be closed to new ideas. An extensive campaign against parents that indoctrinate anything apart from rational thought in there children would be a good way of spending money if it were donated to such a cause (I understand fundamentalist Christians donate money in large amounts to argue creationism - so why not those who wish to ensure that humanity doesn’t go into the cess pit donate money for some kind of a posing advertising campaign?).
March 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I always think the EvoWiki is a great resource:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
But I’m getting the awful feeling the site isn’t being maintained anymore.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I agree with Kipman. Although I do it entirely too much, arguing with supernaturalists is a lost cause. As Thomas Paine once said, “To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”
To argue with Creationists is to give their “theory” equal footing with everything we know about biology. The only time Creationism should be confronted is when they are trying to force their pseudo-science into public schools. Then, you ask them to put up or shut up. If they can’t test “God dunnit” in a science lab, then it ain’t science.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I have to admit that arguing with those who use dogma not reason as the basis of there proposistions is a waste. It’s like arguing against the Flying Spaghetti monster. We all know it’s crap, but none of us can prove. Likewise we all know god is crap, but it’s impossible to disprove his existence as he can’t be measured.
However, there are those whose minds are not totally closed to reason and maybe we can help them see things more clearly. I think some of the fundies who come to this site to berate us for our lack of faith could possibly be fighting with their faith, but not yet ready to renounce it. If we can help one of them, that would be cool.
Anyway, Evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment. It easily explains the eye or whatever you chosen thing is. It does it through gradual “evolution” from simple to complex over time periods that are so great that you only need a small change every so often. It’s not random, because natural selection picks traits that are most suited to a given time and environment. But you already know this.
Have a great one. I’m still spinning over the discussion I had yesterday with Mohamed over his namesake being a paedophile. He doesn’t think that’s bad. I’m not talking about back in the prophets time, but now. He thinks it’s ok for a middle aged man to get engaged to a 6 year old girl and have sex with her at 9. Which in all civilized countries is most definetely rape. And Mohamed sees himself as enlightned.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I gotta tell you Skids,
My buddy was married and living together with two young-ish women for like 2 years in an open poligamous relationship. Not the same as Muslims mind you; but I gotta say, anyone who can deal with mutiple wives has to either be more enlightened or talented than you or I. Then again, maybe if the women are submissive enough, they don’t have emotions or opinions like western women?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the response thus far. There are many religious people who would be interested in discussing evolution if they had some knowledge of it. Many avoid the topic because they lack that knowledge and feel embarrassed when it shows.
So before you all count out our religious friends give them a chance… you might be surprised.
gasmonso
March 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
gasmonso: “So before you all count out our religious friends give them a chance… you might be surprised.”
Sorry dude. If they want to discuss it without jamming dogma down my throat. I’ll happily do it ’till the cows come home. I’m all for discussion. Just not interested at the moment with refutting sky fairies.
Shaze: “Then again, maybe if the women are submissive enough, they don’t have emotions or opinions like western women?”
I think you said it brilliantly yesterday dude when you said it’s up to the women of those countries to rise up. Problem is, if they don’t know they have the choice or their real fear of violence is so great, it would take people far braver than I to stand up for equality.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the response thus far.”
I think I could get something up, but I’ve been too busy. Hell, I come here today and there’s what looks like a verbal atom bomb in the last thread. When I get a chance, though. I think this is important, because we need to be civil. Being civil might not convince those that want to yell at the top of their lungs that they’re right and we’re wrong or get them to even consider, but they’re not the point. It’s about people who are willing to listen to what evolution is and is not, even if they don’t agree. Otherwise it really is pointless.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Snurp: “It’s about people who are willing to listen to what evolution is and is not, even if they don’t agree. Otherwise it really is pointless.”
I’ll second that. As for the verbal atom bomb. I know I was most definetely involved in that there. Maybe I’m a bit emotional but if somethink looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I’ll call it a duck.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed in the response thus far.”
Sorry… I always forget that the readers exist to please the site owner. Probably people are tired of this discussion.
But seriously gas, maybe the lackluster response is because this work is already done? (links to references already posted) Why replicate the effort? Just so references in discussions here can be local links?
March 27th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hi Gasmonso,
I disagree with Slunk - I think you are on to something. What is already written about evolution is usually highbrow and mainly preaches to the choir… and while we will never enlighten the zealots, we CAN enlighten the fence-sitting and rational religious moderates who the zealots hide behind if we can give them something that is easier to digest.
I think a lot of people lean towards creationism because of the single misconception that evolution is something “random”.
It beggers imagination to think that living things could fall together “by chance” - and so evolution seems ridiculously counter-intuitive, just like the FSM.
I think step 1 should be to address this - move the discussion away from mutation and towards selection.
Point out that NATURE seperates “the wheat from the chaff” - no jealous sky fairy requried.
Focus on lots of common real life examples of who *doesn’t* get to have grand-kids and why. Explain that Natural Selection is just the law of the jungle - it’s not magically selecting who lives, rather it is reliably and ruthlessly selecting who dies - or who never gets a date. Once you understand that, evolution becomes obvious.
“Evolution” is not an actual thing - rather it is the side-effect of two other things, “inheritable variation” and “natural selection”. It is much easier to make the point about these seperately.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I think one of the problems is believers have had it instilled in them that they are part of god’s great plan. That their piddling life matters in the great scheme of things. So, when it’s explained that their existence is just the end result of gradual, ruthless selection, they baulk at the idea.
But to paraphrase Mark Twain when he saw the Eiffel Tower, such a great structure was created for the smallest speck of paint on the top. That’s how believers see it. The whole vast, unknown universe was created with themselves as the apex.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
@Skids
If someone has an emotional reason to not let go of creationism, then they are not going to let go except for another emotional reason, e.g. avoiding ridicule, or conversely seeking something they want, like a decent education and job.
Some people however aren’t that emotionally attached one way or the other to creationism or evolution, but just dismiss evolution because they have a lot of trouble getting their head around the subtlety of it all. Remember that as many as 50% of Americans are below average intelligence!!! ;-)
I think this site already has the ridicule bit covered quite nicely, what I think is missing from teh intrawebs however is a clear and *simple* intro to evolution for those who have tripped up on comprehending that is deliberate and systematic, not random.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I’m not sure the basis of evolution is that subtle. To me it seems quite simple and straight forward.
No creatures (excepting identical siblings) are alike.
These differences can be to our advantage or disadvantage given the current environment.
Your chances of surviving and having healthy young are enhanced by having differences that give you advantage.
