Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Evolution Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Re: The Evolution Thread

    Because Finland wasn't represented in the picture above, I wanted to google it. I found out that 65% of Finns accept evolution as it is and about one third does think evolution theory is false. I find this rather interesting in a coutry where nine years of education is compulsory.. On the other hand when compared to Sweden and Denmark, Finnish people are more religious which might explain the difference. Also it's suggested in the article I found that the reason for the large group of people who don't believe in evolution could be the large elder population who haven't had education about evolution in their school years.

    This made me think about if the increasing amount of non-evolution-believing people in the US might also be a result of immigration? I don't have any reference to this but what I've understood is that immigrants coming to the US usually don't have very high education and/or are coming from more religious (and probably not se evolution centered) countries. I also assume that the amount of immigrants is quite big over there. Could that explain (partly) the increase in the numbers?

    Comment


      #17
      Re: The Evolution Thread

      I wanted to add something that might be relevant to this thread. (It's more related to religion and evolution than just evolution, so I hope it's OK to talk about here)

      I think the problem is that people often think that the idea of evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. So when such polls are made, it is very important to ask the right kind of questions.

      I will use an example outside of evolution.

      I believe that god has created me. I also believe that some time ago I was a zygote that started growing in number of cells and size, and started a process of 'evolution' where it started to grow organs and limbs and so on until I was born.

      So the science of embryology and the fact I believe god created me do not contradict each other. Embryology is just explaining the way god created me. With that said, people who wish to learn about embryology shouldn't have to learn about god. That belongs in another 'class' so to speak.

      The whole point of this post is that sometimes those polls are made so a person has to choose between two options that aren't really mutually exclusive.

      People often feel like the question is like, "Do you believe in evolution and so automatically disbelieve in god and if it happens to be a god you are totally going to go to burn in hell?"

      [4:82]

      Comment


        #18
        Re: The Evolution Thread

        I feel inclined to agree with Dumuzi on this subject.

        I have heard the same things: that believing in either God or Evolution automatically excludes the other, that it is not possible for the two to coexist in any one mind. I speak here as both an amatuer animal biologist and one who believes in a world/worlds outside the mundane physical.

        I believe that biological matters and all other scientific subjects can exist in harmony with religion. That cells, growth, natural selection, and all the rest are merely outward manifestations of what is Really Going On -- physical manifestations that we can understand as human beings, that we can measure and document, that we can percieve with our five physical senses. As such, I also believe that evolution may very well be a process created by the Divine (if you believe in the Divine) so that we may physically exist, and that the theories of evolution serve as a reminder to us that animals and plants and such are indeed on the same level as us and deserve respect as much as we do. Or that evolution is another clever illusion to give us a foundation from which we may wisely build ourselves and our civilization (yeah, it's kind of failed in most aspects). Or something. I'm not very good at discussing such matters.

        I apologize as this is the Academics forum and this post is merely my own opinion. But I couldn't not say anything.
        Have you hugged a tree today?

        Comment


          #19
          Re: The Evolution Thread

          I always find these arguments against evolution annoying because they are wrong...here we go...

          Misconception 1) Evolution is only a theory
          Yes it is, but in the scientific community a theory is different than how it is viewed outside the scientific community. A scientific theory is an idea that had been back through experimentation, study, and multiple analysis, and has yet to be refuted. It's a fact because it explains changes that scientists KNOW occur (genetic changes in individuals, populations, etc). Scientists can even see these changes and measure them.

          Misconception 2) There are no missing links
          This has been a constant factor in this debate ever since Darwin came out with "The Origin of Species". Many people back then didn't thinkg that there were transitional fosil but you can see them in museums today. Such fossil specimens include Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and Australopithecus just to start. There are many more.

          Misconception 3) It violates the second law of Thermodynamics
          The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, increases in a closed system, making more complex systems more uniform. Therefore, some will state, evolution is impossible, because when an organism evolves it becomes more complex. What they don't realize though, is that Earth is not a closed system. Energy, in the form of sunlight comes from outside our planet, making this theory irrelevant to evolution.

