Hey, can you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested to see your views on the proof/plausibility of Christ as opposed to evolution.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Evolution and Science Acceptance
- Thread starter lati0s
- Start date
- Status
Hey, can you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested to see your views on the proof/plausibility of Christ as opposed to evolution.
I thought this post was actually pretty good, but if you want people to respond to your points one at a time, post them one at a time. If you don't want to defend every reason at once, be direct yourself.
Similar story here: your story seems somewhat interesting but it seems like you want to defend yourself preemptively from anyone asking for details. (e.g.: What points were poignant? What points were counter productive? Have you read _?)
I don't have any interest in actually following up on these posts (mattj's seemed pretty reasonable to begin with, following Nina's would be getting off topic), but can we avoid posting things and then requesting that no one follow up on them? Threads like these are for discussion, if you don't want to discuss a topic, don't bring it up!
You know what, you're right, and I apologize. I only added that bit at the end because a follow up to my post would end up as nothing more than an interesting/good read of one's journey of religious exploration/questioning, and ultimately the decision that was made at the end of this journey. It wouldnt event be an argument i feel, just a good read for someone interested in reading such a journey. It would be personal and off topic like you said. Also because i dont really feel like typing long paragraphs, aka, my story.
Like i said in my previous post, what i discovered made me question my beliefs and God even more. Its not like i looked and came to the conclusion that i found nothing to give me a reason to change my beliefs. I even said it was very close to going that way. If i were to summarize things, i would just say that i became aware of the evidence to support a decision of denouncing my God and changing my beliefs, but in the end decided to retain my faith. In fact that was all there was to it, blind faith if you wish to call it. I did not ignore my findings, no. If that were the case, then I would have simply gone back to being the christian I once was. Its more complicated than I make it out to be, but like I said, a follow up would end up just being my personal story at best.
I originally only intended to use my story, or the short version i gave in that first post, as a tool to get a point across.
Like i said in my previous post, what i discovered made me question my beliefs and God even more. Its not like i looked and came to the conclusion that i found nothing to give me a reason to change my beliefs. I even said it was very close to going that way. If i were to summarize things, i would just say that i became aware of the evidence to support a decision of denouncing my God and changing my beliefs, but in the end decided to retain my faith. In fact that was all there was to it, blind faith if you wish to call it. I did not ignore my findings, no. If that were the case, then I would have simply gone back to being the christian I once was. Its more complicated than I make it out to be, but like I said, a follow up would end up just being my personal story at best.
I originally only intended to use my story, or the short version i gave in that first post, as a tool to get a point across.
So far. It's possible that a more accurate theory could be developed further down the line, but for now evolution is the most sensible interpretation of the data we possess.
Yes, if you believe in evolution and they don't (or vice-versa) that symbolizes a disconnect in mentality. To draw a parallel, you probably wouldn't vote for someone who doesn't share your views on how to fix the economy, this is a similar situation.
This one depends heavily on how you interpret the main chronicle of your Religion. Most Religious texts are sufficiently expansive that you can interpret them in many different ways. Some of these interpretations can coexist with evolution, some can't.
The Bahaii actually believe that there can be some truth in many different religions, and that the different pursuits of religious truth matter.
Of course they also believe an absolute religious law, albeit relatively secular. But just another example of how we can each be right about some things and wrong about others.
[youtube]XdddbYILel0[/youtube]
One key point of that video that is often left by the way side is the subtleness of evolution. It is often easy to describe evolution as the things that don't have the superior traits die, like the slowest antelope getting eaten by the lion. But in reality, evolution could just work if an organism with a specific trait has more children on average, not even requiring death of the competitor genes. Over time the success of that gene becomes dominant, simply because of the shear amount of time we are talking about for evolution to work.
The easiest way to describe evolution is: change through time. You can also throw the word genetic before change, but it's not really needed. Those three words are enough. I don't like the concept of "superior traits" when trying to explain evolution in a basic way. If you're trying to use such a very basic definition, you're more than likely trying to explain evolution to someone who doesn't have very much scientific knowledge. If this is the case then the person is very likely to misinterpret "superior traits" as those who are biggest, strongest, fastest et cetera. Then you have to go on and explain natural selection to them.
Again, I would use different wording. Using the word Dominant might give the person a misunderstanding of genetics. Recessive genes/alleles can also become the most favorable/fit, even if there are dominant alleles for that loci. I know you used the word dominant to describe the success of the gene but yeah...
I'm just nit picking here. I'm sure you're well aware of these things, but imo you have to be very careful about presenting scientific terms to people, especially if they are prone to be against science. I guess the whole confirmation bias comes into play here. Usually the person will try to nit pick at any detail they can to deny what you're trying to explain.
