Facebook Conversation Re: Evolution - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #61 02-09-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by junqueyardjim

...It is helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life might have begun in a universe that already existed...

In that regard, evolution is like a lot of other sound scientific theories. Biologists who study and write about evolution don't claim that the theory explains everything.

It is the height of arrogance, IMHO, to reject the theory of evolution because it fails to explain the entire origin of the universe. I'm not a dumb person, but I do not presume to think that my brain is powerful enough to figure everything out and I do not look upon my inability to figure out how the universe got to this point as evidence that there is anything wrong with the hard work of several generations of biologists who believe that evolution is a sound theory.

pj67coll · #62 02-09-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

In that regard, evolution is like a lot of other sound scientific theories. Biologists who study and write about evolution don't claim that the theory explains everything.

It is the height of arrogance, IMHO, to reject the theory of evolution because it fails to explain the entire origin of the universe. I'm not a dumb person, but I do not presume to think that my brain is powerful enough to figure everything out and I do not look upon my inability to figure out how the universe got to this point as evidence that there is anything wrong with the hard work of several generations of biologists who believe that evolution is a sound theory.

Part of the problem is a complete missapprehension amongst the lay public as to what the term "theory" means in the context of scientific knowledge. It's not at all the same meaning as "theoretically, or "in theory" etc as used by lay folk. Thus the continuing ignorance of the religious assuming they know what they are talking about and giving equal weight to ancient mumbo jumbo and psychological factors compared to the scientific process.

- Peter.

kerry · #63 02-09-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Part of the problem is a complete missapprehension amongst the lay public as to what the term "theory" means in the context of scientific knowledge. It's not at all the same meaning as "theoretically, or "in theory" etc as used by lay folk. Thus the continuing ignorance of the religious assuming they know what they are talking about and giving equal weight to ancient mumbo jumbo and psychological factors compared to the scientific process.

- Peter.

Yep. They could equally as well attack the theory of gravity with their methodology and start claiming that objects fall because they love the earth.

450slcguy · #64 02-09-2011, 06:19 PM

It's all really very simple.

Life on Earth was seeded by the aliens, aka...God. Explains a lot when you think about it.

Botnst · #65 02-09-2011, 06:46 PM

^^^ Doug Adams' explanation.

Hatterasguy · #66 02-09-2011, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Part of the problem is a complete missapprehension amongst the lay public as to what the term "theory" means in the context of scientific knowledge. It's not at all the same meaning as "theoretically, or "in theory" etc as used by lay folk. Thus the continuing ignorance of the religious assuming they know what they are talking about and giving equal weight to ancient mumbo jumbo and psychological factors compared to the scientific process.

- Peter.

Correct most people only have a high school science education which is poor at best, so its hard for them to grasp it. Most have never done any actual lab work, etc.

They see the word "theory" and use it in there lay context which is incorrect.

In a way its a lot like the frog in the well, since we only know so much science can't explain it all yet, so as in the past people fill it in with religion. Like ancient cave men who thought thunder and lightening were gods or something.

The problem is when science catch's up and disproves it, that causes problems. Its like if you proved Zues didn't exist to the Greeks by explaining lightening, same thing now when you tell the Christians the world isn't 2k years old or whatever they believe.

JamesDean · #67 02-09-2011, 07:17 PM

My thoughts on the original facebook image post:

Mostly for the close-mindedness displayed by the participants and their stance on evolution. But, mostly the close-mindedness to the ideas.

PaulC · #68 02-09-2011, 08:00 PM

You were fantastic in ZZ Top...

450slcguy · #69 02-09-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ Doug Adams' explanation.

One of many. I prefer Von Daniken.

Ara T. · #70 02-10-2011, 12:49 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution This is one example I learned about in 8th grade

anthonyb · #71 02-10-2011, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

then why did modern apes evolve as such? why dont they speak and have a higher social order like their cousins? I am aware of the fossil records, I am also aware that there are gaps in said record.

I still want to know why dogs cant talk to their humans in a mutually understandable dialect. we have been together for millennia....

Something important to point out is that all species occupy a particular place in the ecosystem. It's why there are still monkeys in the African rain forest, and rats in big cities, and small fish and big fish. "More complex" does not equal "better," hence the astonishing durability of things like a cockroach or bacteria.

Regarding people and dogs, IIRC canines have only been domesticated for something on the order of 10-30,000 years. Unfortunately not long enough for them to evolve something as sophisticated as human speech. Actually, I would be willing to guess that they will never be able to evolve the ability to speak, based on the way their pharynx is designed - I think humans are fairly unique in having a pharynx that deals with both the passage of food and breathing and phonation.

anthonyb · #72 02-10-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Part of the problem is a complete missapprehension amongst the lay public as to what the term "theory" means in the context of scientific knowledge. It's not at all the same meaning as "theoretically, or "in theory" etc as used by lay folk. Thus the continuing ignorance of the religious assuming they know what they are talking about and giving equal weight to ancient mumbo jumbo and psychological factors compared to the scientific process.

- Peter.

I was about to say - everytime you see the word "theory" we should instead substitute "scientific law," although that runs into the problem of "law" in scientific parlance having a different meaning as well.

anthonyb · #73 02-10-2011, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by junqueyardjim

It is helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life might have begun in a universe that already existed.

Actually this is completely incorrect, and illustrates a common fallacy about the concept of evolution. Evolution neither explains how the universe began, nor does it explain (really) how life started, it only describes the development of life from one organism to a different organism. The idea that evolution is some kind of scientific equivalent of the religious divine origin hypothesis is how people get caught up in the misconception that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God. Which it doesn't.

It does, however have something to say about the literal interpretation of the Bible, but anyone who believes the Earth isn't 5,000 years old would probably agree.

MTI · #74 02-10-2011, 02:41 AM

Perhaps the students would be better served by first having a better foundation in the differences between science and doctrine. There has been bad science in history, just as there has been bad doctrine. How one determines whether science or doctrine is faulty is the goal of education.

pj67coll · #75 02-10-2011, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Perhaps the students would be better served by first having a better foundation in the differences between science and doctrine. There has been bad science in history, just as there has been bad doctrine. How one determines whether science or doctrine is faulty is the goal of education.

Yes indeed. But that still results in butting heads with nitwits who cant stand the idea of their kids learning science as it turns a floodlight on their mumbo jumbo which is something they just cant handle.

- Peter.