What Has Understanding Evolution

[Yanick]

Your question was answered before this thread got de-railed and turned into some kind of Evolution vs Religion debate.

In a very practical aspect evolution allows us to use animal models in researching biological phenomena because we share common cellular components and metabolic pathways which were conserved throughout the millenia due to their value in allowing organisms/species etc to survive and reproduce. Although mouse models are not perfect and don't correlate 100% to humans, it allows a very nice starting point to in vivo trials.

On the deepest level (and this starts to get into the realm of philosophy and not science), knowledge should be gained for purely knowledge's sake. What practical applications were there to Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Who cares what happens when things travel at the speed of light? We will never travel at the speed of light, so why study it? In fact, in Einstein's time, we did not even have the precision of instrumentation to measure his predictions about the bending of light due to gravity. Not all research has to have a direct practical application. In fact if you look at the history of science it is riddled with lots of little discoveries and ideas which culminate in that one big idea that actually changes the world. We only learn about that one big idea and that one big name scientist but a deeper study of the history of that field shows us that the big name guy built his idea around lots of little guys who figured out the little things.

Shoulders of giants and all that jazz.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What practical applications were there to Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Global Positioning, for one.

 

[Yanick]

Global Positioning, for one.

GPS did not exist in the early 1900's (when Einstein did his work on GR).

EDIT: Okay I re-read my post and I guess I was unclear in my point. My point is/was that just because some research or idea will not lead to a machine/invention/pharmaceutical/what-have-you right away does not mean that it is useless and it definitely does not mean that the idea/research should not be pursued. At the time of Einstein's publishing of GR there were NO practical applications. It was just a bunch of guys with really complicated equations and very interesting minds/imaginations 'daydreaming' about being on trains traveling near the speed of light. Low and behold 100 years later we are using those things in GPS.

 

[russ_watters]

But what I am not able to understand is why he got himself involved in a debate about the Catholic church, neo-Darwinism and what not, beginning with post #5. Now I would suggest that that the OP forget about this fight as the issue that is being so hotly debated about is irrelevant today. How does it even matter today whether Darwin was racist or not? That does not change how evolution works. I hope the OP got the answer to his original question.

It appears to me that that argument was the intent from the start:

Funny I can think of any number of bad things that have arisen due to understanding evolution but can't come up with a whole lot of good ones!

The OP wanted to discuss those "bad things" and appears to still not understand that those "bad things" don't actually have anything to do with understanding evolution. For the most part, they are based on misunderstanding/misuse of evolution. Odd, considering he jumped to the defense of the Catholic Church (against a nonexistent attack) using the same logic:

As to the bad things consider how fast one is jump on say the Catholic Church for it's "bad things" when it was not the doctrine but how people interpreted and abused the power of it.

...and then attacked evolution using the tactics he had just pointed out were flawed!

 

[Whalstib]

I NEVER Attacked evolution! I "believe" in it to use a simple term!
Argument was not my intention. Discussion was. I have no interest of evaluating this entire thread again but perhaps my choice of words was poor.

In preliminary investigations I was being presented with overwhelming examples of "bad things". Do a few internet searches and perhaps you will come to same conclusion. While attempting to find more beneficial and practical aspects of evolution and the evolution of evolution <G?> I was then introduced the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins both let's say a little pompous and add little facts to the discussion but are at the forefront of the "debate".

I then turned here to get a more unemotional definition as I knew as a science student there is more to this but was having difficulty finding concise answers and frankly don't have the background to fathom some of the higher theories in the biology book I have been studying. Oddly I can count one or two posters out of the many who had the class to concisely and eloquently get to the point. The remainder appeared driven by emotion and hence a debate has ensued.

Along the way I must say I have been misinterpreted and as I said I bear some of the responsibility for my poor choice of words and tone. But many jumped to great conclusions and accused me of being what I am not. Whatever...

This last post follows that pattern accusing me of attacking evolution by posing questions. I see that as a real problem in a scientific environment. You could just as easily ask me pointed questions that i would be pleased to answer if I am unclear or if you prefer to level accusations based on ambivalent remarks I have posted.

