DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 73109 on January 26, 2011, 05:22:14 PM
-
So, something happened to me in class today that, for maybe the first time, left me completely speechless.
In English class, we are going to start reading The Lord of the Flies. The Lord of the Flies deals heavily with morality and asks at many points is man inherently good or evil? We needed to write a journal about this and also talk about how religion affects some people's decisions. This eventually led to a religious discussion amongst my friends. One kid literally said this:
"I don't believe in science."
We asked him what that meant and he replied with the following, "Well...like, the theory of evolution is retarded." Ok, so I can actually see how some might believe this so I asked him to continue. He said:
"Well, I don't believe in atoms."
We, as a group, then asked what we were made out of, and he said cells, and we asked what cells were made out of and he said small particles. We then asked how "small particles" differed from "atoms," and he said he did not know. He also said that us being made out of carbon is complete bull shit. He also said that scientists are wrong when they say the center of the earth is made up of metal. I then asked what it was made up of and he said he had no clue but it wasn't metal. I then said:
"Hey, dude. I totally respect your opinion, but it seems as though you are just simply uninformed. If you don't believe in what scientists are telling you, and you don't even know for yourself, maybe do you think you should not have such a strong opinion?"
I think you would be hard-pressed to even find a radical theist to agree with him. I understand not believing in the theory of evolution, but to me, he basically tried to sell me that 2+2=5 because god says so. Is this so "wrong," it is just wrong?
I am one who is usually respectful of all religious beliefs unless those somehow violate the right of another, but to me, this is pure ignorance and is, by definition, wrong. Am I wrong?
-
There is a difference between being very religious and just plain ignorant.
-
Is this so "wrong," it is just wrong?
I am one who is usually respectful of all religious beliefs unless those somehow violate the right of another, but to me, this is pure ignorance and is, by definition, wrong. Am I wrong?
I agree with you. Not all beliefs are entitled to deference merely because they are cloaked with being "religious beliefs." A lot of religious beliefs are wrong, including beliefs that are sincerely held.
-
sounds like a fictional character from a bad movie :lol
for me, the Scriptures are not wrong. my understanding of what it means is more than capable of being wrong. I think these two poles often get missed.
-
Is this so "wrong," it is just wrong?
I am one who is usually respectful of all religious beliefs unless those somehow violate the right of another, but to me, this is pure ignorance and is, by definition, wrong. Am I wrong?
I agree with you. Not all beliefs are entitled to deference merely because they are cloaked with being "religious beliefs." A lot of religious beliefs are wrong, including beliefs that are sincerely held.
To further the thread along, can I ask of you what beliefs you find to be just completely and utterly wrong?
-
I'm not sure how something like "I don't believe in atoms" could even be called a "religious opinion" and not just be a case of someone being plain old wrong. What religious beliefs does this person have that conflicts with the existence of atoms or that we're carbon based?
-
Is this so "wrong," it is just wrong?
I am one who is usually respectful of all religious beliefs unless those somehow violate the right of another, but to me, this is pure ignorance and is, by definition, wrong. Am I wrong?
I agree with you. Not all beliefs are entitled to deference merely because they are cloaked with being "religious beliefs." A lot of religious beliefs are wrong, including beliefs that are sincerely held.
To further the thread along, can I ask of you what beliefs you find to be just completely and utterly wrong?
You mean in general, or just in the scenario you mentioned? If you mean in general, it's almost unlimited. I mean, people have been coming up with bad ideas since the beginning of time. :lol
If you are talking about the scenario above, I think all of them are wrong. The only one that is not completely objectively wrong, IMO, is his belief regarding evolution. Some evolution does occur, and we can observe it. I think we can debate about the extent of the evolutionary process or whether macro-evolution occurs, and plenty of atheists and agnostics will even concede that point. So for him to completely write off evolution is just silly. And his other points...I just don't see any merit to them.
-
No belief is more "true" than other beliefs, imo, but when lined up to certain standards like "common sense," some beliefs are just truly retarded. This case seems to be more of a problem of attitude though. I mean, if you believe things are made of small particles, then you believe in atoms. His rebellion against scientific convention has got his words all jumbled up, poor little confused thing.
