Spreading evolution, science, and reason efficiently

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its quite the leap as far as I can see, to posit that over billions of years, that this can transform a specious from an amoeba to a human being.

You say quite a leap, we say entirely consistent with the fossil record that show just such a change happening over billions of years.

Potato/Patato

Dades

If you crack open this polyfilla at least you'll find a fossil record.

Dades

Snap!

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I think this is where the contentious micro and macro come into play.

Distinctions that were created, ex nihilo, by the people who lead the creationist movement in order to keep their flocks baffled and on-message.

The distinction does not exist in the real world.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Distinctions that were created, ex nihilo, by the people who lead the creationist movement in order to keep their flocks baffled and on-message.

The distinction does not exist in the real world.

A good analogy I heard recently is with a star. Every second a star converts millions of tons of hydrogen into helium. Understand this process allows you to accurate explain the entire life of a start, for how ever number of billions of years that lasts, a life cycle we cannot possible "observe".

To say there is a fundamental difference between "micro-fusion" (fusion second by second) and "macro-fusion" (that fusion repeated over billions of years) would be silly. Its the same process, you just add time.

smokingman

JimiTime wrote: »

Have to say, I'm neither creationist or evolutionist, but the whole 'It takes billions of years', is quite the polyfilla argument.

Is that only because you can't grasp that large a number maybe?

Not uncommon and even more so when you read about, say, distances between galaxies etc. The universe is huge and we are not "special" so maybe the thought of that big a number is an affront to the religious mind for that reason?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

A good analogy I heard recently is with a star.

Complicated! An easier one is to compare evolution to movement.

An on-message creationist would be able to admit that it's possible to move in small steps, but will deny that if you do it for long enough you could reach the next town.

oldrnwisr

JimiTime wrote: »

I think this is where the contentious micro and macro come into play. Adaptation is shown to be so, and those micro details etc that can change and adapt a species (fruit flies with smaller wings etc). Its quite the leap as far as I can see, to posit that over billions of years, that this can transform a specious from an amoeba to a human being. It seems that the 'billions of years' is required to square the rather big leaps in the theory. That does not mean that it is not true of course, but if someone is going to point the finger at a 'polyfilla' arguement, I think one must look at the polyfilla in their own.

Thanks, Jimi, it's always nice to see the argument from ignorance used at least once a day.

I thought that this rather tired creationist argument would have been shelved by now. Macroevolution and microevolution describe different phenomena but they rely on the same processes (for the most part). The problems in demonstrating macroevolution to creationists is that they create their own terms such as kind and their own definitions of macroevolution and speciation. If you lined up all the skulls from australopithecus to homo sapiens, you would still have creationists who walk down the line going monkey, monkey, monkey, man. It's absurd. The evolutionary path from amoeba to man is a stream of generations. It is an unbroken thread stretching back 3.5 billion years.

Look Jimi, I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. Let's suppose that we line up all the skulls (at least as far back as there was something which had a skull) of a direct chain of descendants over the course of 1 million years. If you pick up any skull in the line and compare it to the skull in front of or behind it, you won't see any difference. If you take any random skull, however, and walk 1000 skulls down the line then the two skulls will look very different to the point that you would consider them to be from different species.


It's hard to narrow down a reading list on macroevolution to just a few texts but I would recommend Julian Huxley's Evolution:The Modern Synthesis as a starting point. Alternatively there are two very good summary articles on talkorigins.org.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Complicated! An easier one is to compare evolution to movement.

An on-message creationist would be able to admit that it's possible to move in small steps, but will deny that if you do it for long enough you could reach the next town.

Yeah I used that with Wolfsbane, I said I had not watched the entire Nenagh by-pass being build, so using his logic I cannot say that it was built at all.