Opinions are fine but if you want to know the truth about what and how I feel just ask...

W

 

[russ_watters]

I NEVER Attacked evolution! I "believe" in it to use a simple term!
Argument was not my intention. Discussion was. I have no interest of evaluating this entire thread again but perhaps my choice of words was poor.

In preliminary investigations I was being presented with overwhelming examples of "bad things". Do a few internet searches and perhaps you will come to same conclusion.

Yes, there are a lot of crackpots on the internet who attack evolution using crackpot tactics. But so what? Crackpots should be ignored, not humored. You bringing those arguments here is a proxy attack on evolution: whether you believe those arguments or not, you force people to respond to them.

While attempting to find more beneficial and practical aspects of evolution and the evolution of evolution <G?> I was then introduced the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins both let's say a little pompous and add little facts to the discussion but are at the forefront of the "debate".

As said before, there is no debate in scientific circles regarding the validity of evolution. It's been well accepted for a hundred years. The "debate" that Dawkins has thrust himself into is the debate against religious crackpots against evolution. That's what you are taking up (and arguing on behalf of the crackpots, whether you actually agree with them or not). That's the basic issue here. Whether you really believe those crackpot things or just fell into a trap the crackpots set for you, you presented crackpot positions as if they had scientific validity and that's why you got the reaction you did.

Where it goes from here is up to you (it's your thread). If your original question has been sufficiently answered, there's nothing left to discuss. If you want more info about the real scientific benefits already listed, people can provide them. If you want to discuss more of the "bad things" that crackpots say about evolution, be prepared for more responses with irritated tones.

 

[Fra]

I confess my naivety here: I live in Europe and my impression is that this mixup of creation of the universe, evolution etc with religion tend to be very american. Maybe that's unfair, but for whatever reason it's an impression I have.

It took be a couple of readings before I realized that CC didn't stand for cosmological constant but rather Catholic Church

I interpreted the questioning of evolution Whalstib as what I rephrased in post 15

"ok we are the result of evolution" but so what? How does that help us here and now?"

I think that's a good question, that may be deeper than first appreciated. And asking it doesn't in any way (at least how I see it) imply religion. I tried to answer it.

I did interpret that not too unlike the questioning of the antrophic principle. There is some confusion also in scientific circuits about the distinction between evolution and anthrophic principles. There is a difference.

Edit: Somehow the possible conflict between scientific rationals, and relgious beliefs is a different discussion, although I can see how it's related. I figure it's something that religious scientists must face. I am not religious but I can imagine, that if I were, I could easily think that whatever clever mechanisms nature seem to have, you could say that "god put it there". That's fine. But I'm not sure how it helps me here and now, except possibly giving a way to accept our ignorance.

/Fredrik

 

[Whalstib]

Russ who are the "crack pots"? Dawkins and Myers or the religious right? Or Both-which is my choice!

The simple fact I offered to answer any direct questions to clarify where I am coming from and it was ignored and an alternative (and wrong!) theory of my motives and beliefs presented illustrates a very low level of scientific understanding and even worse journalistic inquiry. The majority of you here cannot seem to separate fact from emotion.

Could it be we are not at exactly the same level of expertise on the subject? That some of us have just broached the topic and are amazed and fascinated with the polarizing rhetoric?

The bottom line is most of you fit the mold perfectly of pompous, arrogant, sophomoric academics put forth by the "crack-pot" opposition! You have met a series of inquiries with contempt and THIS I find staggering and would not have predicted this response at PF!

But it's quite enlightening and I am enjoying my time here immensely!

Thank you Fra for yet another very thoughtful post to make the rest of feel a bit ashamed for delving into rhetoric!

W

 

[mishrashubham]

OK...fine...what is your question then? Please state that again in clear terms.

 

[DanP]

Could it be we are not at exactly the same level of expertise on the subject? That some of us have just broached the topic and are amazed and fascinated with the polarizing rhetoric?