-
While I hate to label anyone's sincerely held beliefs "retarded," anyone saying "I don't believe in science" is, well...let's just say misinformed. I don't believe in some of the conclusions drawn by modern scientific theory, but really EVERYONE should be able to concede that. It's just a question of which theories one disagrees with.
-
And never mind that we can observe atoms using scanning electron microscopes.
Anyway, arguing with this kid is not worth your time. Some people just ain't gonna budge no matter what they're presented with, for a lot of reasons. Maybe he'll grow up one day and be a little smarter and more open-minded, but don't bank on it 'cause a lot of people never do.
-J
-
I can't help but hope that the internet will rid the human race of a large portion of baseless opinions and beliefs, but that may just be too optimistic
-
Can a religious opinion be wrong?
A religious belief is just as much a belief as anything else, I think. For example, I believe that matter is composed of atoms, that I have two hands, and that God exists. I don't create a separate category for things that are religious or spiritual. They are all jumbled together in my mind's pool of beliefs. I believe in absolute truth, and therefore, any belief, whether religious, scientific, or whatever, can be subject to invalidation.
I took a little liberty in answering the question in regards to beliefs rather than opinions, but...I don't really know what a religious opinion would look like. =/
-
While I hate to label anyone's sincerely held beliefs "retarded," anyone saying "I don't believe in science" is, well...let's just say misinformed. I don't believe in some of the conclusions drawn by modern scientific theory, but really EVERYONE should be able to concede that. It's just a question of which theories one disagrees with.
This might be a good starting point for discussion. I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP. You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP. I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles. Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable? It's the same thing with newer religions.
-
Is this so "wrong," it is just wrong?
I am one who is usually respectful of all religious beliefs unless those somehow violate the right of another, but to me, this is pure ignorance and is, by definition, wrong. Am I wrong?
I agree with you. Not all beliefs are entitled to deference merely because they are cloaked with being "religious beliefs." A lot of religious beliefs are wrong, including beliefs that are sincerely held.
To further the thread along, can I ask of you what beliefs you find to be just completely and utterly wrong?
You mean in general, or just in the scenario you mentioned? If you mean in general, it's almost unlimited. I mean, people have been coming up with bad ideas since the beginning of time. :lol
If you are talking about the scenario above, I think all of them are wrong. The only one that is not completely objectively wrong, IMO, is his belief regarding evolution. Some evolution does occur, and we can observe it. I think we can debate about the extent of the evolutionary process or whether macro-evolution occurs, and plenty of atheists and agnostics will even concede that point. So for him to completely write off evolution is just silly. And his other points...I just don't see any merit to them.
No sir... the extent that evolution occurs is not being debated. We know that macroevolution occurs. Macroevolution is simply microevolution, over and over again. The only difference is time scale. Just like the only difference between a 20 foot walk and 20 mile walk is time scale. What debates ARE going on in evolution, you may be asking? Well, some people think that evolution occurs in huge steps over long periods of time (for example, there are millions of years with almost no evolution occuring and then suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs), and some think that evolution is an entirely gradual process that is always going on. There is also some debate as to whether natural selection is the only force driving evolution, or there are other forces that complement natural selection (like DNA mutations). But NO, NO, NO, NO, there is NO debate WHAT SO EVER as to the EXTENT that evolution occurs.
Also, about this religious nut saying that he doesn't BELIEVE in evolution, well.. with science, there is no BELIEF, because the word belief implies faith. There is no faith in science. Either you accept science, or you do not accept science. "I do not accept evolution" valid claim. "I do not believe in evolution" invalid claim because evolution is not grounded in faith. The same applies to any theory of science, atomic theory, theory of relativity, you name it.
Also, something I wanted to touch into here - nothing in science is proven. Proof is a MATH term, not a SCIENCE term. That is why the highest level of confidence anything can reach in SCIENCE is THEORY, to get above theory, you have to dive into the field of mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4? Proven. The planet Jupiter is larger than the planet Saturn? not proven. Now do you some of you this may sound like complete rubbish but it is true. Now, there are certain things (like evolution, and the Moon is smaller than the Sun), that while they have not been proven, we are almost 100% certain that they never will be disproven. Why is nothing in science proven, I hear you ask. Well, that is because science is always wanting to IMPROVE, or CHANGE. If scientists said something is PROVEN, that means it is absolute truth. If something is aboslute truth, a more correct explanation cannot be devised. If a more correct explanation cannot be devised, than it cannot change, and as I said before, science is all about change.