That is simplified, but I think it gets the general idea. And I resisted the temptation to bite at your 50% of Americans comment. See! No ridicule.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Oh, I forgot, we don’t live in a natural environment, so we have sort of taken a lot of selective pressure off ourselves. Just in case anyone says “buy why don’t people who get haemophilia die then?”
March 27th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Yeah - I know, it’s straightforward - I don’t know how people don’t get that, but somehow they don’t. I reckon to get it across it often takes repetitive, simple examples.
As for taking off selective pressure… aren’t selected not just for survival, but also for reproductive success (which surviving happens to be rather important to!!)? Doesn’t modern living seem to help more survive, but reproduce less, so from an an evolution standpoint it might even be that we face much more severe selection pressure - e.g. remembering to have kids?
P.S. no offence intended with the 50% comment - it was a statistics joke!
March 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Hold on skids, I didn’t say that’s moral that old guy to have relationship with with 9 years old, but I’m talking about now, then it was something ok from girl physical stand point and from enviroment, and I said she never complained about him, on contrary she loved him so much and a lot of stories proved that, and I showe also it was done for the good of Islam, since she memorized 2000 quote of our prophet, so please don’t assume or try to put words in my mouth, I hope I made my self clear.
Gasonmo,
Evolution never made sense to me , and it will never. There something to be created to in oreder for us to exist, Big bang and the other fairy tales don’t make any sense, just stupid assumption has doesn’t even make sense.
again and again, you theories assumed that we came her by chance, and talking statistics, it needs trillions of accidents to happen for human being to exist, which I don’t know where is these accidents would come from.
Humane-being created as a man and woman, and when they make love they get childern, count to me how many accidents has to happen for first man to exist, and then for a woman to exist, or may be it started with a man and then he was so smart and he colone him self and then by accident the colone was a woman(I got new theory), I think that would better than Darwin theory LOL.
And don’t forget about the rest of uncountless species, and how they perfectly created.
If you look deep enough there is one answer for creation, is a GOD.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Mohamed: “I didn’t say that’s moral that old guy to have relationship with with 9 years old, but I’m talking about now, then it was something ok from girl physical stand point and from enviroment, and I said she never complained about him, on contrary she loved him so much and a lot of stories proved that”
So you do concede that the prophet was amoral. You say that’s mitigated by the fact that this 9 year old was physically mature and didn’t complain, but actually praised him? The fact that she was or wasn’t physically mature is of no consequence, as is her putative like of her situtation. It’s up to the adult to act like an adult not a child to say it’s ok.
As for your characterization of evolution as a fairy tale. That’s your religion making you call something that has been thought out well, with countless examples the opposite of what it is. Do you actually understand the slightest bit about evolution?
If god created man so perfect, why does he have an appendix. Evolution explains that easily enougth. How does your amoral prophet?
P.S. Recovered Catholic, I got the joke, just thought I’d tack on my bit ;)
March 28th, 2007 at 12:57 am
As I said before, i Beleive in evolution to certain limit, evolution happens but not far to explain how the human being created, for appendix, that’s the part that I agree with evolution on, but not further than that evolution is just tool helps species to exist and go on.
I studied evolution and I know about, I’m not that deep though, but there is no way that would creat human being.
The other thing I would assume that you are an expert in evolution, would you explain how the evolution said about man and woman and how they got differnt part, and the man exist first how long it took for him to have a woman, and he didn’t died before evolution produced another woman.
Please consider me stupid or ignorant, just answer this question.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Mohamed: “The other thing I would assume that you are an expert in evolution, would you explain how the evolution said about man and woman and how they got differnt part, and the man exist first how long it took for him to have a woman, and he didn’t died before evolution produced another woman.”
I’m not an expert, just an interseted amateur. How did men and women get their different parts? Sexual dimorphism? The same way all species that exhibit differences between the genders I suppose.
Man didn’t first exist without females. That’s religious dogma. There was no Adam and Eve. There was no first man who waited around for a woman to appear. People are just the current stage of evolution. Go back in time and we would look different, we would have different features, be more like our anscestors we shared with the apes. We would still have male and female pre-humans. All the way back to the point where sexual reproduction gained the creature an advantage over asexuel reproduction.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am
“I’m not an expert, just an interseted amateur. How did men and women get their different parts? Sexual dimorphism? The same way all species that exhibit differences between the genders I suppose”
You still didn’t answer my question, so how the Apes existed and apply the same question, how they got the gender, and if you are not an expert, please some expert or evolution god(lol) tells me please.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:23 am
As I said we evolved from an ape like anscestor, this in turn evolved from a previous anscestor. You can go back until the first living organism.
Gender, as I tried to explain above evolved when it proved advantageous to survival. Sexual reproduction allows a greater mixing of genes which allows better opportunites for surving changes in the environment.
What you now see as massive differences is just the end result of slow evolution from creatures that had no sex to male and female. One thing you don’t understand is that we don’t have all the steps. So there may not be a fossil of the first male/female creatures. But that only proves we don’t have that step. It doesn’t mean there’s a god.
This might fry your mind: You do know that all men, start off life as women? Long before you were born, you were female. You male organs are actually the clitoris and ovaries, that have descended to the surface during your early life. This change is caused by hormones, and is well understood.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:27 am
My question will be simple this time. who created the first living oragnism?
March 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Here’s a link for you that may answer better than I.
Evolution of the sexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
March 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
The first organism is simple. The conditions were such in that time that life could spring from the available chemicals. This may seem near impossible, but it only had to happen once. And it makes a lot more sense than a creator or god. Also the proof that it happened is that we are here.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Here’s a link that might help, then again it is wikipedia and probably has some evolution hating guy putting in his dogma inspired stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisms#History_of_life
March 28th, 2007 at 1:32 am
No comment.
At least I can tell you one thing, I have explanation for my question wihch leads to it’s a God with out rfering you to a link.
Mostly when people don’t have answeres they direct me to Wikipedia.
I don’t all of these nonsense research and all of these fairy tales, that it’s not even proven scientifically, it’s all based on theories.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:32 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
March 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
“hat it’s not even proven scientifically, it’s all based on theories.”
You obviously don’t understand science or how it works. Theories aren’t stories, or guesses, they’re explanations based on empirical evidence. The can’t be proven, only disproven. As I said before, we don’t have all the answers, we haven’t explained everything. Maybe we never will. But an imaginar sky fairy called god doesn’t help.
“At least I can tell you one thing, I have explanation for my question wihch leads to it’s a God with out rfering you to a link.”
Since you love proof so much, prove to me that god exists. Or show me how I can prove he doesn’t exist. Until you can do that, you are not using your mind.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Or should I say, you’re not using you mind to reason, just using it to repeat illogical dogma.