On the taxation thing:
Yes, I know how progressive taxation works and I'm all for it. However, I thought that the taxation of clergy was being talked about as if they were somehow specially exempt from something that a socioeconomically equivalent individual would be subjected to. I realize that this was jumping to a conclusion, so I apologize to whoever I wrongly challenged with this.
I mentioned this before, but on the contrary, I'd say that views are everything. verbatim has put it quite concisely. How you view a candidate's record is inevitably coloured by how your worldview clashes with said candidate's. Look at the simultaneous worship and vilification of Ronald Reagan, for instance.
A neo-Nazi can have perfectly logical justification for all of his/her actions, and hold true to his/her promises... under his/her belief system. Worldviews impact where someone thinks the country (or whatever) should be taken. A record can't hide that fact, and the sheer polarization of American politics today makes this even more apparent.
Also I don't see how free will and chance are relevant to each other... One says (in a crude sense) you have control over your life, while the other says (again, in a crude sense) you don't.
One more thing: I think some of you would be surprised as to how many things people take for granted have rather lacking "evidence" for them. I just think that that's something to think about seriously before engaging in what could be subconscious cherry-picking skepticism. I'm not saying that anyone in particular is, just that they could be, because again, all I've ever seen in arguments against evolution is that it's not "good enough".
Yes, I know how progressive taxation works and I'm all for it. However, I thought that the taxation of clergy was being talked about as if they were somehow specially exempt from something that a socioeconomically equivalent individual would be subjected to. I realize that this was jumping to a conclusion, so I apologize to whoever I wrongly challenged with this.
Cartoons! said:
I mentioned this before, but on the contrary, I'd say that views are everything. verbatim has put it quite concisely. How you view a candidate's record is inevitably coloured by how your worldview clashes with said candidate's. Look at the simultaneous worship and vilification of Ronald Reagan, for instance.
A neo-Nazi can have perfectly logical justification for all of his/her actions, and hold true to his/her promises... under his/her belief system. Worldviews impact where someone thinks the country (or whatever) should be taken. A record can't hide that fact, and the sheer polarization of American politics today makes this even more apparent.
Also I don't see how free will and chance are relevant to each other... One says (in a crude sense) you have control over your life, while the other says (again, in a crude sense) you don't.
One more thing: I think some of you would be surprised as to how many things people take for granted have rather lacking "evidence" for them. I just think that that's something to think about seriously before engaging in what could be subconscious cherry-picking skepticism. I'm not saying that anyone in particular is, just that they could be, because again, all I've ever seen in arguments against evolution is that it's not "good enough".
I didn't see that one. Where was it in your OP?
Long story short, there's no proof that those lines of code came from viral infections. Viral infections of a certain type sure can alter genes. And if they alter sex cells they sure can be passed on. But there's no proof that's what happened. Its just an assumption.
However, as we study the human genome, we keep finding that those lines of code that we had simply assumed were "junk genes", and labeled ERVs, actually serve vital purposes in sustaining our lives.
http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-10-13-33731-304.html
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science/48877/genetics-breakthrough-how-junk-dna-actually-useful
etc...
So its just as likely that those parts of our genes are not remnants of long past viruses, but more likely just like any other part of our DNA that keeps us alive.
Long story short, there's no proof that those lines of code came from viral infections. Viral infections of a certain type sure can alter genes. And if they alter sex cells they sure can be passed on. But there's no proof that's what happened. Its just an assumption.
However, as we study the human genome, we keep finding that those lines of code that we had simply assumed were "junk genes", and labeled ERVs, actually serve vital purposes in sustaining our lives.
http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-10-13-33731-304.html
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science/48877/genetics-breakthrough-how-junk-dna-actually-useful
etc...
So its just as likely that those parts of our genes are not remnants of long past viruses, but more likely just like any other part of our DNA that keeps us alive.
I haven't done much research into it, but there is some evidence that the "junk" DNA is really higher order control DNA that turns or or off different parts of the DNA to make part of the body when it is forming. A experiment was done were they took what they thought to be an junk DNA sequence from a rabbit located, near the code for the eyeball, and put it in the code of a fruit flies leg DNA sequence. When the fly was born, and pupated, it had fly eyes growing on the sides of its leg. This suggest that junk code might be their to tell your body to make something right there as a controller, while it itself does not contain any information about how to make it (hence the fly eyes, not bunny eyes on the legs).
It wasn't in the OP, I posted it in the election thread and it was quoted on the first page.
There isn't "proof", But when these sequences look exactly like the genomes of retroviruses it is pretty suggestive that that's what happened.