The bottom line is most of you fit the mold perfectly of pompous, arrogant, sophomoric academics put forth by the "crack-pot" opposition! You have met a series of inquiries with contempt and THIS I find staggering and would not have predicted this response at PF!

Sue us, sue Dawkins, sue Darwin and sue the evolution.

 

[DanP]

Thank you Fra for yet another very thoughtful post to make the rest of feel a bit ashamed for delving into rhetoric!

W

Nobody is here to cater to your sensibilities.

 

[Whalstib]

Nobody is here to cater to your sensibilities.

Yea I know especially when those sensibilities are accuracy and a sense of inquiry that goes against dogmatic paradigm!

 

[thorium1010]

Yea I know especially when those sensibilities are accuracy and a sense of inquiry that goes against dogmatic paradigm!

If You want to study evolutionary science, many posts have been made by in order answer OP, most of the contributions were quite good . And then somewhere along the way you posted that Darwin had written stuff that you said were quite racist . Well bobze and mkorr showed you the passage that should be understood in the context of that time and when he meant races he was referring to variety.
Evolutionary science is not a belief and like any other field science relies on observation, hypothesis and evidence.

 

[Whalstib]

OK...fine...what is your question then? Please state that again in clear terms.

Thanks for asking!

My basic question has been answered by Fra. No argument with the basic idea of evolution from me.

It's a difficult subject because the term "evolution" can apply to simply "change in population over time" to "all life is descendant from one common single cell ancestor". It can be used in the present alone by devout religious types or demanded it be an over arching theory which takes God and Mans soul away and atheism the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn.

Unfortunately the debaters generally pick and choose a little of both and retreat to safer realms when pressed about bigger questions. Even Dawkin's will bounce back and forth if the burdon of proof is beyond his expertise. Others simply attempt to be cleaver and berate those who question refusing to address the issue at hand.

With this in mind it makes it difficult to formulate a question because as has been demonstrated there is a significant vocal and dishonest core of evolutionists who will change the definition mid-discussion to suit their needs of having to always be right.

This is the first discussion I have had with a group of people concerning evolution and upon reflection I can only compare it to my "sunday school" experiences. Overbearing dogmatic unqualified teachers unable to comprehend basic questions or articulate adequate responses resorting to rhetoric and marginalizing the questioner and hence the questions.

Once again my basic question has been answered. If I thought this was a group of people who could leave emotions at the door we could continue on but for all practical purposes most of you are beyond doubt think too highly of your own opinions to engage in civilized intelligent conversation.

W

 

[Whalstib]

If You want to study evolutionary science, many posts have been made by in order answer OP. And most of the contributions were quite good . And then somewhere along the way you posted that Darwin had written stuff that you said were quite racist and some of us were not willing to accept it . well bobze and mkorr exactly showed you the passage that should be understood in the context of that time and when meant races he was referring to variety.
Evolutionary science is not a belief and like any other field science relies on observation, hypothesis and evidence.

Once again you are dealing with opinion and interpretation.

Most people of the 19th century were racists to our way of thinking. This doesn't imply genocide or KKK but certainly noting there are cultural as well as genetic differences. the gap was much wider that it is today between cultures and there were still many quite primitive peoples and cultures. Darwin expressed concern and compassion for many of the issues and was against slavery.

I know a few racists and they are not pro-genocide, nor pro-slavery but make distinctions between cultures and are convinced theirs is superior. This is the form of racism I believe Darwin "may" have been judging by his writing I have been exposed to. I can not make a claim he was a racist only some of the writings appear so. Neither can I make the claim he was not.

Any absolutes in the matter are difficult.

W

 

[thorium1010]

Once again you are dealing with opinion and interpretation.

Most people of the 19th century were racists to our way of thinking. This doesn't imply genocide or KKK but certainly noting there are cultural as well as genetic differences. the gap was much wider that it is today between cultures and there were still many quite primitive peoples and cultures. Darwin expressed concern and compassion for many of the issues and was against slavery.