/rant for now, if anyone would wish to debate me on any of the point I made, I would be happy to - but please, no straw mans.
-
:lol
(for example, there are millions of years with almost no evolution occuring and then suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs)
I have never met a scientist who believes this, and I'm not even sure what it means. "Suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs". :lol
There is also some debate as to whether natural selection is the only force driving evolution, or there are other forces that complement natural selection (like DNA mutations).
The basis for evolution/natural selection IS DNA variance and mutation.
Also, about this religious nut saying that he doesn't BELIEVE in evolution, well.. with science, there is no BELIEF, because the word belief implies faith. There is no faith in science. Either you accept science, or you do not accept science. "I do not accept evolution" valid claim. "I do not believe in evolution" invalid claim because evolution is not grounded in faith. The same applies to any theory of science, atomic theory, theory of relativity, you name it.
If nothing is proven in science, which you stated in your post (and correctly, I think, in the strictest sense), then how is there no "belief" in science? There is always some level of "belief" when you take the word of others. It's not feasible for me to go into my backyard and exhaustively test every known law of physics, let alone every claim made in every field of science ever. I use the information available to me and draw conclusions from it, while remaining open to other possibilities and future discoveries. Granted, this is not the same as religious belief, but it's a type of belief nonetheless.
-J
-
I don't know the science behind it, but when I look at dogs and how many new breeds are created all the time because of what breeders have been doing I have no problem believing that an ape could become a human over millions of years, especially if God wanted it to be that way.
-
Oh yes, the old evolution being by the hand of god gig. Classic.
-
Are you here to discuss things, or are just taking pot-shots at people's beliefs？
-
Also, about this religious nut saying that he doesn't BELIEVE in evolution, well.. with science, there is no BELIEF, because the word belief implies faith. There is no faith in science. Either you accept science, or you do not accept science. "I do not accept evolution" valid claim. "I do not believe in evolution" invalid claim because evolution is not grounded in faith. The same applies to any theory of science, atomic theory, theory of relativity, you name it.
I can appreciate a spirited defense of science against the rants of uninformed fundies, but don't incorrectly redefine terms to make your point. The Greek word for "faith" used in the Bible is "pistis." And it doesn't mean "belief without evidence." Having faith means to trust (Jesus, in this instance) based on evidence that the trust is appropriate. You stopped short of classifying religion as fairytale, but I thought I'd preempt the "religion is mythical, science is testable" argument.
-
Doesn't evolution go against god being perfect in every way? God created everything and if he's perfect, there would be no need to evolve anything cause then he made a mistake amirite???
-
:lol
(for example, there are millions of years with almost no evolution occuring and then suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs)
I have never met a scientist who believes this, and I'm not even sure what it means. "Suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs". :lol
I was speaking in lamens terms. I don't actually mean suddenly, as in within seconds, I mean comparatively suddenly. For example, for about 200 million years very little evolution occurs, but then over the course of the next 500,000 years lots of evolution occurs. And just because you have never met a scientists who "believes" this doesn't mean it isn't real, its called punctuated equilibrium.
There is also some debate as to whether natural selection is the only force driving evolution, or there are other forces that complement natural selection (like DNA mutations).
The basis for evolution/natural selection IS DNA variance and mutation.
Exactly, thats the debate. Some people think that DNA mutations aren't important, others think it is.
Also, about this religious nut saying that he doesn't BELIEVE in evolution, well.. with science, there is no BELIEF, because the word belief implies faith. There is no faith in science. Either you accept science, or you do not accept science. "I do not accept evolution" valid claim. "I do not believe in evolution" invalid claim because evolution is not grounded in faith. The same applies to any theory of science, atomic theory, theory of relativity, you name it.
If nothing is proven in science, which you stated in your post (and correctly, I think, in the strictest sense), then how is there no "belief" in science? There is always some level of "belief" when you take the word of others. It's not feasible for me to go into my backyard and exhaustively test every known law of physics, let alone every claim made in every field of science ever. I use the information available to me and draw conclusions from it, while remaining open to other possibilities and future discoveries. Granted, this is not the same as religious belief, but it's a type of belief nonetheless.
No you idiot. Science has evidence. Evidence means that there is no faith. By definition it is not grounded in faith if you have evidence.