I gotta go Mohamed. Thanks for the discussion. I like you, just not your ideas. Have a good one.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I like you too man, but it’s the same for your ideas, i don’t agree with it, at least you are civilized.
Thanks
March 28th, 2007 at 3:09 am
You foolz! Don’t you see that peanut butter too disproves evolution??
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/peanut_butter_a.html
;)
March 28th, 2007 at 4:19 am
What happened Mohamed? You didn’t prove the existence god or give me a method to disprove his existence! You seemed so sure that he existed. Bummer hey?
;-)
March 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am
If the evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to becomer a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists today can make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available. They should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence for evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build the cell, from scratch, eg. the raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over.
JIM
March 28th, 2007 at 7:37 am
I didn’t see any of these mentioned so I’ll throw it in here. I apologize if all of this has already been addressed here.
Misconceptions of Evolution:
1. The THEORY of evolution.
This is a big one. Many people think the word theory here means it’s up in the air. The word “theory” in the science community is more like a saying “world view”. It’s the way we put all the facts and laws together and understand them. Other theories are quantum, germ, and relativity. All of which most people believe. Evolution is in no way up in the air.
2. the Big Bang
The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Many people put a whole series of supposed events, (big bang, stars, creation of solar system, creation of earth/moon, first life on earth and then evolution) together. These are all separate events in the scientific community. Some are more solid than others. evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the first life on this planet even. It takes over shortly afterward. All evolution says is that we all have common ancestors and that we diverge from there. Honestly, I’ve heard young earth creationists even say this. They just think it happened much more recently.
3. Chance
There is very little chance in evolution. Animals pick and choose who to mate with, and nature itself weeds out the weak. There is supposed chance in many of the other previously mentioned theories however. I’m married and have two kids. I choose who to mate with because of A). she was alive (low standards here :) ) and B). I found her to be someone I’d want to spend my life with.
Those are the three big ones.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:50 am
The thing I don’t understand about ID/Creationism, is where did the creator come from? Was there an earlier creator who created the creator who created us, or did the creator always exist?
MaxieZ: The reason the Big Bang is related to evolution is that it is the beginning of the clock. Before the BB there was no life, so we know with absolute certainty that all evolution has taken place since the BB.
Chance has plenty to do with evolution. By knowing the probability that a mutation will take place, we can judge how often we expect to see a mutation. We just don’t know how often those mutations can be expected to provide an advantage over the non-mutated.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
“Evolution never made sense to me , and it will never. There something to be created to in oreder for us to exist, Big bang and the other fairy tales don’t make any sense, just stupid assumption has doesn’t even make sense.”
Incorrect matter can spring into exsistance due to quantum effects. I’m sorry I lack the physics books on my person to explain it, but go look it up. Infcat if you had an empty universe and all eternity a big bang event would be a certianty no matter how low the probobility.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Skid,
God put proofs every where, it only takes reasonable person to find it, we got a lot of prohets that told us he existed, and they made a lot of miracles by god’s willing, so we have proofs for that.
What do you have to prove the evolution, nothing, just punch of retard ideas doesn’t qualify to even make a story, the funny thing that people who beleives in evolution as therory for existing think they are smart, and they are so fool if they look close enough.
God challanged people in quran to create an ant(which is so small and it’s not as comlicated as human being).
Can you do that, not even that I will lower it to you as Jim says before, create a simple cell, nothing more.
It’s not going to happen for sure because you can get all the ingredient, but where are you going to get the life for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skid,
You choked when I asked you how create the first life organism, so what do you want to say, you are going to direct me a Wikipedia link.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Jim says
“If the evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell. “
While the Origin of Life is very different form the Origin of Species and a very different theory, you are in luck, chemists have done just what you wanted to have done.
Sidney Fox (and many others) has been a big researching in this department and has created in the lab from “raw materials” protocells that show the abilities to 1) metabolize, 2) grow, 3) reproduce, 4) respond to stimuli, and 5) some forms of inheritance. All of the basic requirements of life created in the lab from not only “raw materials”, but “raw materials” that may well have existed in ancient pre-life Earth.
List of articles from Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fox+origin+of+life+protocells&hl=en&lr=
The second point Jim, is that there is no such thing as “chance chemical reactions.” Chemistry is very deterministic, the exact opposite of random. You mix some chemicals together under certain conditions you get certain yields of very specific products. This is basic chemistry.
I accept evolution not because any “source” says so, but because I have studied the evidence and found it overwhelming. The origins of life, I don’t have nearly the confidence about, but this is to be expected. We are talking about a singular event that happened billions of years ago (the origins of life) vs. an event that has happened over and over and over for billions of years and left a huge pattern of evidence for us to study (the origins of species).
What is pitiful and not humorous is that otherwise intelligent people continue to form opinions upon subjects they know very little about, and seem to do so with much authority for some reason, and ask for things that have already been accomplished.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
There you go as well mohamed, the creation of a primitive simple cell in the lab by scientists using raw materials. I doubt that will change your opinion of anything as dogmatic views of reality are oblvious to real evidence.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“Build the cell, from scratch, eg. the raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over.”
Ummm… Even if we were able to build the simplest of cells from scratch, it wouldn’t prove a thing, about how nature did created the first cell. We know exactly what lighting is and where it comes from, but that doesn’t mean we can make it happen (yet). This doesn’t prove that god makes lighting bolts when hes angry.
It took a very long time for the first cell to evolve from collections of self replicating chemicals. Cells weren’t the first building blocks of life to pop into existence.
“Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available. They should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence for evolution for THEMSELVES.”
The main reason people believe evolution is because it makes sense. The reason you don’t believe it is because you don’t understand it, and you’re religious. You didn’t say anything religious in your argument, but I know you’re religious because the only reason people don’t believe evolution is that it contradicts religious doctrine.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
This is not really related to the issue but why do people have such distrust and hatred of wikipedia?
Of evolution, I am very bad at teaching even the most basic things to people but to me evolution is truth as we know it at this moment. It might change and I have nothing against that.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Here is another set of articles to preview at your leisure detailing the abilities of these lab created protocells:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11542056
Everything from metabolism to the formation of the all too critical ATP and even selective formation of peptide chains.
Abstract of article discussing how alive these are and answering the critics saying they are only 50-75% alive because they lack “genetic” coding for inheritance.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am
oops last link was left off,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1891592&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum
March 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hello gasmonso,
I have a few misconceptions about evolution that I’d like to be able to reference easily.
Misconception 1: Evolution cannot explain where life came from in the first place.