          Misconception 4) Scientists don't agree on the idea
          Wrong. Scientists don't agree on the details. Just because scientists don't agree on the details doesn't mean the disagree on the theory. Scientists disagree on the details about everything, this allows for critical thinking and allows the formation of new ideas and getting rid of the old one involved in theory. This means nothing.

          Misconception 5) It can't create complex structures
          Often times, creationists will say that organisms are to complex to be evolve, therefore there had to have been a creator, or a "Watch Maker". However, scientists, time and time again, have identified intermediate structures again and again, such as with the eye, where groups of photo-sensitive cells, become light sensitive organs, and so on.

          I write up more if I can think of more.

          Comment


            #20
            Re: The Evolution Thread

            I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject, so I'll try not to sound like a total ignoramus asking this, but:

            One of the primary methods of evolution is Natural Selection. Given that humans, as a species, have started caring for people who would have otherwise died, given that people with genetic variations that would have been unfavourable in the wild are living and having children, have we changed the process of evolution?

            We're not exactly naturally selecting anymore. Are we still going to evolve, and if so will the rate of evolution be different than in the long ago?

            Comment


              #21
              Re: The Evolution Thread

              [quote author=PharaohKatt link=topic=635.msg13530#msg13530 date=1289867023]
              One of the primary methods of evolution is Natural Selection. Given that humans, as a species, have started caring for people who would have otherwise died, given that people with genetic variations that would have been unfavourable in the wild are living and having children, have we changed the process of evolution?

              We're not exactly naturally selecting anymore. Are we still going to evolve, and if so will the rate of evolution be different than in the long ago?
              [/quote]

              Well...there's a couple things to think about here. 1) Natural selection *is* important, don't get me wrong...but its not the only force that directs evolution. For example...sexual selection often leads to traits that aren't beneficial to an organisms survival. Now, unlike animal species that have really obvious sexual selection traits (a peacock for example), we have a variance of cultural and individual things we find attractive...so...if you apply that to people...well, who the heck knows what might happen in another dozen generations (seriously, look up the movie Idiocracy...its very sad) 2) Also...humans haven't had natural selection really be an obvious force for a while. We've been pretty savvy at manipulating our environment to our advantage for quite some time. But that doesn't mean that selection doesn't happen, just that its probably going to be more subtle as different things make you more or less successful and more or less likely to have grandchildren
              Because really, at the end of the day, the ultimate success of evolution isn't that you pass your genes on to the next generation, but that they pass their genes on to the next generation.
              Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
              sigpic

              Comment


                #22
                Re: The Evolution Thread

                [quote author=thalassa link=topic=635.msg13568#msg13568 date=1289873772]
                Well...there's a couple things to think about here. 1) Natural selection *is* important, don't get me wrong...but its not the only force that directs evolution. For example...sexual selection often leads to traits that aren't beneficial to an organisms survival. Now, unlike animal species that have really obvious sexual selection traits (a peacock for example), we have a variance of cultural and individual things we find attractive...so...if you apply that to people...well, who the heck knows what might happen in another dozen generations (seriously, look up the movie Idiocracy...its very sad) 2) Also...humans haven't had natural selection really be an obvious force for a while. We've been pretty savvy at manipulating our environment to our advantage for quite some time. But that doesn't mean that selection doesn't happen, just that its probably going to be more subtle as different things make you more or less successful and more or less likely to have grandchildren
                Because really, at the end of the day, the ultimate success of evolution isn't that you pass your genes on to the next generation, but that they pass their genes on to the next generation.
                [/quote]

                Thanks for that. *is learnding*

                Comment


                  #23
                  Re: The Evolution Thread

                  One thing that an anthropologist friend of mine is fond of saying:

                  "People get mistakenly hung up on 'survival of the fittest,' while it is more accurately 'survival of the sexually fittest.'"

