I Wear Pants;1387690 wrote:No. There isn't believing in evolution, there's understanding or not understanding it.

noted. i still contend they are not mutually exclusive. you can believe in god and also understand evolution as a tool used by him if thats what you choose was my point.

Gblock;1387704 wrote:noted. i still contend they are not mutually exclusive. you can believe in god and also understand evolution as a tool used by him if thats what you choose was my point.

Oh definitely. I didn't mean to imply that evolution and the idea of a god are incompatible. That would be simply untrue. I don't believe in god but it has nothing to do with evolution. You're entirely right there.

OSH;1387703 wrote:Because New Zealand has always been in the same location...

/plate tectonic'd

It's pretty well documented that only a few non-bird fossils have been found in New Zealand, mostly bats, some horses and a smattering of reptiles. Sorry that the fossil record seems to ruin your argument pretty easily.

Gblock;1387704 wrote:noted. i still contend they are not mutually exclusive. you can believe in god and also understand evolution as a tool used by him if thats what you choose was my point.

You absolutely can except if you subscribe to any religious beliefs. In Christianity, god didn't say "and then god created a common ancestor between man and monkey". It's fine though, most religious followers are hypocrites and don't fully understand their own beliefs mostly because they don't know any better and are stuck in a perpetual cycle of ignorance.

sleeper;1387419 wrote:Market forces brought about the change in computer. In biology, survival brought about the changes needed for species. Given enough iterations, down the road, you'll have enough variation that they would no longer be considered the same species.

Perhaps. It's certainly the position that I think is the strongest. However, according to what epistemological tenet are we able to say this with any level of resolution?

For example, is it not theoretically possible that the changes function much in the same way as a mathematical parabola? Much in the same way that a parabola continues closer and closer to a new "line" while never actually reaching it, is it not possible that such is true with evolutionary diversification? If a line represents species commonality, is it not possible for two groups of the same species to diversify to the degree that they end up looking and behaving dissimilarly, but with the continued ability to procreate fertile offspring?

Again, just spit-balling. Simply because I think species diversification to be the most likely doesn't mean I don't at least give pause to the possibility that it isn't so. Self-doubt and skepticism and all is, after all, good for the development of a stable worldview.

I Wear Pants;1387690 wrote:No. There isn't believing in evolution, there's understanding or not understanding it.

Are you making a distinction between believing "in" it and believing it to be true?

sleeper;1387718 wrote:You absolutely can except if you subscribe to any religious beliefs. In Christianity, god didn't say "and then god created a common ancestor between man and monkey".

You do recognize that ancient Near Eastern authors wouldn't have stated that, regardless of whether or not that was what happened, right? Most people groups throughout history were not nearly as concerned as modernity is with recording actual historical events, even as historical narratives, with only regard to fact statements, particularly when we're talking about anything during the Neo-Babylonian empire or before. Expecting an ancient culture to appeal to you on your terms is disingenuous.

This goes far beyond narratives that have become the basis for worldview alterations, as well. This is true for virtually all ancient narratives.

Perhaps. It's certainly the position that I think is the strongest. However, according to what epistemological tenet are we able to say this with any level of resolution?

You can look at DNA differences between species and reasonable draw a conclusion that it doesn't take much variation in genomes between species to create a different type of animal. Humans and apes are an easy example. I mean we probably know about .0000000001% of what we need to know about evolution in order to fully understand every last implication, but the correlation is high and denial is ludicrous.

You do recognize that ancient Near Eastern authors wouldn't have stated that, regardless of whether or not that was what happened, right? Most people groups throughout history were not nearly as concerned as modernity is with recording actual historical events, even as historical narratives, with only regard to fact statements, particularly when we're talking about anything during the Neo-Babylonian empire or before. Expecting an ancient culture to appeal to you on your terms is disingenuous.

This goes far beyond narratives that have become the basis for worldview alterations, as well. This is true for virtually all ancient narratives.

