The evidence for evolution
Discussion
Prof Prolapse said:
So yes. Extreme opposition makes sense to me. If you believe in god.
Only if the religionist's flavour of religion is a sort of pseudo science. On the other hand if the central tenet of their faith is "it's all very mysterious, man" then nothing you can say about our knowledge of the physical world is relevant to their faith ... except they might say "wow!" and think that their very-loosely-defined sort-of creatory god was very good at seeing up the initial conditions ... using a loosely defined idea of "initial". You and I might not find that a satisfying way to think about any aspect of life, but each to their own. ash73 said:
I think this (incorrect) interpretation may be why people on either side of the debate refuse to listen. The real problem is religion doesn't adapt when we discover something new, and when our ethics "evolve".
Except it does evolve all the time. The CofE started ordaining women a few years ago and now it has women bishops. Similarly the attitude to homosexuality, pre marital porking has changed. What was the reformation if not a change? What did prophets do other than bring new "understanding" to their faiths? The more evangelical, literalist (nut case) religionists like to think their truths are eternal, but if we look at history that's obviously total b
ks.Religions evolve just as any other aspect of culture evolves.
Dr Jekyll said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
Contains REALLY interesting fact about Whales and Hippos.
Enjoyed that. Thanks very interesting.Contains REALLY interesting fact about Whales and Hippos.
ATG said:
Except it does evolve all the time. The CofE started ordaining women a few years ago and now it has women bishops. Similarly the attitude to homosexuality, pre marital porking has changed. What was the reformation if not a change? What did prophets do other than bring new "understanding" to their faiths?
The more evangelical, literalist (nut case) religionists like to think their truths are eternal, but if we look at history that's obviously total bks.
Religions evolve just as any other aspect of culture evolves.
Ah, I get to quote 1984 twice in a week;The more evangelical, literalist (nut case) religionists like to think their truths are eternal, but if we look at history that's obviously total b
ks.Religions evolve just as any other aspect of culture evolves.
"Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible"
This kind of problem just needs a bit of doublethink.
Einion Yrth said:
Nothing natural about the selection that led to the many different breeds of dog, for example. Still evolution.
Is selection of traits in dogs by humans any less natural than say selection of traits in peacocks by peahens, or selection of traits in antelopes by lions?RizzoTheRat said:
Einion Yrth said:
Nothing natural about the selection that led to the many different breeds of dog, for example. Still evolution.
Is selection of traits in dogs by humans any less natural than say selection of traits in peacocks by peahens, or selection of traits in antelopes by lions?"Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
xRIEx said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Einion Yrth said:
Nothing natural about the selection that led to the many different breeds of dog, for example. Still evolution.
Is selection of traits in dogs by humans any less natural than say selection of traits in peacocks by peahens, or selection of traits in antelopes by lions?"Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
otolith said:
xRIEx said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Einion Yrth said:
Nothing natural about the selection that led to the many different breeds of dog, for example. Still evolution.
Is selection of traits in dogs by humans any less natural than say selection of traits in peacocks by peahens, or selection of traits in antelopes by lions?"Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
ETA: Although a thought just occurred - dog breeds are just that: different breeds, not different species, they are all one species and so can interbreed. Yes there is obviously wide variation, but human involvement hasn't (so far) created a new species. Evolution describes (as the name of the book suggests) the origin of species.
There are some very closely related species that can breed, but the offspring can't breed (e.g. a horse and a donkey creating a mule, or lion and tiger creating a liger).
I agree that evolution now describes a process that occurs in all areas of change and development, whether human or nature. Pretty much everything, especially areas such as technology, is undergoing an evolutionary process.
Edited by xRIEx on Thursday 13th August 10:09
otolith said:
xRIEx said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Einion Yrth said:
Nothing natural about the selection that led to the many different breeds of dog, for example. Still evolution.
Is selection of traits in dogs by humans any less natural than say selection of traits in peacocks by peahens, or selection of traits in antelopes by lions?"Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
RizzoTheRat said:
xRIEx said:
Yes, because we use the word 'natural' to mean not "not caused or influenced by humans":
"Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
So technically anything humans do is unnatural? That should please the Westboro Baptist Church "Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Although their condemnation of "unnatural acts" would also be unnatural <Infinite loop error>
ewenm said:
RizzoTheRat said:
xRIEx said:
Yes, because we use the word 'natural' to mean not "not caused or influenced by humans":
"Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
So technically anything humans do is unnatural? That should please the Westboro Baptist Church "Natural
Adjective
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Although their condemnation of "unnatural acts" would also be unnatural <Infinite loop error>
xRIEx said:
ETA: Although a thought just occurred - dog breeds are just that: different breeds, not different species, they are all one species and so can interbreed. Yes there is obviously wide variation, but human involvement hasn't (so far) created a new species. Evolution describes (as the name of the book suggests) the origin of species.
Darwin was primarily concerned with the origin of species, but speciation is an outcome of evolution rather than a definition - and often occurs as the result of a helping hand like geographical isolation which keeps the gene pools separate long enough for them to evolve into incompatibility."Natural" is a supremely useless concept except in travel brochures.
The more closely one examines "species", the less it means. If you are cataloguing life then imposing a scheme like Linnean classification is extremely useful. But where you draw the boundaries between families, species etc is ultimately arbitrary. It's driven by utility, not by discovering fundamental properties.