I know a few racists and they are not pro-genocide, nor pro-slavery but make distinctions between cultures and are convinced theirs is superior. This is the form of racism I believe Darwin "may" have been judging by his writing I have been exposed to. I can not make a claim he was a racist only some of the writings appear so. Neither can I make the claim he was not.

Any absolutes in the matter are difficult.
W

Again begs the question, whether you think darwin is racist or not what has that got to do with evolution ? Evolution is not just darwin, Darwin was the first to propose it. People who use doctrines to justify their action only do itto serve their own needs.
That has nothing to do with science. Science by nature is amoral, its people or individuals who use it, to justify their action.
Evolution is about understanding complex structure (in biology) and how all biology has common descent, adaptation and natural selection has driven more and more complex structures to form .

 

[mishrashubham]

Thanks for asking!

My basic question has been answered by Fra. No argument with the basic idea of evolution from me.

OK...
So do you have any questions in our mind apart from the OP? If yes is this your question?

It's a difficult subject because the term "evolution" can apply to simply "change in population over time" to "all life is descendant from one common single cell ancestor".

It can be used in the present alone by devout religious types or demanded it be an over arching theory which takes God and Mans soul away and atheism the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn.

Unfortunately the debaters generally pick and choose a little of both and retreat to safer realms when pressed about bigger questions. Even Dawkin's will bounce back and forth if the burdon of proof is beyond his expertise. Others simply attempt to be cleaver and berate those who question refusing to address the issue at hand.

With this in mind it makes it difficult to formulate a question because as has been demonstrated there is a significant vocal and dishonest core of evolutionists who will change the definition mid-discussion to suit their needs of having to always be right.

This is the first discussion I have had with a group of people concerning evolution and upon reflection I can only compare it to my "sunday school" experiences. Overbearing dogmatic unqualified teachers unable to comprehend basic questions or articulate adequate responses resorting to rhetoric and marginalizing the questioner and hence the questions.

Once again my basic question has been answered. If I thought this was a group of people who could leave emotions at the door we could continue on but for all practical purposes most of you are beyond doubt think too highly of your own opinions to engage in civilized intelligent conversation.

W

Frankly speaking I didn't understand most of that. When I said "in clear terms" I also meant in Simple English. You see I am not adept in this language. So please if you have any questions in your mind please restate them in an easy to understand style of writing, preferably 2-3 sentences.

With this in mind it makes it difficult to formulate a question...

Without a question we won't be able to answer you.

 

[Whalstib]

Again begs the question, whether you think darwin is racist or not what has that got to do with evolution ? Evolution is not just darwin, Darwin was the first to propose it. People who use doctrines to justify their action only do itto serve their own needs.
That has nothing to do with science. Science by nature is amoral, its people or individuals who use it, to justify their action.
Evolution is about understanding complex structure (in biology) and how all biology has common descent, adaptation and natural selection has driven more and more complex structures to form .

EXACTLY!
I used the quote to illustrate how evolution "could" be used to justify atrocities. There is a lively debate as to evolution's influence on Stalin, Hitler and Mao to name a few. I don't see how it can discredit evolution any more than gravity's role in munitions.

Do a search for "hitler evolution" the debate revolves around using hitler belief or non-belief in evolution to discredit evolution! That is ridiculous! Newtons theories play a bigger role in war than Darwins!

If you don't like the hitler analogy try Margaret Sanger who clearly used the theory of evolution to promote eugenics and racists thought.

None of this detracts from evolution as a science. For those of you who prefer to read more into what I am saying I will repeat:

None of this detracts from evolution as a science.

As a social idea I feel we must be diligent and careful about political motivations based on extremists views derived from misinterpretation of evolutionary theories. This goes for extremists on the far right who use such "facts" to promote their agenda as well. All this has lead to acceptance of "creationism" being taught in science classes in much of the US and ~ 40% of US adults believing in YEC et al.

Burying one's head in the sand and declaring it just isn't so because I prefer it not be is a mistake IMO.

W

 

[mishrashubham]

None of this detracts from evolution as a science.

Calm Down...