Religions evolve too. Christianity, Islam and Judaism weren't always the dominate religious belief system in the world. It's no surprise that many of the "newer" religions are derived almost verbatim from the ancient religions that have exhausted followers over the ages. I think we are slowly morphing into a world where you'll simply have believers and atheists until atheism fully takes hold as the dominate "religion". Logic and reason win out in the long run and the most defensible position will always lead towards no belief in an entity that hasn't and cannot be proven.

Religions are losing the battle primarily because of the internet and the ability to obtain knowledge and social circles outside of the family unit. Most believers are pressured into their belief system by their parents and by the time they get out of their parents influence their mind has already been broken long enough that there is no turning back. They will raise their kids with that belief system and the beat goes on.

However, with the family unit decaying and children having more time to explore and learn outside of the indoctrination process enforced by their parents, most are able to rationalize that religious belief is stupid and irrational. There are still some that will still resist the path of knowledge over the path of fantasy belief, but those people will be strung out as "weak" and are less likely to reproduce in the long run(I mean seriously, who's banging believers these days?).

Prayers from New Albany.

O-Trap;1387749 wrote:Perhaps. It's certainly the position that I think is the strongest. However, according to what epistemological tenet are we able to say this with any level of resolution?

For example, is it not theoretically possible that the changes function much in the same way as a mathematical parabola? Much in the same way that a parabola continues closer and closer to a new "line" while never actually reaching it, is it not possible that such is true with evolutionary diversification? If a line represents species commonality, is it not possible for two groups of the same species to diversify to the degree that they end up looking and behaving dissimilarly, but with the continued ability to procreate fertile offspring?

Again, just spit-balling. Simply because I think species diversification to be the most likely doesn't mean I don't at least give pause to the possibility that it isn't so. Self-doubt and skepticism and all is, after all, good for the development of a stable worldview.



Are you making a distinction between believing "in" it and believing it to be true?



You do recognize that ancient Near Eastern authors wouldn't have stated that, regardless of whether or not that was what happened, right? Most people groups throughout history were not nearly as concerned as modernity is with recording actual historical events, even as historical narratives, with only regard to fact statements, particularly when we're talking about anything during the Neo-Babylonian empire or before. Expecting an ancient culture to appeal to you on your terms is disingenuous.

This goes far beyond narratives that have become the basis for worldview alterations, as well. This is true for virtually all ancient narratives.

I'm saying I've never met anyone that understands evolution who doesn't find it to be overwhelmingly convincing. I'm saying you might have to not understand what the concept is to not "believe" in it.

I Wear Pants;1387776 wrote:I'm saying I've never met anyone that understands evolution who doesn't find it to be overwhelmingly convincing. I'm saying you might have to not understand what the concept is to not "believe" in it.

I do think that this is probably more common than not.

sleeper;1387763 wrote:Religions evolve too. Christianity, Islam and Judaism weren't always the dominate religious belief system in the world.

Technically, you just described the popularization of religious worldviews, and not the evolution of them. However, you are indeed correct. Worldviews will never be exhaustive, and as such, they will always be in a perpetual state of development as we always ask new questions of them (this was related to my thesis).

sleeper;1387763 wrote:It's no surprise that many of the "newer" religions are derived almost verbatim from the ancient religions that have exhausted followers over the ages. I think we are slowly morphing into a world where you'll simply have believers and atheists until atheism fully takes hold as the dominate "religion". Logic and reason win out in the long run and the most defensible position will always lead towards no belief in an entity that hasn't and cannot be proven.

I actually think a rise in pluralism will bring a sort of worldview apathy, and people will stop caring, for the most part. Two vocal minorities continue to go back and forth while the rest of the world just doesn't give a shit. This is all speculation, though.

sleeper;1387766 wrote:Religions are losing the battle primarily because of the internet and the ability to obtain knowledge and social circles outside of the family unit. Most believers are pressured into their belief system by their parents and by the time they get out of their parents influence their mind has already been broken long enough that there is no turning back. They will raise their kids with that belief system and the beat goes on.

Actually, I agree that this will still occur, but I too think it will become far less frequent. The funny thing about worldviews is (and this applies to other areas of worldviews as well) that when they become a minority, the minority become more and more informed on why they think the way they do.

I could compare this with the recent phenomenon on which you and I agree more: Libertarianism. As the sympathies for the political position become more popular, I notice more and more ignorance among those professing it, because I think it is embraced with less, or no, reason. As such, the conviction is actually not really there. Before, I enjoyed discussing topics with fellow Libertarian, but the last time I told someone my political leanings, I was met with the reply, "END THE FED!" which was given with little more conviction than if he would have yelled, "YOLO!"

Religious tendencies may indeed shrink, and I think they will. But I also think professed atheistic conviction will as well, and I think both will give rise to pure apathy.

sleeper;1387766 wrote:However, with the family unit decaying and children having more time to explore and learn outside of the indoctrination process enforced by their parents, most are able to rationalize that religious belief is stupid and irrational. There are still some that will still resist the path of knowledge over the path of fantasy belief, but those people will be strung out as "weak" and are less likely to reproduce in the long run(I mean seriously, who's banging believers these days?).

While I think it's hardly fantasy, I would actually encourage this behavior of exploring and learning outside of any indoctrination.

However, I think those who end up believing will be anything but weak. If anything, I think you'll see the same phenomenon as I described earlier.

And who's banging believers? I honestly think the majority of the population will be so apathetic that they won't give credence to another's worldview ... at least not to the degree that they give physical appearance.

BoatShoes;1387065 wrote:Not to hijack the thread but no. What creationists call "macroevolution" when they're not moving the goalposts, has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings. Yet, creationists will call any observable evolutionary change as "merely microevolution". It's not a debate being done in good faith.

The only way that "macroevolution" as creationists define it is not a fact is if we're in the matrix, we're being deceived by Satan or the empirical world what we know about evolutionary biology is, in some way, a deception.

1. No it has not since by design/definition "macroevolution" (actually changing between biological/reproductive families...NOT SPECIES) takes EXTREMELY long periods of time, it most certainly has not been observed.

2. You do not understand the scientific difference between a highly accepted theory and a law in scientific terms. The Law of Gravity is Newton's law with respect to the mathematics behind macroscopic gravity, it is a FACT (or Law). The Theory of Gravity is the best known/accepted THEORY on how gravity actually works on the subatomic level (aka gravitons, relativity, etc).

I never said the Theory of Evolution wasn't the most highly accepted theory, but to call it fact is about as accurate as calling a graviton (something we have never seen or measured) a fact as well. A graviton is the most accepted theory explaining the effects of gravity, but that doesn't mean it is 100% fact.

I Wear Pants;1387198 wrote:There is no difference.

Sure there is. Micro-complete evolutionary adaptation to environments/survival of the fittest/etc, all within a possible reproductive biological family like say Ursidae (bears).

Macro-jumping from one reproductive family (say cows) to another (say whales). Cows to whales is actually the accepted macroevolutionary jump in the whale decendency.

I Wear Pants;1387261 wrote:We have observed things changing pretty drastically. Hell look at our fruits and vegetables now. And things like the dark fly experiment and any number of other things.

I'm just saying that even if we haven't seen "macro" evolution (which I contend we have because it's the exact same thing as "micro" evolution) that it isn't important. If one understands even the most basic ideas of evolution then they would understand why it wouldn't be necessary to directly observe an ape transforming into a human (not that that happens but you get the point) because the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Probably more so than for almost any other scientific theory.

I have taken quite a few evolutionary biology classes and studied it myself. I truly understand it and the big distinction is that no one has EVER seen/observed evolution outside of reproductive bounds.