Junk DNA isn't the same as ERV's Junk DNA is any part of the DNA that doesn't code for proteins where ERV's are specific sequences that make up only a fraction of the noncoding DNA.
just gonna be serious for a second to say that i don't think you'll find any real anti-evolution people on this forum, considering it's mainly comprised of young, white males who do not believe in a god
i consider myself a devout christian, like mattj i do feel there are holes in the theory of evolution but that's nothing against the theory itself, it's the best one we have and i know that my god is not a 'god of the gaps' - i didn't make him up to explain what science can't. i feel that evolution is entirely reconcilable with my faith but the problem is many more people don't feel the same way.
i think that's a problem - conflicts like these should never happen, but what can you do about it? there are close-minded people on every topic. some people (religious or otherwise) still believe the world is flat. some people still believe in astrology. some people think the moon landing was faked. i do think it is a real problem that such an overwhelming proportion of your population (i'll assume it's true? in australia nobody really makes a big deal about it except for small numbers of angry christians and angry atheists and we just sort of let them fight it out, but it seems to be a bigger conflict over there) and i do think it should be settled, but i am neither educated nor concerned enough to think of a solution
just giving my perspective as a churchgoer who believes in jesus etc
What of the myriad shared ERVs found in incongruous species? That video made it pretty clear that the chances of just one pair of ERVs being found in two species was pretty low. Humans and gorrillas share sequences that sure do look like ERVs, that aren't shared between Humans and chimps. Humans share some with dogs and mice and all kinds of other animals too.
"It looks sort of like the DNA of a virus, and we don't know why its there, therefore it must have come from a retrovirus" seems a lot like the "It looks like the DNA of a chimp, therefore it must have shared an ancestor with a chimp" argument. While I'm completely sure that's an honest, and thoughtful hypothesis, and that does make perfect sense from a completely secular, supernatural-rejecting point of view, its just a hypothesis, not proof. Maybe it looks like virus DNA because we need some of the same things viruses need to live. Or, more likely, we just don't yet know what it does yet.
In the very beginning the video quite plainly, and quickly states that ERVs come from viruses, and then moves on. If the ERVs that we see shared between humans and chimps and many other species really did come from long past viral infections of sex cells of ancient ancestors, then yes, obviously this is strong evidence that we share common ancestors. But as far as I can tell, this a hypothesis, not a fact. And the more we learn about the human genome, the less this seems likely to me.
Evolution says that all species share a common ancestor. This is exactly as you would expect.
what?
I've posted in here before, but I didn't answer the questions in the OP. So time to do that now:
As an engineering student, this is not my field of expertise. Whatever I have to say on the subject, and especially my opinion on it, is likely to be deeply flawed due to my lack of special knowledge on the matter. This is something everybody who's not a biologist should admit. I know the basic stuff, but never looked into the deeper explanations and such. So I pass the question on to the scientific community, the biologists in particular. These are the guys who know what there is to know about evolution.
And, funnily enough, there is near unanimosity that the theory of evolution is correct. Amongst the people devoting their lives to study this field of science, there are next to no one who objects to it. The scholars don't even debate the general idea of evolution, only its intricate mechanics and (from an outsider's point of view) petty details. To use an analogy, the investigators on the crime scene aren't arguing on the identity of the murderer, they are arguing about whether or not he shaved his sideburns before or after he drank that cup of tea the day before the crime. There is consensus among the biologists that evolution is the very best explanation we have. I'm not going to listen to theologicans or philosophers (or for that matter, engineers, postmen or carpenters) who try to convince me otherwise.
Big yes. As far as my experience goes, people don't disagree with evolution because of "healthy sceptisism" (compare this to theorymoning about an unreleased Pokémon's performance in OU). They do because it implies their worldview is wrong. I've never heard about anybody who went out and said: "I don't believe in evolution because of [insert rational arguments and valid facts], but I'm unable to come up with a better explanation myself." (again, think crime scene, where an investigator expresses doubt about the current murderer hypothesis, but don't know who else to suspect). Opponents of evolution are usually just that because they have conflicting interests themselves. And those conflicting interests are usually based in religious dogma.
In Norway, I think it's fair to say that any politician who outrights states he opposes evolution, could consider himself lucky if he got 5% of the vote anywhere (but in a few small towns down south). He would never be allowed near any education boards, and the public opinion on him would plummet. Over here, opposition to evolution is well connected to a "crazy religious" stamp, and there is broad consensus that such people should not be in a position of power, at least if they are vocal about it.