Apparently that is "different"

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

I think this is where the contentious micro and macro come into play. Adaptation is shown to be so, and those micro details etc that can change and adapt a species (fruit flies with smaller wings etc). Its quite the leap as far as I can see, to posit that over billions of years, that this can transform a specious from an amoeba to a human being. It seems that the 'billions of years' is required to square the rather big leaps in the theory. That does not mean that it is not true of course, but if someone is going to point the finger at a 'polyfilla' arguement, I think one must look at the polyfilla in their own.

This has been addressed before, but since you are neither JC nor Wolfsbane, you might not have seen it.

The evidence that these small steps extended over billions of years is in the geographical distribution of life, the fossil record, and the hierarchy of genes. It would be one massive coincidence if all these lines of investigation just "happened" to reflect a single common ancestry and a diversification of life through inheritance of mutations.

oldrnwisr

dead one wrote: »

Good friend, if you look at my contribution with prism of hatred than You won't able to see anything good/useful/intelligible.

I don't hate, dead one. I don't think anyone could see anything useful in your posts no matter what lens they looked through. The appropriate response to stupidity is ridicule.

dead one wrote: »

Mind you. I have beliefs but it doesn't mean i am here to convert someone. There is knowedlge behind my beliefs. I haven't ask anyone to accept what i believe

No, if there was knowledge behind your beliefs you could just present the knowledge and not the unfounded assertions you have presented.

dead one wrote: »

The point is simple for atheist, science and reason is in atheism. For Christian it is in Christianity. For Muslim it is in islam, for jew it is in Judaism etc
So where is the difference.

You don't need science or reason to be an atheist. Fastest way to become an atheist is just to read the bible/torah or qur'an.

dead one wrote: »

and you are here to prove your science and reason is valid coz it is based on atheism,?...... and you are saying it should be spread. What is difference between you and religious freaks

No, I'm not here to prove anything. I haven't asserted ridiculous claims like that there is a god so I don't have a burden of proof. I am saying that people should embrace critical thinking and science because these frameworks will allow them to analyse claims (especially religious ones) to see if they have any merit. The difference between me and religious freaks is my moral superiority to God or any character in the bible/torah/qur'an.

liamw

It's unreal that we still have to argue for gravity evolution in 2011...

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

This has been addressed before, but since you are neither JC nor Wolfsbane, you might not have seen it.

The evidence that these small steps extended over billions of years is in the geographical distribution of life, the fossil record, and the hierarchy of genes. It would be one massive coincidence if all these lines of investigation just "happened" to reflect a single common ancestry and a diversification of life through inheritance of mutations.

I don't suppose there is a book or EVEN BETTER a link to something which shows this is there? Most evolution sites that I've looked at, are either aproaching it from a 'Evolution is a crock', or the 'pro' sites that assume that you accept things like, 'the fossil record indicates' etc. Is there anything which actually SHOWS this record, their origins, etc? I don't want to just accept things like, 'the fossil record shows..' without actually seeing what the fossils origins, how they've been interpreted etc.

Alot of the books or sites start with lines like, 'For the last so many million years, man has been x' or somesuch. I want to know how this knowledge is arrived at etc. In a basic sense, Is there even a photographic composition of the fossil record from one cell to man?

At this moment in time, I see what creationists call 'micro' evolution, and evolutionists saying that there is no distinction, its simply billions more years worth of changes backed up by the fossil record. So I would like to see this fossil record in more detail, to see the strength of the claim. Any ideas?

oldrnwisr

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't suppose there is a book or EVEN BETTER a link to something which shows this is there? Most evolution sites that I've looked at, are either aproaching it from a 'Evolution is a crock', or the 'pro' sites that assume that you accept things like, 'the fossil record indicates' etc. Is there anything which actually SHOWS this record, their origins, etc? I don't want to just accept things like, 'the fossil record shows..' without actually seeing what the fossils origins, how they've been interpreted etc.

Alot of the books or sites start with lines like, 'For the last so many million years, man has been x' or somesuch. I want to know how this knowledge is arrived at etc. In a basic sense, Is there even a photographic composition of the fossil record from one cell to man?