Botanists in particular are forever rearranging the deck chairs, splitting and joining families, merging species, trying to improve the utility of their classification schemes.
So when thinking about the processes that drive speciation, fixating on "crossing a species boundary" is a near complete waste of time. The boundary is something we arbitrarily impose on the system, it is not an intrinsic property of the system itself.
It'd be like worrying if there was a difference between the chemistry of a cup versus a saucer in the same tea set.
The more closely one examines "species", the less it means. If you are cataloguing life then imposing a scheme like Linnean classification is extremely useful. But where you draw the boundaries between families, species etc is ultimately arbitrary. It's driven by utility, not by discovering fundamental properties.
Botanists in particular are forever rearranging the deck chairs, splitting and joining families, merging species, trying to improve the utility of their classification schemes.
So when thinking about the processes that drive speciation, fixating on "crossing a species boundary" is a near complete waste of time. The boundary is something we arbitrarily impose on the system, it is not an intrinsic property of the system itself.
It'd be like worrying if there was a difference between the chemistry of a cup versus a saucer in the same tea set.
Edited by ATG on Thursday 13th August 10:47
ATG said:
"Natural" is a supremely useless concept except in travel brochures.
The more closely one examines "species", the less it means. If you are cataloguing life then imposing a scheme like Linnean classification is extremely useful. But where you draw the boundaries between families, species etc is ultimately arbitrary. It's driven by utility, not by discovering fundamental properties.
Botanists in particular are forever rearranging the deck chairs, splitting and joining families, merging species, trying to improve the utility of their classification schemes.
So when thinking about the processes that drive speciation, fixating on "crossing a species boundary" is a near complete waste of time. The boundary is something we arbitrarily impose on the system, it is not an intrinsic property of the system itself.
It'd be like worrying if there was a difference between the chemistry of a cup versus a saucer in the same tea set.
+1The more closely one examines "species", the less it means. If you are cataloguing life then imposing a scheme like Linnean classification is extremely useful. But where you draw the boundaries between families, species etc is ultimately arbitrary. It's driven by utility, not by discovering fundamental properties.
Botanists in particular are forever rearranging the deck chairs, splitting and joining families, merging species, trying to improve the utility of their classification schemes.
So when thinking about the processes that drive speciation, fixating on "crossing a species boundary" is a near complete waste of time. The boundary is something we arbitrarily impose on the system, it is not an intrinsic property of the system itself.
It'd be like worrying if there was a difference between the chemistry of a cup versus a saucer in the same tea set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
ash73 said:
Prof Prolapse said:
If it was all just a story, who the hell committed the first sin to which Jesus Christ was crucified so that we might avoid eternal damnation?
O/T, but if you are going to tear down a particular religion first try to understand it. Christ was crucified for all our sins, original sin broke our relationship with God; they say.Prof Prolapse said:
How can religion be anything but man-made given god is precisely that?
We're not discussing the existence of god or the universe. We're talking about Evolution...
An obvious atheist assertion. Faith and religion are not one and the same.We're not discussing the existence of god or the universe. We're talking about Evolution...
Prof Prolapse said:
I don't dispute compartmentalisation. It's a well documented phenomena, but that doesn't mean it's useful. It is a state of being where we deny the truth so much the brain fragments. Is that really a healthy mind?
Of course it's useful, it allows conflicting ideas to co-exist without driving us to indecision and inaction. Consider what is reality. We experience everything through our senses, ultimately our sensory inputs are EM waves, sound waves, electric forces, etc. Our brain makes sense of what we "see" and builds up a model in our heads, some would even say reality only exists in our heads (e.g. cubism interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests waveforms only collapse in our heads to make sense of the world). People spend a lot of time pondering the nature of their existence and purpose, but we don't have to worry about any of that when we make fight or flight decisions.If you think evolution and religion conflict don't worry about it, just compartmentalise and get on with it. Look how the discussion about religion distracts us from learning more about evolution.
Prof Prolapse said:
I strongly disagree mainstream religions are compatible with evolution
It is perfectly possible for evolution to be compatible with religion, it all depends on the interpretation of the Bible which, typically, ignores the context of the account.Prof Prolapse said:
The bible makes even less sense than it did before
Again, only if an interpretation is fixated on that makes this so.The first few verses can be seen as a parable, not literally true, but setting the scene for the rest of the text. This is completely consistent with other parts of the Bible which are not intended to be taken as history but are there to illustrate a point.
Everything from Adam and Eve onwards can be fitted into a historical framework. Adam and Eve are, literally, the first people from a tribal point of view, Eden (a sheltered place) is the first settlement, etc.
While it is perfectly fair to state that many Christians have done themselves no favours by sticking to an untenable interpretation this does not make a perfectly tenable one impossible. I would suggest that one has always been there, and is rather obvious. It just require people to be bothered to read it properly, with regard to the time it was written in and the viewpoint of those who wrote it, as opposed to fixating on an interpretation that wilfully ignores these issues.
cymtriks said:
While it is perfectly fair to state that many Christians have done themselves no favours by sticking to an untenable interpretation this does not make a perfectly tenable one impossible. I would suggest that one has always been there, and is rather obvious. It just require people to be bothered to read it properly, with regard to the time it was written in and the viewpoint of those who wrote it.
Indeed, written in a time before science was discovered by people who therefore were ignorant of almost everything. Religion is what people used to fill the blanks before science started to fill them in properly; I'm surprised it's even being discussed in this thread.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff