Evolution and Science Acceptance

Status
Not open for further replies.
???

There are all kinds of differing groups in the field of evolutionary biology. Where does each species belong? What does each gene do? Where does this fossil fit? What does this new discovery mean?

"Evolution" encompasses a ton of things and not all researchers agree on each point.
 
mattj said:
???

There are all kinds of differing groups in the field of evolutionary biology. Where does each species belong? What does each gene do? Where does this fossil fit? What does this new discovery mean?

"Evolution" encompasses a ton of things and not all researchers agree on each point.
Click to expand...
They disagree on how or why they evolved, they do not disagree with the theory of evolution itself, for the most part.
 
mattj said:
???

There are all kinds of differing groups in the field of evolutionary biology. Where does each species belong? What does each gene do? Where does this fossil fit? What does this new discovery mean?

"Evolution" encompasses a ton of things and not all researchers agree on each point.
Click to expand...

They may have differing opinions about the specifics but almost all, 99.85%, of scientists studying relevant topics agree with the general theory of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
 
lati0s said:
They may have differing opinions about the specifics but almost all, 99.85%, of scientists studying relevant topics agree with the general theory of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Click to expand...

99.85% of theologians believe in God too, I'm sure

The point is that nobody would enter into the field of bioloy (or v few) if they did not believe in evolution for the same reason that nobody would enter theology if they didnt believe in a God - for the most part, banging your head on a brick wall would be a better use of the time (not to mention save you hundreds of thousands on a degree). Saying "biologists believe in evolution, therefore it's probably true" is the weakest circumstantial "proof" of all time - it'd be like observing an LGBT club and determining that most people aren't straight. This isn't to say that the theory of evolution itself holds no water, simply that pointing to what are by all intents and purposes evolution scholars and using their belief as evidence is a practice in futility

Also what on earth did that philosopher data have anything to do with anything
 
Pwnemon said:
99.85% of theologians believe in God too, I'm sure

The point is that nobody would enter into the field of bioloy (or v few) if they did not believe in evolution for the same reason that nobody would enter theology if they didnt believe in a God - for the most part, banging your head on a brick wall would be a better use of the time (not to mention save you hundreds of thousands on a degree). Saying "biologists believe in evolution, therefore it's probably true" is the weakest circumstantial "proof" of all time - it'd be like observing an LGBT club and determining that most people aren't straight. This isn't to say that the theory of evolution itself holds no water, simply that pointing to what are by all intents and purposes evolution scholars and using their belief as evidence is a practice in futility

Also what on earth did that philosopher data have anything to do with anything
Click to expand...

So... are you suggesting that because biologists do research in modern biology (a field built on the foundations of genetics and evolution), we can't trust their opinions on the topic of anything relating to biology because their jobs depend on it/they wouldn't get involved if they didn't believe in genetics or evolution? Likewise, can we not trust builders to know how to build things, or physicists to know anything about gravity because their jobs are dependent on the "belief"?

Basically, no one can be trusted to know anything about what they specialise in because they're inherently biased? Who would you suggest we turn to to get information about anything, then?
 
the fact that people can find no solace in the theory of evolution due to lack of proof yet believe in a god figure that there has never been any sort of proof for, ever, is as baffling as it is laughable
 
Pwnemon said:
99.85% of theologians believe in God too, I'm sure

The point is that nobody would enter into the field of bioloy (or v few) if they did not believe in evolution for the same reason that nobody would enter theology if they didnt believe in a God - for the most part, banging your head on a brick wall would be a better use of the time (not to mention save you hundreds of thousands on a degree). Saying "biologists believe in evolution, therefore it's probably true" is the weakest circumstantial "proof" of all time - it'd be like observing an LGBT club and determining that most people aren't straight. This isn't to say that the theory of evolution itself holds no water, simply that pointing to what are by all intents and purposes evolution scholars and using their belief as evidence is a practice in futility

Also what on earth did that philosopher data have anything to do with anything
Click to expand...

think of it this way: 99.85% of the people qualified to make statements on the validity of the theory of evolution accept the theory

Science isn't just "hey you're a scientist so now you have to buy into all of these theories". That's the beauty of it, especially compared to religion. Science is constantly evolving, for lack of a better term, because no theory is ever considered hard fact and everything is open to scrutiny if new evidence happens to arise. This is going to sound a bit no-true-scotsmanish, but no scientist worth anything is going to blindly accept any theory, especially due to the rigorous testing and peer-reviewing that every theory goes through.

but that's neither here nor there, since the vast majority of the evidence points to evolution anyway. The fact that so many scientists accept the theory of evolution is, by itself, no reason to believe in evolution, but it's certainly not a coincidence that there is near unanimity in the community of people most qualified to discuss the subject.

unless you think there's some sort of conspiracy going on, in which case I just wouldn't know what to tell you
 
Fishy said:
the fact that people can find no solace in the theory of evolution due to lack of proof yet believe in a god figure that there has never been any sort of proof for, ever, is as baffling as it is laughable
Click to expand...

Respectfully, as silly as that does sound, why not look at it from the other end? How silly does it look when a person offhandedly rejects Christianity because they claim there isn't enough proof, but accepts many things about evolution by faith, without any tangible proof, because someone told them it was so?
 
but accepts many things about evolution by faith, without any tangible proof, because someone told them it was so?
Click to expand...
???

If you do that it is improper scientific practice, and only occurs when someone doesn't bother to put in the effort to research what is available all over the internet or in numerous scientific books/magazines.