EXACTLY!
I used the quote to illustrate how evolution "could" be used to justify atrocities. There is a lively debate as to evolution's influence on Stalin, Hitler and Mao to name a few. I don't see how it can discredit evolution any more than gravity's role in munitions.

Do a search for "hitler evolution" the debate revolves around using hitler belief or non-belief in evolution to discredit evolution! That is ridiculous! Newtons theories play a bigger role in war than Darwins!

If you don't like the hitler analogy try Margaret Sanger who clearly used the theory of evolution to promote eugenics and racists thought.


As a social idea I feel we must be diligent and careful about political motivations based on extremists views derived from misinterpretation of evolutionary theories. This goes for extremists on the far right who use such "facts" to promote their agenda as well. All this has lead to acceptance of "creationism" being taught in science classes in much of the US and ~ 40% of US adults believing in YEC et al.

Burying one's head in the sand and declaring it just isn't so because I prefer it not be is a mistake IMO.

W

I agree with you; evolution should not be used as a justification for racist or unethical practices as you mentioned above with the examples of Hitler and others

 

[Whalstib]

OK...
Frankly speaking I didn't understand most of that. When I said "in clear terms" I also meant in Simple English. You see I am not adept in this language. So please if you have any questions in your mind please restate them in an easy to understand style of writing, preferably 2-3 sentences.
.

Sorry man! I'm good

 

[Whalstib]

Calm Down...

This is my favorite response to date!

I cracked up with this under my big bold desperate words!

Thanks!

W

 

[DanP]

Yea I know especially when those sensibilities are accuracy and a sense of inquiry that goes against dogmatic paradigm!

No. You asked what understanding evolution did for us, you was presented information. You claimed that "bad things" have arrived from the understanding of evolution, and you was told that this is false. Science dos not kill. Humans do.

There is no accuracy and inquiry in your posts. And you have no idea what dogmatic means.

If you want to discuss Hitler and Herrenvolk / Untermensch politics of Hitler, there is a social sciences forum where you can get an idea of what actually happened there.

And for your information, Mao and Stalin cared **** about evolution, if anything they fall in the completely opposite direction, complete social engineering.

 

[Whalstib]

Dan,

No. I said bad thing occurred due to misunderstanding evolution.

If you can't understand and comprehend that your entire argument crumbles.

W

 

[DanP]

Dan,

No. I said bad thing occurred due to misunderstanding evolution.

If you can't understand and comprehend that your entire argument crumbles.

W

Then again, did you ? Read your own post again.

Funny I can think of any number of bad things that have arisen due to understanding evolution but can't come up with a whole lot of good ones!

Warren

 

[Whalstib]

Dan the thread has evolved and been clarified!

As a staunch supporter of evolution one would assume you can follow along with the changes...

I believe I took the blame for poor choice of words several times clarified my position and most of us have moved on.

Dan conversations evolve. Terms are clarified, positions shifted based on provided information. This is called learning.

Too bad I'm sure you thought you were quite cleaver but this is only an embarrassing example of poor research skills. Actually it's not this because you have exhibited top notch reasoning skills for the most part so you are well aware of the state of the conversation. This is actually more condemning because you have purposely left out data which refutes your findings and makes your conclusions not only false but scandalous.

W

 

[DanP]

Actually it's not this because you have exhibited top notch reasoning skills for the most part so you are well aware of the state of the conversation. This is actually more condemning because you have purposely left out data which refutes your findings and makes your conclusions not only false but scandalous.

W

Yeah, like I said, sue me, sue Darwin, sue Dawkins :P Somebody lock this thread.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Yeah, like I said, sue me, sue Darwin, sue Dawkins :P Somebody lock this thread.

I second the motion. This is not a scientific discussion. It's about philosophical opinions and beliefs and doesn't belong in this forum. I know people love to watch fights, but take it somewhere else.

 

[Whalstib]

Exercise some restraint and ignore that which upsets you. You are not forced to read or respond in any manner.

W

 

[mishrashubham]

I second the motion. This is not a scientific discussion. It's about philosophical opinions and beliefs and doesn't belong in this forum. I know people love to watch fights, but take it somewhere else.