Actually, this is not a misconception, evolution does not explain the origin of life. The misconception really is that evolution should be able to explain abiogenesis (the creation of life from nonliving things). Abiogenesis is a completely different topic. Evolution only address how species change over time, not how life came to be in the first place. That’s a pretty big gap that God can still fill ;)
Misconception 2: Micro-evolution had been demonstrated, but macro-evolution has not.
Micro evolution inevitable leads to micro evolution. In other words, micro and macro evolution are not separate processes that need separate validation, but different manifestations of the same underlying processes.
Misconception 3: Evolution is random and is so unlikely to produce complex things as to be impossible.
Evolution has two primary components, genetic mutation and natural selection. While mutations are random, natural selection is anything but random. If you have two nearly identical animals, say deer for example, but due to a random mutation, one is slower than the other. Now a predator is chasing them. Which one will survive is not a random 50/50, but strongly in favor of the animal without the mutation. Thus the faster gene is non-randomly and naturally selected for.
Those are three big misconceptions that I often encounter.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
sidfaiwu, well stated, i’d add that evolution is more than just how species change but how new species originate and by extension how existing species go extinct.
I’m always amused about the accusations that evolution is a “random process” and the odds are too great. I always say, “Natural selection is a SELECTIVE process, and a selective process is the exact opposite of a random process.”
No one thinks that when a horticulturalists selects certain variants from a population to breed to create a certain kind of rose as random. Its so damn obvious that the process is selective. The only thing that has changed is what/who is doing the selection, human vs. nature.
I’d also add that nature is a much more efficient selective agent than man has ever been. Think about it. Nature selects on every possible trait, down to even microscopic or biochemical traits, any trait that has an impact on survivability and creates an advantage/disadvantage. Man on the other hand only selects on a few highly visible or desirable traits, the color and size of the flower or fruit for instance.
Man also has only been doing active selective processes for barely 10,000 years, but yet has been able to create things as different as cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, and cauliflower all from the same wild ancestor or change corn so dramatically you would not know it from its wild ancestor.
When people try to discount the power of natural selection to create great diversity I always have to just shake my head in amazement. Do they not understand the basics of what a selective process can do on a population of variants?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I agree that’s its almost impossible discussing evolution with creationists. I do semi-sympathize with part of their view…it IS amazing how we function and what makes us work as we grow and learn, etc. Nature is fucking amazing. But to think it’s as easy to be just created by something more intelligent is just ridiculous. Evolution is also pretty fucking amazing. Theists who at least accept science get more respect.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
eriday:
I understand that, but my point is the validity of evolution has nothing to do with how the universe started. Granted there has to be a universe and a planet for it to have happened on earth. However, there are alternatives to the big bang. No matter how that part happened doesn’t matter. You could also say that a creator did everything up to kicking off life and we could still have evolution being self guided.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Mohamed: “God put proofs every where, it only takes reasonable person to find it, we got a lot of prohets that told us he existed, and they made a lot of miracles by god’s willing, so we have proofs for that.”
So in other words, you have no proofs other than the word of amoral (and you agreed yesterday that the profhet Mohamed was amoral) that you read about in a book as proof that this god exists. Lovely circular logic. I have a book that exists, this book says it’s god’s work, therefore god exists. It’s called begging the question Mohamed. It’s sad you sink so low.
As for the creation of life, which isn’t evolution. Read above. As they’ve said all that is needed is the right chemicals. Scientists have done experimental stuff in labs, etc which show it can happen. But even if it they couldn’t. It doesn’t mean your book, written by your amoral prophet is fact. We know that the Quran is full of fallacies and contradicts itself. It only works if you believe there is a god. Of which you have no proof. You can’t provide proof.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
This is going to be a long post. I think I can answer some of the questions that arose here.
About evolution in general I would like to point out that we shall evade talking about “nature” doing the selection, etc. since there is no plan and hardly a direction in evolution. Things simply happen and prove to be beneficial for survival and/or reproduction afterwards. So prey animals don’t evolve into running faster in order to escape their predators. They simply do, for no reason. In the end, of course, the faster ones survive, seemingly giving the development a direction, but only in retrospective.
About the artificial cell: In case you do not know it, I’ll introduce you to Escherichia coli. It is a bacterium that lives in our intestine, is very important for our existence and has thus been studied in detail. It is one of those organisms whose genome is completely decoded and is generally seen as the best resarched organism in science. But even this stupid single-cell organism contains hundreds of proteins of which the function is unknown. To answer the question: The production of a living cell is not yet possible, let alone a multi-cell organism, since cells are by no means simple. I’m leaving out the protocells that have been mentioned in earlier comments, since they are more primitive than the most simple life forms today. However, all that needs to be done is further resarch. It is foreseeable that the artificial production of cells will one day be possible (although I see little use in this, since natural reproduction does the job easier).
How did life evolve on earth? Look up the Miller-Urey experiment (in a serious science book if you don’t like Wikipedia). What these guys did was a simulation of earth’s early atmosphere, containing only basic inorganic compounds. The water was heated and further energy was led into the system via electrical sparks (simulation of lightning). After a week, organic compounds were found in the flask, about half of the amino acids that make up our current pool of amino acids today. The protocell experiments show that amino acids can be self-sequencing. Long chains of amino acids are called proteins. Arranged in the right order they can form complex bonds (a certian type of chemical bond) with metals and other organic molecules, which makes them biological catalysts, called enzymes. So much for the origin of enzymes.
So where did DNA come from? Actually, DNA has a mother that is called RNA. RNA looks similar (if the molecule is drawn on a sheet) but is less stable and does not form double strains like DNA. However, it is more versatile in its functions. RNA not only carries genetic information (today, mainly DNA is used for information storage, being more stable [evolution, anyone?]) but can also perform tasks similar to enzymes. Anyway, the chemical difference between the two is rather small (a single hydroxy group that is in a certain place or not). They consist of a phosphate-sugar backbone and nucleic bases, the latter forming the genetic code through their sequence.
Sugars are simple organic molecules that can form spontaneously. No source on that, but my chemical knowledge tells me so. Phosphoric acid is one of the most basic inorganic compounds and phosphates (the salts of this acid) are the most common form of the element phosphorous on earth. In an aquaeous solution, phosphates can and will form esters with organic hydroxides (alcohols and sugars). So the formation of the RNA backbone is quite likely.
Adenine (one of the five nucleic bases found in DNA and RNA) can be formed from hydrogen cyanide, also a very basic inorganic compound. A friend of mine has actually conducted such a reaction in a lab to produce adenine in order to produce another substance from adenine. The other nucleic bases can be formed in similar ways. Interesting about this is that some of the most important compounds of life stem from one of the most unhealthy compounds.