-J
-
Doesn't evolution go against god being perfect in every way? God created everything and if he's perfect, there would be no need to evolve anything cause then he made a mistake amirite???
Why not use evolution then?
This argument leaves nothing but a deadlock.
There is a difference between being very religious and just plain ignorant.
This though... 100% agree
-
I don't know the science behind it, but when I look at dogs and how many new breeds are created all the time because of what breeders have been doing I have no problem believing that an ape could become a human over millions of years, especially if God wanted it to be that way.
I don't understand why a god would waste 3 billion years (scratch that, try 13 billion if you're going back to the Big Bang) on the torturous process of building up from single cell organisms (not to mention losing most of his work every time the planet crashed and he forgot to save) to arrive at humans, then put them through ~150,000 years of hardship until they develop civilization so they could worship him/her/it. That's a bit of a stretch. The domestication and breeding of dogs are just an example of how adaptation can occur when we're pulling the strings, similar to the domestication of crops or genetic engineering.
-
I don't know the science behind it, but when I look at dogs and how many new breeds are created all the time because of what breeders have been doing I have no problem believing that an ape could become a human over millions of years, especially if God wanted it to be that way.
I don't understand why a god would waste 3 billion years (scratch that, try 13 billion if you're going back to the Big Bang) on the torturous process of building up from single cell organisms (not to mention losing most of his work every time the planet crashed and he forgot to save) to arrive at humans, then put them through ~150,000 years of hardship until they develop civilization so they could worship him/her/it. That's a bit of a stretch.
Well you're putting a ton of words in my mouth, so I shouldn't even bother responding, though I will:
All I said was I find it likely that evolution is really true, and IF it is really true, it occurred because a.) it was the means by which God wanted to create human life or because b.) because it was part of a natural process that occurred as a result of something God initially created and did not want stopped. No, I'm not saying that this opinion should be taught in schools-- thought it should be, under a different banner: the banner of philosophy.
Unfortunately, the same academics you've mentioned who will 'unanimously declare' just about anything have already sold out there humanities departments in favor of the bottom line, and soon parents who don't have a clue what 'ethics' or 'spirituality' is will be customizing their future childrens' genes in order to make them as good at doing math problems, playing sports, and attracting partners of the opposite sex as possible... OK I admit now's not the time for THAT rant.
Annnnyway.... I believe that the personal opinion I stated above and in the previous post is just as likely as the one that says, "nothing just created something from itself and that stuff created more things over billions of years." If you don't think so, that's to bad. But I'll err on the side of admitting I don't know everything, and have faith that what I believe in is worthwhile.
A final word about academia: I haven't been around it long, but I have been around it long to realize that 'almost unanimous academic consensus' is absolute bullshit and can't be trusted. Again, I'm not denying that evolution occurred/s or that the Big Bang also may have, or that humans have been here on Earth for more than 6,000 years. But unfortunately academic 'peer-review' rarely means "a bunch of really smart people were able to come to the same conclusion about something" as often as it means "one really smart person has a theory, and 2,000 academics are currently slapping their own buzzwords onto a zombified version of this research in order to get published somewhere and save their own skin."
-
Maybe like God created the world in 7 days, then said screw it and triggered the big bang instead, then evolved some lizards on a remote planet and watched their civilization bloom, then evolved some monkeys on a different planet and watched the lizards conquer the monkeys and mess with their DNA so that the monkeys will always be bound by crappy religions and crappy scientific metanarratives and never be able to see the lizards controlling their minds and dictating their dreams. And like maybe the only interaction God makes with the physical world is as a member of an insignificant forum on the internet making useless troll posts, thus trolling the entire human race with the entertainment he finds in being profoundly insignificant.
-
And maybe God's only contribution to human civilization was the "lol jesus" meme.
-
here is also some debate as to whether natural selection is the only force driving evolution, or there are other forces that complement natural selection (like DNA mutations).