Another vote from me. If Warren doesn't ask a short, straightforward, logical question in his next post, this thread must be locked as it leads to nowhere.

 

[bobze]

So do you have any questions about evolutionary theory then Warren?

 

[Whalstib]

Here's someDoes evolution have predictive powers?

Have any mechanisms been identified?

Have we been able to steer evolution on small scale say with viruses?

What is the most striking example that a layman can appreciate about evolution?

Why do chemists who deal with the basic building blocks of "stuff" have the least to say on the matter?

Are there any scientific method driven legitimate peer reviewable research going into ID? Or is it strictly the realm of crack-pots?Strictly speaking ID does not have much to do with evolution per se but it is a part of the discussion. Please ignore if this line of inquiry upsets you and allow others who may have a take on it to chime in.

W

 

[Whalstib]

Do you think the trajectory of the above discussion may have marginalized anyone with evolutionary AND ID leanings on the forum? Would such a person feel comfortable commenting with such ideas? Do you care?

Also how do evolutioists deal with peoples from other cultures who have strong traditional beliefs on creation, say the Hopi? True enough they aren't attempting to sway public opinion and influence schools (Did I mention I against creationism being "taught" in science classes in public schools?) but has anyone seen Spencer Well's "The Journey of Man"? If so what did you think when he had to school the Aborigonie that his dream time myth was exactly that "dream time" ie false and Spence had the real answer? It was interesting that the Navajo were quite receptive in the small clip shown that they came from Asia not related to ridiculous Spider Woman and silly emergence tales.

I wasn't too disturbed when pressed to find more evidence about any migrations Spencer quickly stated the water level was much lower and all the migration that took place along the shore is now underwater.

I hope this is in the realm of evolution as it deals with the emergence of man from Africa and the evolution of hominids.

W

Thanks for asking Bobze!

 

[bobze]

Here's some


Does evolution have predictive powers?

Yes, many. Many of these questions are things covered in formal study of biology and that is probably where it would be best to learn them. However, I'll point you to some examples you can look into. Some good examples then;

Marsupials in Antarctica, Tiktaalik, The whole field of genetics, predator prey relationships, granting eye sight to "blind" cave fish, Xanthopan morgani praedicta (moths), etc, etc. There are many as it is a pretty damn powerful theory.

Have any mechanisms been identified?

What mechanism?

For starts you should understand that there is a biological fact of evolution (that allele frequencies change across generations, or another way of saying---in a more molecular world---"descent with modification") and there is what the layman calls "evolutionary theory", which really refers to the modern synthesis. As a unifying theory of biology it incorporates many other facts, hypothesis, theories etc.

The goal of science then, is to explain a natural phenomena. Evolutionary change which gave rise to the biodiversity of life on Earth is explained with selection, mutation, drift and "migration"--Though, these are broad reaching ways that change is fueled.

Asking someone to teach you all this on a message board is a little unreasonable. Again, this a pretty general and big question that would best be learned through formal study or at the least a lengthy book written for the layman of biology. Both Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth are books written for the laymen of biology and adequately explain the origins, evolutions, mechanisms, theories and evidences of the modern synthesis.

What is the most striking example that a layman can appreciate about evolution?

Well that's rather a subjective question unique to the individual. I'm a microbiologist by training and so am biased toward bugs. Ergo, I think one of the most interesting examples of evolutionary change is in resistance genes in bacteria. To quote Gould;

Fair enough, if we wish to honor multicellular creatures, but we are still not free of the parochialism of our scale. If we must characterize a whole by a representative part, we certainly should honor life's constant mode. We live now in the "Age of Bacteria." Our planet has always been in the "Age of Bacteria," ever since the first fossils—bacteria, of course—were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago.

On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are—and always have been—the dominant forms of life on Earth. Our failure to grasp this most evident of biological facts arises in part from the blindness of our arrogance but also, in large measure, as an effect of scale. We are so accustomed to viewing phenomena of our scale—sizes measured in feet and ages in decades—as typical of nature.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html"

And I'd like Bobze in particular to address this one:

Does homology indicate common ancestry?
and was this response warranted:
Get an education in science rather than cut and pasting from creationist factoid websites.