Yes, but it would stop any literal interpretation of scripture dead in its tracks. It's fully possible that YHWH/Rod/Ptah/Brahma/Arceus created the world full of creatures that would later evolve, but if the scriptures say otherwise, then the scriptures are wrong and should not be taken literally as factual truth. If the infailability of scripture is "broken" by facts contradicting it, then there is no way to decide what other parts of scripture might be wrong, other than testing it empirically. You can't claim, for instance, "The Shruti is 100% scientifically correct and absolutely true, except for that part about evolution because that was proven wrong.".
Though, maybe this is my view as an atheist, but I don't see the problem with scripture conflicting with real world evidence. Perhaps the Guru Granth Sahib is a load of hogwash (not saying it is, mind you!), but does that prevent Waheguru from existing? Perhaps the writers misunderstood a lot and created an imperfect text, but that's not to say they've got the basic idea wrong. After all, if a religious text explicitly states that your god is right-handed, and then he appears before you in all his glory and reveals he is actually a leftie, what would you hold true? The words on paper, or your observation of facts? Scripture is words, the world is reality. Observation of scripture teaches you the words, observation of the world teaches you reality.
As an engineering student, this is not my field of expertise. Whatever I have to say on the subject, and especially my opinion on it, is likely to be deeply flawed due to my lack of special knowledge on the matter. This is something everybody who's not a biologist should admit. I know the basic stuff, but never looked into the deeper explanations and such. So I pass the question on to the scientific community, the biologists in particular. These are the guys who know what there is to know about evolution.
And, funnily enough, there is near unanimosity that the theory of evolution is correct. Amongst the people devoting their lives to study this field of science, there are next to no one who objects to it. The scholars don't even debate the general idea of evolution, only its intricate mechanics and (from an outsider's point of view) petty details. To use an analogy, the investigators on the crime scene aren't arguing on the identity of the murderer, they are arguing about whether or not he shaved his sideburns before or after he drank that cup of tea the day before the crime. There is consensus among the biologists that evolution is the very best explanation we have. I'm not going to listen to theologicans or philosophers (or for that matter, engineers, postmen or carpenters) who try to convince me otherwise.
Big yes. As far as my experience goes, people don't disagree with evolution because of "healthy sceptisism" (compare this to theorymoning about an unreleased Pokémon's performance in OU). They do because it implies their worldview is wrong. I've never heard about anybody who went out and said: "I don't believe in evolution because of [insert rational arguments and valid facts], but I'm unable to come up with a better explanation myself." (again, think crime scene, where an investigator expresses doubt about the current murderer hypothesis, but don't know who else to suspect). Opponents of evolution are usually just that because they have conflicting interests themselves. And those conflicting interests are usually based in religious dogma.
In Norway, I think it's fair to say that any politician who outrights states he opposes evolution, could consider himself lucky if he got 5% of the vote anywhere (but in a few small towns down south). He would never be allowed near any education boards, and the public opinion on him would plummet. Over here, opposition to evolution is well connected to a "crazy religious" stamp, and there is broad consensus that such people should not be in a position of power, at least if they are vocal about it.
Yes, but it would stop any literal interpretation of scripture dead in its tracks. It's fully possible that YHWH/Rod/Ptah/Brahma/Arceus created the world full of creatures that would later evolve, but if the scriptures say otherwise, then the scriptures are wrong and should not be taken literally as factual truth. If the infailability of scripture is "broken" by facts contradicting it, then there is no way to decide what other parts of scripture might be wrong, other than testing it empirically. You can't claim, for instance, "The Shruti is 100% scientifically correct and absolutely true, except for that part about evolution because that was proven wrong.".
Though, maybe this is my view as an atheist, but I don't see the problem with scripture conflicting with real world evidence. Perhaps the Guru Granth Sahib is a load of hogwash (not saying it is, mind you!), but does that prevent Waheguru from existing? Perhaps the writers misunderstood a lot and created an imperfect text, but that's not to say they've got the basic idea wrong. After all, if a religious text explicitly states that your god is right-handed, and then he appears before you in all his glory and reveals he is actually a leftie, what would you hold true? The words on paper, or your observation of facts? Scripture is words, the world is reality. Observation of scripture teaches you the words, observation of the world teaches you reality.
Many of the matching "ERVs" don't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. From an genetic standpoint chimps are much more similar to humans than gorrilas. But gorrilas share several "ERVs" with humans that neither of us share with chimps. Same goes for dogs and mice and fish and birds and all kinds of creatures that we "shouldn't" share those with. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that these are instances of multiple viral infections affecting sex cells in different species at different points in time that just randomly happened to have infected at the same exact spot in a chain of DNA god knows how long.