Claiming that there is NO proof for evolution (blatantly untrue) as your basis for believing in it while blindly believing in a god figure with no peer reviewed evidence to support it (as fishy was saying) is an entirely different situation, don't try and lump the two together.
 
came in here expecting a theological discussion, but i guess it's the proof wars again. oh well.
 
popemobile]think of it this way: 99.85% of the people qualified to make statements on the validity of the theory of evolution accept the theory.[/quote] This simple sentence sums up the point I tried to make across three paragraphs. Elegantly done said:
Respectfully, as silly as that does sound, why not look at it from the other end? How silly does it look when a person offhandedly rejects Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Jainism/Sikhism/Buddhism/Hinduism/Åsatru/Paganism/Bahai'ism/Arceism/Shintoism/Babism/Ayyavazhi/Bhakti/Din-e-Ilahi/Meivazhi/Manichaeism/Mazdakhism/Mithraism/Yazadanism/Zoroastrianism/Taoism/Confucianism/Pastafarianism/Dudeism/a bunch of others because they claim there isn't enough proof, but accepts many things about evolution by faith, without any tangible proof, because someone told them it was so?
Click to expand...

Fixed it up for you. You're already doing it with a bunch of religions (most, but not all, of which are mutually exclusive). I do with one more than you.
 
mattj said:
Respectfully, as silly as that does sound, why not look at it from the other end? How silly does it look when a person offhandedly rejects Christianity because they claim there isn't enough proof, but accepts many things about evolution by faith, without any tangible proof, because someone told them it was so?
Click to expand...

because there is an overwhelming amount of tangible proof for evolution, easily accessible by anyone with an internet connection or public library. Now I don't know how many people just accept evolution on pure faith, and given the nature of skepticism I can't see it being anything more that a small minority, but the difference is that religion requires someone to accept it solely on faith, while evolution does not.
 
Majestic Electric said:
Technically that isn't true. Earth is so far the only known planet to support life, but it can't be the only one. We've recently discovered that Mars once had water, so we can't be too far off from finding other Earth-like planets. That's not to say that Mars was Earth-like at one point, but water is essential for life to exist anywhere.
Click to expand...

I find it weird that we seek to find life that correlates with how we live. While it may be odd to think about there could be a species, somewhere in the universe, that breathes methane and drink liquid mercury. Understand I'm using hyperbole but while I get that we search for other Earth-like planets because we know it's a tried and true method, I think such broad statements such as, "water = life," doesn't necessarily need to be true.

Or maybe I'm just silly!

EDIT:
also sorry for the random sidebar
 
Yeah, it is conceivable that organisms on other planets could form independently of liquid water, although we have very little working knowledge of how such organisms would be structured. In general, water is considered the holy grail of life as it is a) Extremely abundant compared to most other molecules and b) Has an ideal temperature range for its liquid state, which is hot enough to freely allow the transportation/formation of complex organic compounds, but cool enough so as to not to overheat and destroy them. No other commonly occurring molecule has these wonderful properties of water.

There are unfortunately many problems with trying to determine whether or not exoplanets house life substantially different to what we are used to on Earth. Namely, if we don't know what chemistry the life would be based upon, we have no idea what chemical signatures such life would have, and thus we wouldn't know what to look for. So I think for now, astrobiologists essentially treat water as a mandatory prerequisite for life, if only for practicality's sake.
 
There is more than enough carbon and water in the universe for us to find suitable planets for life. The odds are, considering that we exist based on those 2, and that those are plentiful, than that is the kind of life we should see most often. If fact, we have to be careful when exploring, because our microbes can easily colonize many of the planets and moons, within our every solar system. Carbon is also great because its the element that can be paired with to make complex structure so easily, its almost like the skank of elements. As far as we know, life needs some kind of liquid base to, water again is great because it is everywhere, although liquid methane may work. It is kind of hard to imagine life without a liquid base and carbon, yet alone no water. So if other kinds of life were found, they would be outside the norm most likely.
 
Scarfwynaut said:
There is more than enough carbon and water in the universe for us to find suitable planets for life. The odds are, considering that we exist based on those 2, and that those are plentiful, than that is the kind of life we should see most often. If fact, we have to be careful when exploring, because our microbes can easily colonize many of the planets and moons, within our every solar system. Carbon is also great because its the element that can be paired with to make complex structure so easily, its almost like the skank of elements. As far as we know, life needs some kind of liquid base to, water again is great because it is everywhere, although liquid methane may work. It is kind of hard to imagine life without a liquid base and carbon, yet alone no water. So if other kinds of life were found, they would be outside the norm most likely.
Click to expand...

Do you read? I understand that carbon has some pretty sweet structures that it forms easily and that H2O is a very happy molecule, but the fact remains we evolved into such a water-happy species. As did everyone on Earth. I don't think there is any right to say that a species that exists independent of water is outside the norm because we have a case study of one: Earth.

Scampy though brings up that good point of astrobiologists have no fucking clue what to look for. So really there's no way without jumping from planet to planet. If we could do that though this conversation would be vastly different.
 
I believe in microevolution (cats changing colors and fur length depending on habitat) but not macroevolution (fish ---> ??? ---> dinosaur).
 
X5Dragon said:
I believe in microevolution (cats changing colors and fur length depending on habitat) but not macroevolution (fish ---> ??? ---> dinosaur).
Click to expand...
I was waiting for someone to bring this up! It is just far to hard to believe that intelligent beings, humans, could have came from water animals. I don't mean to disrespect anyone's belief at all but it is just puzzling that people believe that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top