                  In order pass traits on to later generations, and thus contribute to evolution, an organism must do two things:

                  a) Be able to reproduce.
                  b) Survive long enough to reproduce.

                  Being able to reproduce does mean more than being physical able to reproduce, theoretically. Barring asexual reproduction, the organism must be able to acquire a mate. Be this by attraction, by accident or luck, or by force.

                  Some traits aid in reproduction (such as peacock feathers aiding in attraction), and as a result these traits will carry over.

                  In other words... it is possible that someone could have some adaptation that makes them excellently suited for survival but, be extremely unattractive and socially awkward, and thus unable to get a date... and as a result, unable to pass that adaptation on to further generations.
                  "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Re: The Evolution Thread

                    [quote author=ThorsSon link=topic=635.msg13659#msg13659 date=1289906879]
                    One thing that an anthropologist friend of mine is fond of saying:

                    "People get mistakenly hung up on 'survival of the fittest,' while it is more accurately 'survival of the sexually fittest.'"

                    In order pass traits on to later generations, and thus contribute to evolution, an organism must do two things:

                    a) Be able to reproduce.
                    b) Survive long enough to reproduce.

                    Being able to reproduce does mean more than being physical able to reproduce, theoretically. Barring asexual reproduction, the organism must be able to acquire a mate. Be this by attraction, by accident or luck, or by force.

                    Some traits aid in reproduction (such as peacock feathers aiding in attraction), and as a result these traits will carry over.

                    In other words... it is possible that someone could have some adaptation that makes them excellently suited for survival but, be extremely unattractive and socially awkward, and thus unable to get a date... and as a result, unable to pass that adaptation on to further generations.
                    [/quote]

                    Like me. No matter how attractive my genes may be, to society, whether in terms of survival, strength, intelligence or even stunning good looks, they've reached a dead end.

                    No siblings and no offspring of my own... the world won't see my genes continue.

                    Though... naturally, that *could* be a 'good thing'.


                    [EDITED: A quote? With no reply?? Damn phone access!]





                    "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand

                    "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius

                    "The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain

                    "The only gossip I'm interested in is things from the Weekly World News - 'Woman's bra bursts, 11 injured'. That kind of thing." - Johnny Depp


                    Comment


                      #25
                      Re: The Evolution Thread

                      Ummm... thanks for the quotation, Chain... I've heard it said that quotation is the sincerest form of flattery... but did you mean to say anything?

                      [edit now that Chain's post is showing]
                      Hey, Chain, your post is showing... you might want to do something about that.
                      [/edit]
                      "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Re: The Evolution Thread

                        Uh, yes. Let it be known, I do not plagairize.

                        I do, however, have a bit of trouble with quoting, while using my cell to access the forum. Consistent, it isn't. I am actually surprised that it quoted, at all. Not letting me reply? That's the rarity. Fortunately... I can 'modify'. ;-)

                        /off topic




                        "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand

                        "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius

                        "The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain

                        "The only gossip I'm interested in is things from the Weekly World News - 'Woman's bra bursts, 11 injured'. That kind of thing." - Johnny Depp


                        Comment


                          #27
                          Re: The Evolution Thread

                          [quote author=ChainLightning link=topic=635.msg13674#msg13674 date=1289909856]
                          Like me. No matter how attractive my genes may be, to society, whether in terms of survival, strength, intelligence or even stunning good looks, they've reached a dead end.

                          No siblings and no offspring of my own... the world won't see my genes continue.

                          Though... naturally, that *could* be a 'good thing'.


                          [EDITED: A quote? With no reply?? Damn phone access!]
                          [/quote]

                          Chain, your reply reminded me of another situation that I overlooked, which is that of the mule.

                          The mule is a hybrid of a horse and a donkey.