DNA mutations are the driving force behind evolution. When a DNA strand replicates itself, it must find matching nucleotides to attach itself to in order to make a perfect replica. Some times incorrect nucleotides make it to the new DNA strand, and the new strand is now considered mutated. Occasionally a mutation will be great enough to affect the life of whatever (we'll call it a dog). Sometimes the mutation helps the animal, some times it hurts it. If it hurts the dog in any way, it might cause it to die before it can pass the bogus gene along. but if a gene mutated and allowed a dog to have more muscles around its jaw, we'll say 3% more strength. If that 3% gave it even the slightest edge on catching prey, it is more likely to survive. Not only does it survive, but it passes that additional 3% along. It's decedents over time may also experience similar mutations. Over the course of a few hundred years, you made see a dog with 80% more biting strength than the one that we started with. I know it's not the best example, but I just woke up and my brain isn't in full swing yet.
-
Yes, all of em.
-
A question to the biologists: is sexual selection considered part of natural selection?
-
Not a biologist but I'd say yes. Characteristics that assist individual survival, group survival and reproductive capacity fuse together in one big melting pot, in my understanding.
-
Back to the original question of this thread, yes, religious opinions can be wrong. I'm sure the vast majority of opinions held by people in the name of religion are wrong. Is it wrong for them to have their opinions? No, they can think whatever they want. But having an opinion on a matter that has basically been conclusively proven to be wrong is kind of a stupid thing to do. But it's so easy for religious people to say "God made it that way" or "It's Satan trying to confuse us", so there's really no reason to argue with them.
-
:lol
(for example, there are millions of years with almost no evolution occuring and then suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs)
I have never met a scientist who believes this, and I'm not even sure what it means. "Suddenly a bunch of evolution occurs". :lol
I was speaking in lamens terms. I don't actually mean suddenly, as in within seconds, I mean comparatively suddenly. For example, for about 200 million years very little evolution occurs, but then over the course of the next 500,000 years lots of evolution occurs. And just because you have never met a scientists who "believes" this doesn't mean it isn't real, its called punctuated equilibrium.
There is also some debate as to whether natural selection is the only force driving evolution, or there are other forces that complement natural selection (like DNA mutations).
The basis for evolution/natural selection IS DNA variance and mutation.
Exactly, thats the debate. Some people think that DNA mutations aren't important, others think it is.
Also, about this religious nut saying that he doesn't BELIEVE in evolution, well.. with science, there is no BELIEF, because the word belief implies faith. There is no faith in science. Either you accept science, or you do not accept science. "I do not accept evolution" valid claim. "I do not believe in evolution" invalid claim because evolution is not grounded in faith. The same applies to any theory of science, atomic theory, theory of relativity, you name it.
If nothing is proven in science, which you stated in your post (and correctly, I think, in the strictest sense), then how is there no "belief" in science? There is always some level of "belief" when you take the word of others. It's not feasible for me to go into my backyard and exhaustively test every known law of physics, let alone every claim made in every field of science ever. I use the information available to me and draw conclusions from it, while remaining open to other possibilities and future discoveries. Granted, this is not the same as religious belief, but it's a type of belief nonetheless.
No you idiot. Science has evidence. Evidence means that there is no faith. By definition it is not grounded in faith if you have evidence.
-J
#1: Learn how to use quotes properly. Your words go outside the quote box. I was about to give J a warning for calling you an idiot, and then realized that it was actually you.
#2: Which brings me to the more serious issue: Read the forum rules before your next post. Next time I see you make a personal attack on another user, you will be out of here no questions asked.
#3: Thanks for the lecture. I won't go into how many logical fallacies you commited in your arguments because the bigger point is that there are tons of threads that are actually about the issues you raised. This is not one of them. But thanks to your off-topic rant, the entire thread is now pretty much way off topic. Don't do that again.
To the rest of you, please check the OP and try to keep your posts on topic. It's an interesting discussion that will naturally bring up tangents. It's understandable that side discussion will occur. But try your best to stick to the topic at hand.
-
Oh yes, the old evolution being by the hand of god gig. Classic.
Similar warnings for you. You are free to disagree with anything you like. But your P/R posts that I have seen lately are nothing but trolling. Either contribute or stay out of P/R please.
-
While I hate to label anyone's sincerely held beliefs "retarded," anyone saying "I don't believe in science" is, well...let's just say misinformed. I don't believe in some of the conclusions drawn by modern scientific theory, but really EVERYONE should be able to concede that. It's just a question of which theories one disagrees with.
This might be a good starting point for discussion. I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP. You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP. I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles. Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable? It's the same thing with newer religions.