So there we are: Enzymes, DNA and RNA can be formed from basic inorganic compounds. But they’re not the only molecules that make a cell a cell. Extremely important is the cell membrane. It separates the inside from the outside, enabling the cell to maintain chemical conditions that differ from the equilibrium conditions on the outside. In fact, this is one of the basic rules of cell biology: Cells are never in thermodynamic equilibrium with their environment. If they are, they are dead. This gap in conditions enables the cell to use chemical potentials (such as pH differences) to convert energy. But that’s not the point here. The question I was going to answer is: Where does the membrane come from?
The cell membrane consists of a bilayer of phospholipides. A phospholipid is a fat molecule (glycerol triple esterified with fatty acids, all quite simple in structure and likely to form spontaneously) in which one of the fatty acids is exchanged with phosphate. They can be seen as cylindric molecules featuring a hydrophilic “head” and a hydrophobic “tail”. Similar to simple fatty acids and tensides (soap, simply put) you’ve probably been taught about in school, with one difference: The simplified form of a tenside is more cone-like, while phospholipides are cylindrical. If you solve soap in water you’ll notice that it turns turbid (maybe I’m using the wrong vocabulary here, I mean “no longer clear”). You have been told in school that this is due to the soap molecules sticking their hydrophobic tails together, forming a so-called micelle. Numerous micelles spread light and make the water turbid. Now, phospholipides are cylindrical rather than conical and thus form bilayers with their lipophilic tails in the middle and their hydrophilic heads on the outside. There is no magic involved: The bilayer is the thermodynamically optimal arrangement for phospholipids in an aquaeous solution. Essentially, this bilayer is a membrane. If it encloses a small space, it seals it from the outside conditions.
You see: Throw in the typical early earth atmosphere and some energy, give it some time (one billion years will do) and you get primitive cells.
So why did life evolve on earth, not somewhere else in the universe?
There are solar systems over solar systems with stars over stars with planets over planets in the universe (and there are theories [yes, only theories] that suggest that there are even universes over universes in some ten dimensions, but I’m not going to talk about that). There are certain conditions that need to be met to make life evolve as I described it: Liquid water, a certain composition of the planet’s atmosphere, not too much gravity to hinder the development, not too little gravity to make the planet keep hold of its atmosphere, et cetera. But with the vast number of planets on the universe, it would be a true wonder if life had not evolved on one of them. Now we are sitting on this rock and ask ourselves why we are here and not somewhere else. It’s like asking why you were born in country X instead of Y. It just had to happen somewhere.
What I find much more interesting is the following question: Why does anything exist instead of just nothing? To me, the aforementioned ten-dimensional theory helps a bit, but in fact, science can never explain this miracle (because if there are ten dimensions, why do they exist at all?). At this point it is up to everyone him/herself to decide what to believe. I for my part chose not to believe in a reason behind all this. I simply feel better this way. But I would not dare take someone’s faith away at this point.
All right. Questions answered and again it’s late when I should be sleeping. But I hope this explanation solves some miracles, while it leaves room for one that can never be solved. Miracles are cool, especially the miracle of existance, so enjoy!
March 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
So there you have it, atheist gives a dense (I mean in terms of needing more than a rudimentary understanding of the natural sciences) but logical explanation and Mohamed invokes the call to higher authority to demonstrate he has no idea.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Mohamed, I was just reading some of your quotes about your prophet. You say it is wrong to judge him by today’s standards. By the standards of his time, his murdering, stealing and marrying of children were normal. I don’t think that’s true. I think those acts would always be bad. But back to my point. You use him as an inspiration for people of today. But by your own word he is a terrible person by today’s standards. How can you say that he is a good person today, when you admit what he did is unacceptable? If he is a role model for today’s people, he has to be judged by todays standards.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:45 am
@skids
no doubt. once again, the whole point of, if ‘the prophets’ message was divine then wouldn’t it be as current today as it way back then? mind you, i am sure mohamed is going to come back with some dumbass statement on how we don’t understand the ME culture or how we didn’t study kuran (sp?) properly. its all f-ing bullshit if you ask me… hey mohamed, you are worhshiping a pedophile desert bandit! how does that feel?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am
atheist, gives quite a bit of detail on some specifics, but I would go well beyond the Miller-Urey experiements done back in the 1950’s. That would be a starting point at best. There is tons of new research done since then on this perplexing question of how life arose.
However atheist at the end said this that caught my eye
“At this point it is up to everyone him/herself to decide what to believe.”
Or how about just saying “I don’t know.” Isn’t this the most honest answer one can give when talking about things that we can’t really know and we “must decide to believe”? It’s my answer when someone asks me why does anything exist at all, which I agree completely with atheist, is a most amazing question and really fun to think about.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Also for a good read up on the subject, although a little dates (1998) now, I highly recommend Major Transitions in Evolution. The first 6 chapters of this book deal with the origins of life and reviews the research and problems done to that point. It also examines the competing hypothesis, the definition of life, and the requirements of life and possible avenues of how life could have evolved (note this is “chemical evolution” not “biological evolution”).
March 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Hello atheist,
Your comment is very good, but largely misplaced. A majority of your comment is dedicated to justifying abiogenesis (the genesis of life from non-biological materials), which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only explains how life forms change over time, not how they came to be in the first place.
I’m afraid your post just emboldens ID supporters misconception that the theory of evolution needs to explain abiogenesis to be a valid theory. The theory of evolution never claims to explain the origin of life on this planet. A separate theory, based on the experiment you mention might do the job.
The reason this misconception bugs me so much is that we don’t yet have a unified, well-supported theory of abiogenesis. Evolution is a unified, well-supported theory. Mistakenly associating it with the origin of life opens up a huge gap that creationists think they can use to refute the entire theory.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Hi sidfaiwu, I think atheist did write a good article, but probably covered more ground than necessary. As you will read above, I had an argument with Mohamed, who took the usual line that believers do, that is, if science can’t explain everything, then it must be god.
Ridiculous argument. I mean it may as well be the flying spaghetti monster. The great thing about science is we have to be humble and admit we don’t know it all, we don’t have all the steps yet, and may never. Believers site this as a weakness, and act as if having a jealous sky fairy covers all the steps and all is explained.
If jesus or mohamed knew it all, why didn’t they say people would one day look at a box that had moving images sent from another place to describe tv? or that we would find the bones of animals that lived millions of years before god got around to creating the earth?
