Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Joe_Armstrong, Apr 2, 2018.
But it does make it seem religion, or creationism, is at the core of his disbelief.
I completely agree that this is a leading tactic for science denial (climate, evolution) and religious apologetics (big bang). Imperfections in the theory are used to invalidate or otherwise reject the theory. These sorts of rejections are unscientific and do not occur in legitimate scientific discourse, which does not require a perfect theory. I do not know if there is a specific name for this. It's not really god of the gaps; it seems to be a variant of the nirvana fallacy.
I get this and I've always found it frustrating. I admit this is another source of my skepticism. They label all these things and speak of some transitions as truth. We have a need to define things and explain them even when we are incapable.
I follow this concept, but why is the neccessary implication a common ancestor? Couldn't it be that the most basic building blocks of life are universal?
Because you adapt to the environment you can survive in. Genetic mutation is random. It's not some trajectory to a perfect or even improved state. If your environment lacks light you will lose your sense so as not to waste energy on a useless feature.
You want to nitpick little aspects but you can't back it up with a more proven alternative.
I dont believe that's a fair statement to make based on the little I've spoken about my religious beliefs. All of my arguments in this thread have been from a secular pov
How would you explain for instance, that we share 98% of the same DNA with chimpanzees? Meaning if you look at our genome or "computer code", it's literally identical up to 98% and then our code changes and goes into another direction while theirs does the same?
It's not just that, you look at the human skeleton. They don't call it a tailbone for no reason. It's literally a tailbone and during the embryo phase, there's an actual tail. It's extremely rare but their have been babies born with the tail intact. The DNA, the skeleton, the fossils all point to common ancestry with an ape-like creature.
You advocated creationism being taught in schools. Is that your belief? What is your alternative to natural selection?
It's actually not random. Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying individuals. Genetic mutation is random, natural selection selects the favorable traits for survival and reproduction.
You make a good point that evolution isnt planned in a straight line rather things adapt to their surroundings and it isnt neccesarrily gonna take the quickest route.
That wasnt a proof for me just showing an example of another conclusion I could draw looking at the same data.
I bet if we both talked to complete layman I could convince them about my theory of whales before you do. Not saying that makes it true, but we can only believe things based on our observations or on the faith of somebody elses observations no?
I advocated It be mentioned as an alternative belief for the sake of kids knowing what people believe. It shouldn't have it's own chapter and be taught as science tho, as it isnt science.
I will not discuss my alternative as it involves God. With how many people I'm responding to and the topic already getting stretched to its absolute limits, I dont wanna go down that rabbit hole. I'm also getting off the dog for the night. If you pm me that same question, I promise to get back to you tomorrow tho
Statistically, if somebody (particularly, a lay person) argues against evolution, it is highly probable they are a theist. For example, I would guess that of the 32 who have answered "No" to the present survey, at least 30 are religious.
I stand corrected.
Indonesia and pakistan account for ~1/4th the worlds population of muslims. a 2009 survey thousands of indonesian and pakistani high schoolers found that 85% of them agreed that "millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."
however there is some conflict in their beliefs, especially as it pertains to humans, as 80% of the pakistanis and 49% of the indonesians agreed with the statement "the first humans on planet Earth were created by God, not gradually, but in their present form".
i think it would be inaccurate to state that "most dont accept evolution", or to label those with seemingly conflicting views as necessarily not accepting evolution. It seems many do accept it, particularly as it pertains non-humans, and even within humans, they may believe we are under the effects of evolution, though only after direct creation by god.
I think that Trump being president proves your point.
I'd say because most of the structures are the same. We are just very similar in a lot of ways, but those 2 % make a huge difference
We also share 60% of our DNA with a banana. That doesn't sound convincing tho.
Could you show me a human fossil that has a tail? Also forgive me when I almost universally dismiss examples from human anatomy. That is something I understand quite well, and the things I've heard regarding evolution and our anatomy is actually embarrassing.
Anyways I'll get back to your reply tomorrow. I appreciate your willingness to dig in deeper with me. I likely wont be convinced (who is thru these topics), but this is good for all of us to consider on a level we may not originally be comfortable with.
You guys are asking some questions I've never been asked. I sincerely appreciate all the people who left their pride at the door and engaged with me
I'll take that even tho it's a back handed concession goodnight bruh
You don't need a fossil. There have been 23 babies born with actual tails since the 1900s. With ultrasounds, you can actually see the tail in every single human baby as well as all mammals. It makes sense that we are related.
By the way, for those that were looking for a transition between fish and tetrapods, you'll want to read about Tiktaalik.
The theory of evolution (like all theories), makes predictions. If evolution by natural selection is true, we would expect to find an animal that is part fish and part amphibian/land animal at certain layer of the Earth's strata. That's what we find.
Tiktaalik has fish scales, gills, fins, lungs but a head like a crocodile, a ribcage and hindlegs for walking.
It's a clear example of a transition from a creature that shared its time between water and land. Over time, the species would evolve and one species would have stayed on land completely. As it became better adapted to its land environment, what's when you get the beginning of reptiles.
If you do a search on this thread for Tiktaalik you'll see it was already presented. Good Luck!
Because you can trace various lineages of all sorts of species by their genetic variation over time. You can also determine that some traits, having developed earlier are more primitive, for lack of a better word, while others are determined to be more recent. Having done so, you compare earlier and later species to see who descended from whom based upon which characteristics are conserved and which are lost/replaced across specimens.
This is precisely why there is no longer any debate whatsoever that birds descended from dinosaurs.
Separate names with a comma.