As your video pointed out, this is incredibly, mind-numbingly unlikely. And there are many cases of this. If someone want to believe that just through random one-in-a-billion-billion chance viruses altered the sex cells of many, supposedly unrelated species in the exact same spot, more power to you. But to me, and many other people, it looks more like we don't know what those sections of our genes are for, or how they actually got there. If you view matching ERVs as "incontrovertable proof" that we share a common ancestor, I understand why you do, and its completely reasonable. But the problems and questions and difficulties involving matching ERVs cast far too much doubt on the idea to convince me otherwise at the moment. And in my personal estimation from reading and following news stories on the subject, since we've mapped the genome, and have studied it more and more, the discoveries concerning ERVs only continue to cast more and more doubt on the idea that they prove common ancestry.
@discussion of ERV: when i see several widely disparate programs with completely different functions that contain the same lines of code, i find it equally if not more likely that they were written by the same programmer than attacked by the same hacker. That is all I have to say on the matter.
@Cobraroll: isn't that the most obscene confirmation bias yet reported in this thread? "Among people who devote their lives to study of evolution, almost all believe evolution to be true." That's equally as profound as "most theologians say God exists."
@Cobraroll: isn't that the most obscene confirmation bias yet reported in this thread? "Among people who devote their lives to study of evolution, almost all believe evolution to be true." That's equally as profound as "most theologians say God exists."
No, you're right. I guess I was just trying to snappy, and brought a lot of assumptions to the question that I didn't make clear in my answer. I just meant there isn't always a correlation between one's professed worldview, and their actions, which reflect their actual worldview, and why the question of evolution wouldn't define how I vote.
I think the post I was addressing was deleted? The context was the level of control God would have over the workings of the universe. My point was that we don't really have free will (whatever that means), and that seemingly random events are foreordained. I'm not a philosopher or a theologian though, so consider those points orphaned.
The evolutionary explanation for this would be as follows. I will use the example of an ERV shared by dogs and humans but not chimpanzees. The ERV originated in a species that is a common ancestor of both dogs and humans, since chimps are closer to humans than dog this will also be an ancestor of chimpanzees. This explains why the ERV occurs in humans and dogs but it doesn't explain why it doesn't occur in chimps. The explanation is that at some point after the divergence of the lineages of chimps and humans a deleterious mutation spread through the chimp population which removed this section of DNA.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant to say, was that the trueness(?) of evolution is a question strictly confined to the field of biology. The answer to the question "Did life, as we know it, evolve?" can't be found in areas like quantum physics, carpentry, plumbing or engineering. It's up to the biologists, the people who study the facts found in biology, to draw the conclusion. Note that you don't have to be a biologist by profession, but the more you specialize on the relevant subject, the more weight your words are likely to hold (and, by extension, the more likely you are to be a biologist, but again, you don't have to to claim that you understand biology).
Biology, like all science, is about examining the factual happenings, then drawing the conclusion. If you understand the basics, the observable facts, you can draw conclusions based on them, and share or debate the conclusions with others.
On their own, the words "evolution is true" carry no weight, no more than "Spider-Man lives in New York". Somewhere in there, you have to explain further. The "explaining further" bit is the very job of biologists when it comes to evolution.
The widespread acceptance of evolution doesn't come from the fact that biologists say it's true, nor from the fact that most biologists believe it themselves. It's because the biologists have observed, documented and systematized(?) the evidence for evolution. There is a coherent chain of facts and evidence going from all aspects of life as we know it, to the conclusion that evolution holds true. Biologists study each individual link of that chain and thus know why the conclusion is what it is. They work from the ground up, examining the links, and end at the conclusion.
(unlike, I dare say, certain evangelists who start at the "conclusion" end of their chain, and build links towards suitable evidence).
Believe me, if there was substantial evidence against evolution, it would be noticed outside religious circles too. Once a new theory surfaces, and it appears to hold true, any biologist with the slightest bit of interest in his profession will want to have a look at it and see how well it interferes with their own specialization in the subject.
Also, considering theologicans: gather a few of them, from different branches of the same religion, and see how well they agree on every aspect of it. For Christians, Mother Mary, sainthood and sin is are hot topics I'm sure you'll find several opinions on. As for muslims, they are still killing each other over disagreements over interpretation of the same pieces of scripture. Even economists will take it to shouting over different aspects of money-handling. Evolutionary biology as a field has remarkably few rivalling groups compared to most other pools of experts.
The majority of theologians believe in god because one who does not believe in god is not likely to identify as a theologian. There are plenty of philosophers and philosophers of religion who do not believe in god. In fact the majority, 72.8% of philosophers do not believe in god. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5552
- Status