Science has the humility to say it doesn’t know everything and change theories or throw them out from time to time. Religion still clings to the same mysoginistic dogma.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I’d just like to tack this on to the whole “Micro-macro” thing. Regardless of what you call the process, they are still handled by the same mechanic, genetic variation selected by environmental pressures. Saying that Micro-evolution happens but then saying that you doubt Macro-evolution is like saying that, depending on you definition of Macroevolution, that I can take steps but can never cross the street, or I can take steps towards the other side of the street but you doubt that I can propabilistically take the last step to finish the trip.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
sidfaiwu: You’re right, of course, that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories. I just felt like the topic needed some explanation. Some of the believers among our community seemed to be interested not only in evolution but also in the origin of life. Also, I hope the article was interesting for the pagans as well and gave them some arguments for future discussions.
Yet I think there is a connection in that the theory of evolution can be applied to abiogenesis: Thermodynamically speaking, life is a pretty odd state for matter. Life is a very ordered state (low entropy) but matter is driven towards an unordered state (high entropy). Naturally, any aggregate that is assembled simply by chance would disintegrate by chance as well. But once there were the first cells with mechanisms to persist and to procreate (also assembled by chance), they shifted the odds. That’s why there is a lot more life on earth today than would assemble in a dynamic equilibrium. I think it’s fair to call it (in principle) an evolutionary mechanism that those cells persisted that had the drive to do so hardwired in their genome.
I guess this paragraph also contributes to Jones’ post about the interconnection of micro and macro evolution. But keep in mind that sometimes scale does matter (keywords: quantum mechanics, nanotechnology).
Anyway, one theory being applicable to another one does not mean that the falsification of one would automatically falsify the other. Believers, please listen to sidfaiwu and me. Stop thinking the two theories were bundled! :)
March 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
@Skids:58
That is also known as “argument from ignorance” - if YOUR theory cannot explain just one thing, then some other theory which has no evidence at all must be correct.
I like this form, which I think is even more obvious:
@Mohamed:
OK, so I accept that evolving by accident is ridiculous - so are you happy now that we can we agree that the Vedas are correct, and what is written just below here in italics is true? If not can you please tell me why not?
Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’ A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:27 am
“Anyway, one theory being applicable to another one does not mean that the falsification of one would automatically falsify the other. Believers, please listen to sidfaiwu and me. Stop thinking the two theories were bundled! :)”
atheist, I myself am a Theist and consider “evolution” and the debate over the existance of God two seperate debates. Evolution is largely a non-issue to me in the debate over the existance of God. The problem is that many atheists try to make the point that because “evolution happened” that makes the existance of God impossible. Many mistakenly assume that “evolution” makes God dead. But many creationists also spend too much time worrying about evolution. I think it’s ignorance in general, on both sides, not only believers.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
@kale
i doubt many atheists, despite not believing in a god, will use evolution for such purposes. one thing is certain, genesis is garbage and theory of evolution can be used to demonstrate why the bible simply can not be the literal word of god…
i am really shocked that in the 21st century we are still having these kinds of debates anyways…
March 31st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Kale, I agree with you. I also think that none of the points that I laid out prove or disprove the existance of God. You probably recognised the smiley behind the text. I don’t really think a sentence like “please stop thinking this” will actually make people do so.
My aim is not to make believers loose their faith. If it is truly faith it doesn’t need proof. But I do argue with them about the way they live it. I can get along with them pretty well if religion doesn’t keep them from acting responsibly - contrary to many other posters here I think this is possible for religious folks as well. Boris explained it well: Taking Genesis literally is the problem.
And yes, there are ignorant atheists, too. Those that I encountered are mostly pubertal kids who need a reason for feeling superior to someone else.
Unbelievers, please listen to kale and me: Don’t try to use either the theory of evolution or the theory of abiogenesis as an argument against the existance of God! ;)
April 1st, 2007 at 1:55 am
“Boris explained it well: Taking Genesis literally is the problem.”
How can you not take Genesis, the first book of the Holy Bible, literally and still believe in God? I don’t think “God” gave Christian the right to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe to be true.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
@Kyle:65
Dude, it’s a self-validating fairytale. They can make shit up as they go along, so they do. I know how it works, I used to do it :-/
@Kale:62
Well said - evolution/creation and theism/atheism are seperate debates…. except that if you become convinced of either biblical litteralism, or alternatively, the “I know there is no god” type of atheism, then you don’t have the option of making up your mind on creation/evolution, only one option becomes possible.
Still, well said - for you, there is hope ;)
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
@Mohamed:
“God put proofs every where, it only takes reasonable person to find it, we got a lot of prohets that told us he existed, and they made a lot of miracles by god’s willing, so we have proofs for that.”
What I would really like to know, and no theist has ever been able to explain, is why miracles happened only when we had no way to record them properly, or even examine them. Why aren’t miracles happening anymore as soon as there is a prestidigitation expert (”magician”) or scientist in the room? I think it’s because either the sleight-of-hand doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, or it was all hearsay — with people embellishing the story and inventing with every retelling.
It should be so easy to come up with an obvious, irrefutable miracle proving God if it existed, but it never, never, never happens. It’s like someone bragging and claiming that they can beat any athlete in the world but never attempting it. One gets tired of the empty claims. Wake me up when there’s evidence or “proof” that can be admitted in court.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
@atheist:
“Unbelievers, please listen to kale and me: Don’t try to use either the theory of evolution or the theory of abiogenesis as an argument against the existance of God! ;)”
I’d like to note that as we’re discovering that God was not needed to explain this, that, and that over there, and this too, and so on, the realm of God is ever shrinking. So, in a way those theories and all of science are indirect arguments against God, whether or not it’s wise to use them as such. Attacking science makes sense from a religious point of view, as science diminishes the role of God. If it’s not evolution it will be another theory, and another, and so on. It’s been that way for a long time. After time, the theories get co-opted as a “tool of God” — I’ve heard evolution described that way.
I also note that God is shrinking in a reverse entropy kind of way: the more information we have, the less God there is, so God is akin to disorder and ignorance. Therefore ignorance is key to the strength of religions.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Hello NoReligionIsPeace,
I take a bit of exception to this. You are correct in general. Throughout history, what people believe is God’s direct role in the natural world has diminished throughout history as our knowledge increased. This still applies to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God and other versions of the Deity as well.
But serious theistic thinkers realized this during the enlightenment and decided that a ‘God of the gaps’ concept fails reason. Our increasing knowledge demonstrated our own ignorance of the nature of God. Thus, what they did was rethink the concept of God that admits our ignorance of It and the natural world. One can define God as the ultimate cause of everything. That is, God is why there is something rather than nothing.