                          The mule has the strength of the donkey and the loyalty of the horse. It is a very fine physical specimen... and sterile. Can't reproduce. Won't evolve.
                          "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Re: The Evolution Thread

                            [quote author=PharaohKatt link=topic=635.msg13530#msg13530 date=1289867023]
                            I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject, so I'll try not to sound like a total ignoramus asking this, but:

                            One of the primary methods of evolution is Natural Selection. Given that humans, as a species, have started caring for people who would have otherwise died, given that people with genetic variations that would have been unfavourable in the wild are living and having children, have we changed the process of evolution?

                            We're not exactly naturally selecting anymore. Are we still going to evolve, and if so will the rate of evolution be different than in the long ago?
                            [/quote]

                            I also want to add that surviving of the fittest is not the same as surviving of the strongest or the biggest or the best and so on.

                            For example, if an animal X mutates and becomes smaller and weaker, it can still beat the other big and strong animal X in surviving, if the size of the animal X helps it hide from the predator.
                            [4:82]

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Re: The Evolution Thread

                              Curious. No one seems to be hooked here.

                              This is a religious forum but there is no one arguing against evolution. How strange. Literalist religious types tend to have a problem with it. The seven days to create the universe and all that (liberal reinterpretions notwithstanding).

                              I'm not a pagan exactly, but I suppose this says something about paganism, or at least contemporary paganism. The Gaia principle of a couple decades ago seems like it probably should sit well with a paganist world view. However, there is very little scientific evidence to back up this kind of theory about meta-evolution.

                              On the other hand, in anthropology we find that some practioners/believers in Native American beliefs/religion, reject scientific theories of both biological evolution and the trans-Siberian migration model (in which it is believed that Native Americans are descended from people who crossed over from Siberia).

                              So, I'm just wondering, are there literalist pagans out there who believe that Odin and the gods created man and woman from Ash trees (for instance). Or do all contemporary Pagans suffer from liberal revisionism?

                              (Yes, I'm being intentionally provocative in the hopes of sparking conversation. I am also open to the idea that the creation myth is not as important to most Pagans as it is to fundamentalist Christians/Muslims, but this begs the question as to whether there are any fundamentalist Pagans)

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Re: The Evolution Thread

                                [quote author=gwynwas link=topic=635.msg18319#msg18319 date=1291054085]
                                So, I'm just wondering, are there literalist pagans out there who believe that Odin and the gods created man and woman from Ash trees (for instance). Or do all contemporary Pagans suffer from liberal revisionism?
                                [/quote]


                                There are pagans that do not *believe* in evolution*, we have, in the past, occasionally had some of them drop by...though, tbh, when I started this thread (and then had to take care of something else) my intent was less to be a debate over the subject from a religious vs science stance, than a scientific discussion of the subject...and I just haven't had time to add to that yet, leaving it pretty much wide open in terms of wherever people want to take it.

                                Because...in my experience, when this topic comes up as a debate, it tends to be more about "evolution is wrong because *enter shoddy understanding of science here*" and not "well, according to my religious tradition, I just happen to believe X, Y &Z and think your science is a bunch of bunk" (me thinks those people just ignore the debate entirely because it doesn't matter to them what science says).

                                Also...I think part of the reason may be that so many people in Pagan communities leave forms of Christiaity in which the Biblical mythos is so literal and entrenched, despite the overwhelming evidence against a literal interpretation of it that once they expand beyond Christianity, perhaps it makes it difficult to accept that sort of rigidly held idea to hold a new mythos to the same kind of rigor.

                                I sort of wonder...considering that we have at least one full time scientist on the board, as well as myself who happens to be a 5th year senior biology major, D who is going to be a doctor, as well as a number of atheists and other individuals that just happen to geek out on science, that we might be a bit more rigorous in our expectations for certain discussions that most people that might otherwise dissent, just sort of bow out ahead of time.




                                *Case in point, the idea of "believing" in evolution...I'm not sure if it is in this thread, or another one, but we're already covered the idea of "belief" in evolution being irrelevent.

                                Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X