At this moment in time, I see what creationists call 'micro' evolution, and evolutionists saying that there is no distinction, its simply billions more years worth of changes backed up by the fossil record. So I would like to see this fossil record in more detail, to see the strength of the claim. Any ideas?

Jimi, this is probably the best site to start with:

http://www.phylointelligence.org/

It has a whole section dedicated to showing the evidence for evolution which has been obtained from different branches of science. Also talkorigins.org has a huge database of information but it is more heavily reference based.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't suppose there is a book or EVEN BETTER a link to something which shows this is there? Most evolution sites that I've looked at, are either aproaching it from a 'Evolution is a crock', or the 'pro' sites that assume that you accept things like, 'the fossil record indicates' etc. Is there anything which actually SHOWS this record, their origins, etc? I don't want to just accept things like, 'the fossil record shows..' without actually seeing what the fossils origins, how they've been interpreted etc.

Alot of the books or sites start with lines like, 'For the last so many million years, man has been x' or somesuch. I want to know how this knowledge is arrived at etc. In a basic sense, Is there even a photographic composition of the fossil record from one cell to man?

At this moment in time, I see what creationists call 'micro' evolution, and evolutionists saying that there is no distinction, its simply billions more years worth of changes backed up by the fossil record. So I would like to see this fossil record in more detail, to see the strength of the claim. Any ideas?

To steal a link from Morbet, he used this before and it is a create example of what biologists talk about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

There is also the classic evolution of the whale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Sid_Justice

Sorry why is it the cause of athiests to champion science and evolution?

Are all atheists scientifically trained?

MagicMarker

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Sorry why is it the cause of athiests to champion science and evolution?

Are all atheists scientifically trained?

Yes, every one of us.

Zombrex

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Sorry why is it the cause of athiests to champion science and evolution?

Are all atheists scientifically trained?

Because we are the only ones that can



SUPER FRIENDS! UNITE!

raah!

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Sorry why is it the cause of athiests to champion science and evolution?

Are all atheists scientifically trained?

The argument, I'm guessing, goes like this:

Religion is bad, if we spread science and evolution there will be less religion, therefore we should spread science and evolution, as this would be good. "Good" is something we ought to do.

I would be interested however, to hear if there are any other arguments for why atheists place such high value on science.

It is my belief that it's a waste of time trying to get people who haven't studied (a particular branch of)science to understand science, what marks it out is its rigour, not its conclusions. The conclusions presented on their own (popular science) do not constitute scientific knowledge.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

It is my belief that it's a waste of time trying to get people who haven't studied (a particular branch of)science to understand science, what marks it out is its rigour, not its conclusions. The conclusions presented on their own (popular science) do not constitute scientific knowledge.

You sort of answered your own question there.

It is not simply enough for someone to know what scientists say. The significance of that only comes from understanding why they say that in the first place.

This is why the Science vs Creationism argument is so difficult, because a lot of people view it simply as two sides arguing difference conclusions, when in reality is it not true that both sides have different but equally valid conclusions. On side support their conclusions with science, the other doesn't. If someone doesn't know why that actually matters they will be more likely to be hood winked by pseudo-science and other nonsense.

Mark Hamill

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Sorry why is it the cause of athiests to champion science and evolution?

Did someone say it was?
Regardless, what we just have a case here where someone is contradicting evolution, so some atheists are telling him why he is wrong, it happens a fair bit on this forum as some theists see the "materialistic" claims of evolution to directly contradict their beliefs. I'm sure that most of those same atheists here would also argue against homeopathy if it was ever brought up as a proof of a religion (however its not normally, so those arguments usually occur in other forums).
The scientific method and its implications is not restricted to labs and men in white coats, its a tool for understanding our world and can be used and offered as evidence anywhere.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Are all atheists scientifically trained?

No, but I think quite a few, if not all, of those on this board are, at least, scientifically literate.

dead one

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Are all atheists scientifically trained?