What an adherent, such as myself, to this deistic God must remember, though, is that this is _all_ one can know about the nature of God. We must remain agnostic about all other properties of this being. It might be complex, like an intelligence, or It might be simple, like a singularity. It might have a personality, it might not. It might be omnipotent, it might be next to powerless. All things in the universe may ultimately have a natural explanation, or some things may require intervention. We simply don’t know.
Our increasing knowledge does nothing to diminish this more mature concept of God. Thus evolution cannot be used as evidence against the existence of such a Deity. What it can do, as Dawkins so eloquently points out, is give us reason to admit the possibility that God is not complex, but simple. Such a deistic view of God admits our collective ignorance of both God and natural laws.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
I kneel at the altar of sidfaiwu. You perfectly described the enlightened view of God that I failed to explain. I do not believe in God, but I like religious people who have come this kind of faith to which science is no rival.
Kyle: That’s how to not take Genesis literally and still believe in God, I suppose.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
@sidfaiwu:
I wonder if even asking “what is the ultimate cause of everything” makes sense — it sounds like a loaded question to me. It presupposes that there is a single cause that can be isolated (from what), and that temporal-causal thinking applies — we still don’t really know what time is. Supposedly the order of events depends on the observer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_in_Modern_Physics), which messes with my mind. So, “what is the ultimate cause” could depend on the observer? Our understanding of “It” is certainly limited by the rules we exist under. However, “It” may not be subject to any of them.
I guess using “God” as a shorthand to the presumed answer to the question is just as good as “42″ ;). However, I doubt that we are able to correctly formulate the question (which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try — personally, I prefer “Why does the universe exist?”). I also don’t see how the answer needs to be a “being” — that sounds antropomorphic to me (besides, can a being exist without a universe? It created the universe, but it couldn’t exist before creating it. What do you mean by “before”?).
Thanks for your interesting post — I learned something and you made me think. I have a headache now, though ;)
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hello atheist,
Thanks for the compliment. Though I am a theist, I am not religious. This is because I do not know if God is worthy of worship, or if It desires certain behaviors of us, or even if It can posses desire. I am very suspicious of religions because they claim to already know all the answers when clearly they don’t. I also think that the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the universe we live in. Because of this, I cannot think of any profession nobler than that of research scientist.
Hey NoReligionIsPeace,
“It presupposes that there is a single cause that can be isolated (from what), and that temporal-causal thinking applies”
I actually quite agree with you on this. I recognize the difficulties associated with ‘ultimate’ temporal-causation. I generally use that sort of causation because it is simpler to explain. I only offer the following explanation when challenged on this point.
I understand ‘causation’, in this context, as ‘necessary for the existence of’. In this sense, electrons, protons, and neutrons ’cause’ atoms, atoms ’cause’ molecules, and molecules ’cause’ lifeforms.
This form of causation (I think it actually has a name, but I don’t remember it right now) is different from temporal causation. It doesn’t rely on the potentially particular way we happen to perceive time and causation. At the root, we know that the existence of space-time causes everything we know of in the universe. My question is ‘What causes space-time?’ If the answer is ‘nothing’, then space-time is self-caused, and meets my definition of God. That would make me a pan-deist (God = the universe).
This is a possibility that is new to my theology. It was added thanks to Richard Dawkins, who pointed out that the ultimate cause need not be complex, though he failed in proving it must be simple.
I’m afraid I didn’t do much to help your headache. You probably see why I typically stick with the simpler, temporal version, even though I don’t accept. I hope the aspirin is working :)
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
sidfaiwu:
I gather that you took “a bit exception” to my implication that the role and importance of *any* God diminishes as science progresses. I initially really meant the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, but let’s talk about yours.
It sounds like you solved the question of God by adding a layer of indirection (computer science joke: every problem can be solved by adding a layer of indirection, e.g., pointers). It sounds to me like claiming having solved a problem by postulating that there exists an envelope somewhere in the world with the correct answer inside and saying “that’s my answer!”.
If the answer is so remote and unknowable, is it still relevant? Perhaps a God like that is not at odds with science, but is it meaningful? I think it’s not at odds simply because it can’t be reduced any further or get any weaker as a concept. It certainly is not important (apart from the idea that you wouldn’t exist without It) in your daily life, as you admitted.
I’ll try to get my hands on something Dawkins wrote, though. Thanks for the discussion!
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Wikipedia in Simple Engligh describes Evolution very well (and simply):
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wki/Evolution
Part of the theory bit says:
While this misses out some details, this is the absolute core of the theory which everyone discussing evolution should (but sometimes does not) understand.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Hello again NoReligionIsPeace,
I’ll give you a bit of background. I am a mathematician by training. Because of that, I place a lot of importance in ‘there exists’ type proofs. ‘There exists an integer of the form N^2-1 that is not prime’ is a significant proof in number theory. I’ve often taken my mathematical ability and apply it to my passion for philosophy.
The proof that there exists a self-necessary Thing that is ultimately necessary for the existence of all else is significant in and of Itself. Our ignorance of the nature of this Thing (or even Things, in the case of dependent co-origination) shouldn’t diminish our interest in It. Since It exists and causes all, It is worthy of our philosophical and scientific efforts.
The very fact that there is something which is self-necessary is very exciting. It demonstrates how little we know about the universe.
Lastly, I never claimed that God is unknowable, just unknown (or unrecognized). Also, I never claimed It is remote. It could be space-time itself, which isn’t remote, and is certainly relevant.
You are welcome. Thanks for the discussion as well. I hope it will continue once you research some Dawkins ;)
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Hi,
The talkorigin website is a great resource. Thoroughly referenced with vetted research from solid sources.
Wikipedia is nice and all but be careful as it is neither peer reviewed nor a vetted resource. Sometimes you have to do a little digging with multiple sources and verify things to make a valid point instead of regurgitating something from a singe source that might be wrong.
I would like to comment on those that rationalize that it isn’t worth arguing with the “ignorant” and “close minded” I think this is ignoring a larger threat.
Do not mistake fundamnentalist obsession with stupidity or ignorance. Some of these people are quite intelligent in their narrowly focused zealotry. Many are well funded and politically powerful. They may have a ridiculous need to take the bible literally, but their obsession is a danger to all rational thinking people as they will not stop until their religious supertstition and bigotry rules the rest of us. Think Christian version of an Ayatollah.
At the risk of sounding paranoid or like a conspiracy theorist, the Creationist agenda now is to use a phased “wedge” approach and push their pseudo-science (”Intelligent Design”) with the hidden agenda to advance a Christian Theocracy.