W

Yep, that's pretty much what happens when you pop onto a form and don't bother to read the topic you're replying too/use the search function/do your homework/etc...

 

[bobze]

Also how do evolutioists deal with peoples from other cultures who have strong traditional beliefs on creation, say the Hopi? True enough they aren't attempting to sway public opinion and influence schools (Did I mention I against creationism being "taught" in science classes in public schools?) but has anyone seen Spencer Well's "The Journey of Man"? If so what did you think when he had to school the Aborigonie that his dream time myth was exactly that "dream time" ie false and Spence had the real answer? It was interesting that the Navajo were quite receptive in the small clip shown that they came from Asia not related to ridiculous Spider Woman and silly emergence tales.

I wasn't too disturbed when pressed to find more evidence about any migrations Spencer quickly stated the water level was much lower and all the migration that took place along the shore is now underwater.

I hope this is in the realm of evolution as it deals with the emergence of man from Africa and the evolution of hominids.

W

Again, you're taking a sidetracking dive from the science of evolutionary biology and on into the realm of social and philosophical discussion. The universe and science as an extension via study of the universe, cares little for how "entrenched" in a belief we are. Lots of people believe things, that they believe them doesn't really change how reality behaves.

No amount of prayers offered up to Russell's orbiting teapot will make it so. You should pick up a copy of Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

And who are 'evolutionist'? If by that, you mean people who have studied the evidence for evolution and accept it based upon that study then what's the need to point them out as 'evolutionists'? Do you also refer to people who've studied plate tectonics as 'plate tectonicists', or those who've studied germ-theory of disease as 'germists' or those who've studied atomic theory as 'atomists'?

If you want to not be sterotyped as a creationist, then dropping the creationist lingo maybe beneficial to that. You know, like momma always said; first impressions are everything.

 

[Whalstib]

Again, you're taking a sidetracking dive from the science of evolutionary biology and on into the realm of social and philosophical discussion. The universe and science as an extension via study of the universe, cares little for how "entrenched" in a belief we are. Lots of people believe things, that they believe them doesn't really change how reality behaves.

No amount of prayers offered up to Russell's orbiting teapot will make it so. You should pick up a copy of Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

And who are 'evolutionist'? If by that, you mean people who have studied the evidence for evolution and accept it based upon that study then what's the need to point them out as 'evolutionists'? Do you also refer to people who've studied plate tectonics as 'plate tectonicists', or those who've studied germ-theory of disease as 'germists' or those who've studied atomic theory as 'atomists'?

If you want to not be sterotyped as a creationist, then dropping the creationist lingo maybe beneficial to that. You know, like momma always said; first impressions are everything.

Frankly I didn't realize I was using "creationist" lingo. The term "evolutionist" is aimed at the apologetics branch of the science. I know it sounds silly to us gravitatioists et al<G!>

It is a science that is being discussed as a philosophy in many circles and should be addressed. I understand if some don't want to discuss the social implications so please don't feel compelled to post if it's too emotional a topic for you.

Frankly I would not be too upset if Jimmy Swaggart started crying when evolution was explained to him. Kinda be funny. But that's because those guys are a real burr in the saddle. But other cultures seem to function quite well with a solid spiritual foundation that has myths and truths counter to evolutionary ideas. I plan to work off a grant teaching at a Native American reservation/nation. Not that I'm worried about their feelings per se but there IS something on a different level evolution doesn't explain or answer fully. Is it incumbent upon me to kick out the crutch as it were and replace it with what western society has to offer based on the scientific method? You have already admitted to fully appreciate the matter is an advanced undertaking. How does one replace a multi generational tradition with a theory that can't be fully explained and in fact demands you shift away from your own paradigm and accept it first before you can begin to comprehend?

You invoke Dawkins again and he's stated he justified his atheism with evolution. That is quite extreme to some ears. How can one win hearts and minds with such absolutes at the meet and greet?

G'nite,

W