No they aren't, they have more faith in their Science than other.
Science is more than chemistry and physics, more even than biology, and the human sciences challenge a lot of beliefs held by many atheists.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

You sort of answered your own question there.

It is not simply enough for someone to know what scientists say. The significance of that only comes from understanding why they say that in the first place.

My point was that there is a difference between popular science and science. Since we are not talking about having people do 4 year degrees, then all that this "spreading" can consist in is getting people to agree with you.

My point was that in order for science to be spread to the masses, it has to be popularised. It was that it's contradictory to say that you value science for it's rigour, and then want people to publish these populist tracts. It is contradictory to claim to value science for these reason and then say "read [insert popular science]".

HavingCrack

liamw wrote: »

It's unreal that we still have to argue for gravity evolution in 2011...

I actually know someone currently doing a PHD that aims to disprove evolution, at least as we understand it presently. This person is an atheist as far as I know but just happens to believe evolution as it is currently understood is wrong. If he manages to disprove it I'd imagine a Nobel Prize would be winging its way to Ireland pretty quickly. Granted, this is year 8 of his research and he hasn't made much headway....

liamw

HavingCrack wrote: »

I actually know someone currently doing a PHD that aims to disprove evolution, at least as we understand it presently. This person is an atheist as far as I know but just happens to believe evolution as it is currently understood is wrong. If he manages to disprove it I'd imagine a Nobel Prize would be winging its way to Ireland pretty quickly. Granted, this is year 8 of his research and he hasn't made much headway....

Are you sure he's not just arguing against random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift etc. or some other field and not the evolution of life itself?

CerebralCortex

HavingCrack wrote: »

I actually know someone currently doing a PHD that aims to disprove evolution, at least as we understand it presently. This person is an atheist as far as I know but just happens to believe evolution as it is currently understood is wrong. If he manages to disprove it I'd imagine a Nobel Prize would be winging its way to Ireland pretty quickly. Granted, this is year 8 of his research and he hasn't made much headway....

Sounds like he's trying to keep the tide out using a brush.

b318isp

It seems that some posters think science is an entity in its self - almost like a pseudo religion, or perhaps an anti-religion. Science is not a direct relation of atheism, or vice versa.

Science is an inquisitive point of view; which contains explanation, scepticism, logical rigour and burden of proof. It is a means of explanation only. To me, this logical form of explanation helps support an atheistic point of view.

b318isp

dead one wrote: »

and the human sciences challenge a lot of beliefs held by many atheists.

May I suggest changing this slightly: "the human sciences do not explain many matters to atheists and all other people".

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

My point was that in order for science to be spread to the masses, it has to be popularised. It was that it's contradictory to say that you value science for it's rigour, and then want people to publish these populist tracts. It is contradictory to claim to value science for these reason and then say "read [insert popular science]".

That implies there is nothing in popular science that goes into the specifics of why science is important. That wouldn't be my experience.

You don't need to do a 4 year course to understand why science is important. It can take like 10 minutes to explain.

I agree that a lot of popular science books are just listing off scientific discoveries with no context as to why they matter and how they are justified. But then a lot of popular science books are **** :pac:

b318isp

raah! wrote: »

My point was that in order for science to be spread to the masses, it has to be popularised. It was that it's contradictory to say that you value science for it's rigour, and then want people to publish these populist tracts. It is contradictory to claim to value science for these reason and then say "read [insert popular science]".

I don't understand your point. For a start, scientific subjects are taught in schools, and I including subjects such as Economics, History and Geography too. The whole principle of cause and effect (and rational explanation) is part of parenting. The fact that you are using a computer on this forum via the internet is as an outcome of science in a popular domain.

I also see no contradiction. A book such as Bill Bryson's "A brief history of nearly everything" may be a popular book, but it is a summary of scientific knowledge at a point in time written deliberately for a target market. Hawking's "Brief History of Time" is a very complex subject presented in a way that the general public can get an insight into it.

Once the popularist publications are accurate and are founded on real evidence, then there is no contradiction.