Selective breeding and adaptation is quite obvious and observable, but please show even one case of even the simplest of life forms (single cells/fruit flies/etc) where something evolved into another reproductive family (where the decendents could not reproduce with the original species) like cows and whales can not reproduce.

sleeper;1387266 wrote:We have 50% of the same genes as bananas. We have 99.9999% of the same genes as a monkey. Yet only micro evolution exists. :rolleyes:

Those that do not understand math and only use the hyperbole of things they read on the interwebs say things like this.

sleeper;1387302 wrote:Look at the evolution of computers. It all started with a simple Apple II and now equals laptops, desktops, tablets, smartphones, ipods. Hell there are computers that fit on thumb drives and look absolutely nothing like the Apple II. The creationist will try to convene a tablet is nothing more than microevolution while reality states there is no difference between micro or macro evolution. The computer evolved into many different "things" and now no longer resembles anything like the the first iteration.

Careful...computers were designed...are you saying the evolution of life was designed?

Knowing your atheistic beliefs I highly doubt it, but that is what your analogy suggests.

I Wear Pants;1387310 wrote:I get you're joking but that's not at all similar. Even without knowledge of their history we could study them scientifically. Not so with the magic sky man.

What if in the future humans cease to exist, maybe we are killed off by our own machines Terminator style.

Maybe 1 or 2 tribes of humans remain hidden and the machines destroy all written record of what happened.

Now those few humans left record the history in a book.

A few thousand years go by and aliens come in looking at the highly evolved 'life forms' that are machines on Earth. They stumble across the remaining human tribes that are in hiding and desolate living like cave men.

They read their "book" that was passed down to them and absolutely laugh and mock them saying "you can't be serious, you want me to believe that YOUR species created these machines"?

Not much of a different analogy than intelligent design evolution.

jmog;1387862 wrote:What if in the future humans cease to exist, maybe we are killed off by our own machines Terminator style.

Maybe 1 or 2 tribes of humans remain hidden and the machines destroy all written record of what happened.

Now those few humans left record the history in a book.

A few thousand years go by and aliens come in looking at the highly evolved 'life forms' that are machines on Earth. They stumble across the remaining human tribes that are in hiding and desolate living like cave men.

They read their "book" that was passed down to them and absolutely laugh and mock them saying "you can't be serious, you want me to believe that YOUR species created these machines"?

Not much of a different analogy than intelligent design evolution.

That's a pretty absurd hypothetical.

sleeper;1387527 wrote:Exactly. The question of where matter has come from has not been proven, but the existence of evolution HAS been proven.

If, what most believe, evolution is a slow/non-step linear process...then you are wrong, it has not been proven. Until someone shows me a half cow/half whale or half reptile/half mammal fossil it has not been proven. Proof resides in physical evidence, not ideas and theories.

jmog;1387854 wrote:I have taken quite a few evolutionary biology classes and studied it myself. I truly understand it and the big distinction is that no one has EVER seen/observed evolution outside of reproductive bounds.

Selective breeding and adaptation is quite obvious and observable, but please show even one case of even the simplest of life forms (single cells/fruit flies/etc) where something evolved into another reproductive family (where the decendents could not reproduce with the original species) like cows and whales can not reproduce.

Speciation is observed all the damn time.

http://www.pensoft.net/journals/phytokeys/article/3305/mimulus-peregrinus-phrymaceae-a-new-british-allopolyploid-species

sleeper;1387612 wrote:You can look up the Kiwi bird. Because of New Zealand's geographical isolation, the only animals that could reach the island were birds. The kiwi bird didn't just pop up out of the ground overnight and start magically walking around foraging the forest floor looking for food. The kiwi bird evolved from its ancestor which could fly because more food was available near the ground than up in trees. The kiwi bird from millions of years ago would look nothing like it's current form and thus would be called a separate species altogether(in fact its no longer classified as a bird, but a mammal despite the fact it still lays eggs).

You fail, ever heard of Pangaea? Plate Tectonics?

jmog;1387868 wrote:If, what most believe, evolution is a slow/non-step linear process...then you are wrong, it has not been proven. Until someone shows me a half cow/half whale or half reptile/half mammal fossil it has not been proven. Proof resides in physical evidence, not ideas and theories.

We understand the star cycle despite not physically viewing the creation/destruction of them.

I Wear Pants;1387865 wrote:That's a pretty absurd hypothetical.

How so? You're covering the "otherness" of the new readers pretty well compared to how we read ancient texts of any variety.