Case in point: recently I had the displeasure to watch “the Privileged Planet” at the urging of a co-worker. It seemed reasonable at first but it quickly turned out to be a slickly disguised piece of propaganda posing as a NOVA style documentary. I previously was unaware that Intelligent Design was made up almost entirely of Creationists.
A little digging revealed that “Illustra Media†(who made the DVD) and “Discovery Media†are the same company. Discovery media makes videos about the “endtimes†and other fundamental Christian superstitious drivel. see http://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm
Illustra media’s is part of the Discovery Institute which in turn is actually the same old Creationist crew.
I wasn’t the only one duped by these assholes: The Smithsonian almost fell for this pseudo scientific pap see this article: http://www.csicop.org/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html
A quote: “The well-documented purpose of the Discovery Institute and its arm, the Center for Science and Culture (originally the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), is to drive “wedges” between materialistic science and the rest of society and to redraw science and culture along evangelical-Christian lines.”
When, after intense media attention, the religious nature of the film came into the open, the Smithsonian withdrew its cosponsorship, stating: “We have determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research.” They allowed the film to be shown but turned down the payment. ”
Also -this article from Americans for the Separation of Church and State sums up the Discovery institute nicely: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
Also worth reading is how these jerks hid their sources when getting PBS to make their “Unlocking the Mystery of life” available (your tax dollars at work helping to advance the creationist wedge strategy)
See this from the National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6786_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp
This is just one example. All of this shows what a small group of organized, intelligent and ruthless assholes can do- and I call them assholes because they claim to be “Christian” and their deceptive practices, misrepresentation and concealed bigotry is the epitome of hipocrisy.
Thanks
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 am
Miracales ended with appearence of Muhammed, that’s what he promised, mircales here means that kind that will change the face of the earth like Noah when the flood came, or Mosses when he splitted the sea.
There are still mircales, where you see it and it’s not going to change your faith.
Still there is one mircale on the earth(Quran)
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
And of course I just have to ask, what, exactly, makes the quran a miracle? Other than, like every other holy book, it is a miracle that anyone reads it and actually believes the stuff in it?
It also strikes me as spectacularly convenient that god decided that about the time that their “prophet” made an appearance, which just so happens to correspond with the start of modern society, to stop showing off with all the grand miracles. The ones that prove he/she/it exists. A time where individuals learn to read and not just the scholars. A time where written history really begins to take off.
Why is it that those ancients are more deserving of indisputable proof of gods existence? If you even try to say that we have indisputable proof now, I swear I will never even remotely take one of your posts seriously again.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 am
@mohamed
both the bible and the kuran are to some extent based on the same piss-poor jewish mythology. why is one a miracle and not the other?
as far as noah goes, its as much nonsense as anything else in genesis. i mean really people… come to think of it, there must be a good reason its the first chapter: if you believe that nonsense, you’ll believe *anything*.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
The people who take the bible as literal history amaze me.
The story of Noah is one of the fables that stand out the most in fact. Ok, this guy builds a ship out of wood, big enough to hold two of every critter plus enough food for over a month for all of them (what did you feed the lions?). There are so many physical and logistical impossibilities in the whole Noah story it absolutely requires gods intervention in every single stage of the process.
Then, you have to ask yourself why god was so personally involved in people’s day to day existence back then with not a peep from the big old fairy in the sky in the last 2 thousand years. Oh sure, people claim miracles on a daily basis, but you are going to have to do better than a smudge in a pizza pan.
The whole god thing is comical in the extreme and the more I think about it the weirder it gets that people actually believe in the gods of the major religions. They REALLY and TRULY believe this stuff?? :)
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
Mohamed,
Thanks for the explanation about Muhammed’s promise, I didn’t know that. It’s awfully frustrating, though, how it prevents scientific validation. It reminds me a little of how some people claimed being able to hear the dead by recording tapes in cemetaries. To discourage people from using scientific verification, they were scaring them with stories of how the dead can keep haunting you if you try that “incorrectly”. It hurt me that my mother would believe their claims and disregard all the flaws and causes for doubting them that I pointed out. I guess she *wanted* to believe.
To go back to evolution, I agree with others pointing out that some people will believe what they want no matter what. To make them understand evolution would require a scientific foundation that they don’t have and possibly just can’t be built. As the saying goes, “Don’t try to teach pigs to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig”. That is, unless pigs get elected in positions of power. That’s one of the problems with democracy: asking people to decide on things for which they have no qualifications…
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
“Democracy is one of the worst systems ever invented; It is only better than all the others that have been tried”
Just wanted to drop a quick note here about a conversation I had with two (religious)moslems who turned out to take Evolution as a fact and the story about Adam and Eve as a metaphor. Turns out people like this exist in every religion after all… (I’m just sharing my amazement here, nothing to see!)
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Again,
I mentioned that mircales which means mrcales change people to beleive in god again, hearing the dead could be mircale for this person.
Quran is mircale where it comes from illetrate person didn’t know how to read or write, he wasn’t even know by writting poems, and he came with this Quran.
The mircale still stand, which there is challange in the Quran if you can get section like Quran, and no body could, I know some of the dreamers here in this site, would say that on the internet people did, which is some nosense don’t make any meaning.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Quran is mircale where it comes from illetrate person didn’t know how to read or write, he wasn’t even know by writting poems, and he came with this Quran.
But how do we know that this man really was illiterate? We’re really having to take that on his word. Maybe he just hadn’t done anything really that noteworthy at the time and then suddenly makes a wonderfully poetic work. JK Rowling wasn’t even heard of until she wrote Harry Potter but the very first book she wrote was enough to rocket her to the status of world fame (please don’t take offense at me comparing the Quran to Harry Potter, it’s just the best analogy that I can think of right now).
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
OK, I have skimmed through your threads of banter, and am curious. I accept creation for various reasons, but that’s not why I am entering this arena. I have never had evolution explained to me be an evolutionist. I’m sure that my view of your beliefs have always been created in a controlled environment. Does that make sense? I have always been taught evolution from a creationist. So, if you are willing, start with evolution 101. Some of you spoke earlier of the glimmering hope of converting one of the lost sheep that have gone astray…well, my mind is open…but I must warn you, I am not easily swayed. I am a natural analyst and will have questions.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
I would be careful what you ask for, AJ. It’s dangerous around these parts. I would like to put something up to help you, but I haven’t the time currently. Perhaps by the weekend, if I remember. I am not a biologist but a philosopher by trade (if that can be called a trade :) ), and so I think I could help with just clearing up some of the vagueries before a more serious discussion could start. To be honest I myself have read very little of this thread, partly because of the time thing, and partly because these discussions seem to all follow the same direction. Hopefully we can get a better start.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:41 am