Excellent points. Obviously, on any of the specific points you might raise, we could go into exhaustive detail. I'll take more of a macro approach. Going back to what WW pointed out about faith above, faith should be based on a sufficient amount of evidence that whatever the belief is, it is reasonable. It is examining the evidence we can see and relying on it to believe something is true that we can not see. I believe there is sufficient evidence for the things I believe. The disctinction between that and the things Numbers posted is that that person does not have any evidentiary basis to believe the things he believes, but simply believes them. You say you don't see much difference between the two sets of beliefs. The differences may seem small or subtle, but they are important differences nonetheless.
But again, great points.
-
Smells like Josh McDowell.
-
Can a religious opinion be wrong?
Yes.
-
I was speaking in lamens terms. I don't actually mean suddenly, as in within seconds, I mean comparatively suddenly. For example, for about 200 million years very little evolution occurs, but then over the course of the next 500,000 years lots of evolution occurs. And just because you have never met a scientists who "believes" this doesn't mean it isn't real, its called punctuated equilibrium.
Pretty strange description of punctuated equilibrium, even for "lamens terms", but okay. For the record, even proponents of this theory agree that plenty of evolutionary change goes on even during periods of stasis, but that it's with much less frequency that they only aggregate into macro changes such as those that mark divergence of species.
Exactly, thats the debate. Some people think that DNA mutations aren't important, others think it is.
I'm unaware of this debate. To deny that DNA mutations are integral to the theory of evolution would show complete ignorance of its fundamental principles.
No you idiot. Science has evidence. Evidence means that there is no faith. By definition it is not grounded in faith if you have evidence.
:lol Damn, take it easy bro. Anyway this is wrong as well, but I'm gonna leave it at that. ::)
-J
-
This might be a good starting point for discussion. I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP. You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP. I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles. Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable? It's the same thing with newer religions.
Two things came to mind when I read this. The wrongly labeled "skeptic" movement has used many dubious arguments to challenge established knowledge. I'll mention history, since that's my future specialty. Some examples include, "Hitler was a Christian," "Jesus probably didn't exist" and "hundreds were killed in the Salem Witch Trials." These are all wrong and would make any specialist on any of these subjects giggle incessantly. But these claims are made in defense of atheism, which is the same motivation you're criticizing (i.e. ignoring evidence to hold on to a world view). I bring that up because this science vs. religion debate is often framed as objective observation and testing vs. storytelling. That's a silly assertion and people need be aware of it. If we're going to promote "critical thinking" and "reason" and all the others atheistic buzzwords, we need to consistently call everybody out when don't think critically. Not just the people with whom we disagree.
Secondly, what has bosk rejected for purely religious reasons?
-
I'm unaware of this debate. To deny that DNA mutations are integral to the theory of evolution would show complete ignorance of its fundamental principles.
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?
Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.
The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.
Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?
-
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation.
No it can't. If genes never mutated, every offspring would be a 100% replica of its parent.
-
This might be a good starting point for discussion. I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP. You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP. I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles. Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable? It's the same thing with newer religions.
Two things came to mind when I read this. The wrongly labeled "skeptic" movement has used many dubious arguments to challenge established knowledge. I'll mention history, since that's my future specialty. Some examples include, "Hitler was a Christian," "Jesus probably didn't exist" and "hundreds were killed in the Salem Witch Trials." These are all wrong and would make any specialist on any of these subjects giggle incessantly. But these claims are made in defense of atheism, which is the same motivation you're criticizing (i.e. ignoring evidence to hold on to a world view). I bring that up because this science vs. religion debate is often framed as objective observation and testing vs. storytelling. That's a silly assertion and people need be aware of it. If we're going to promote "critical thinking" and "reason" and all the others atheistic buzzwords, we need to consistently call everybody out when don't think critically. Not just the people with whom we disagree.
Secondly, what has bosk rejected for purely religious reasons?
I'll agree with you on the "skeptic" movement, which I find often is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I don't hold any of the beliefs you mention, and while I find such beliefs ill-informed I disagree that it's the same as the OP's views. They're ignorant positions, yes, and ones likely cultivated by adherence to a specific world view, but they're not religiously based. They're more along the lines of people denying AGW due to political reasons. It might be a fine line to draw, because the parallel you constructed both feature beliefs built around existing ones, but to me there's a difference between convictions supposedly based on fact (like "Jesus didn't exist) and on faith (thetans). Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I'm sure many people (Young Earth Creationists, for example) would claim that their arguments are based upon fact. It's possible that with such muddled claims it's impossible to draw a dividing line between faith and fact, regardless of what their proponents might claim to be basing their argument on. You're definitely right that buzzwords which one side claims exclusivity on should be treated with disdain (like one entity you like to link to, for example) and that poor critical thinking should be dressed down regardless of its origins.
And unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that Bosk has in the past expressed his disbelief in the theory of evolution and the accepted age of the Earth, for two examples. I'm sure there are several more things he believes that clashes with mainstream academic opinion, but I don't want to misrepresent them.
-
IIRC, Bosk has stated that the earth is closer to 6,000 years rather than 4.5 billion, which is the general consensus among scientists, and no offense bosk, if that is true, you are most certainly denying what 99.9% of scientists to believe as absolute truth. I don't wan to speculate so I will let him talk for himself about the issue.
-
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation.
No it can't. If genes never mutated, every offspring would be a 100% replica of its parent.
That's not true. There are dominant and recessive traits. These are random orderings, so offspring will not be replicas of their parents without gene mutation.
Gene mutation does not need to happen to cause evolution though. Natural selection can cause evolution. Bigger faster people, more likely to survive and pass on their genes for being bigger and faster eventually lead to bigger and faster people as small and slow die out. That is natural selection which over time becomes evolution.
Gene mutation can also aid in evolution and cause evolution to occur. It can be the catalyst, but is not necessary.
EDIT: Unless gene mutation causes the differences in the first place. Which might actually be true and why we have so many different types of people.
-
Can a religious opinion be wrong?
Yes.
Can a religious opinion be right?
-
Can a religious opinion be wrong?
Yes.
Can a religious opinion be right?
Yes. Why not? Remember religion does not equal belief in god or the supernatural. example being Buddhists. But either way, the existence of god is not proven or unproven, so yeah they could very well be right. And if you believe something because of religion that goes against something that is already proven (the earth is round vs flat for example) you would be wrong even though you believe it a certain way.
-
There are still thousands of people who believe the earth is flat. Google the flat earth society.
-
Really?
-
There are still thousands of people who believe the earth is flat. Google the flat earth society.
wow for real? I mean.... we have images from space showing the earth is indeed round. The ignorance of people astounds me.
-
Just looked it up. There are like 60 people in it...how stupid can one be?
-
There are people who believe the earth is a square.
-
That would make sense, seeing as how time is a cube.
-
This might be a good starting point for discussion. I for one don't see much of a difference between some of the views you hold, Bosk, and the views in the OP. You're willing to discount several scientific theories with virtually unanimous academic support based on your religious beliefs, and so is the OP. I mean, you can go to Conservapedia to see a whole bunch of other people with weird religious-based beliefs about subatomic particles. Where does one draw the line between laughable and respectable? It's the same thing with newer religions.
Two things came to mind when I read this. The wrongly labeled "skeptic" movement has used many dubious arguments to challenge established knowledge. I'll mention history, since that's my future specialty. Some examples include, "Hitler was a Christian," "Jesus probably didn't exist" and "hundreds were killed in the Salem Witch Trials." These are all wrong and would make any specialist on any of these subjects giggle incessantly. But these claims are made in defense of atheism, which is the same motivation you're criticizing (i.e. ignoring evidence to hold on to a world view). I bring that up because this science vs. religion debate is often framed as objective observation and testing vs. storytelling. That's a silly assertion and people need be aware of it. If we're going to promote "critical thinking" and "reason" and all the others atheistic buzzwords, we need to consistently call everybody out when don't think critically. Not just the people with whom we disagree.
Secondly, what has bosk rejected for purely religious reasons?
I'll agree with you on the "skeptic" movement, which I find often is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I don't hold any of the beliefs you mention, and while I find such beliefs ill-informed I disagree that it's the same as the OP's views. They're ignorant positions, yes, and ones likely cultivated by adherence to a specific world view, but they're not religiously based. They're more along the lines of people denying AGW due to political reasons. It might be a fine line to draw, because the parallel you constructed both feature beliefs built around existing ones, but to me there's a difference between convictions supposedly based on fact (like "Jesus didn't exist) and on faith (thetans). Maybe I'm splitting hairs.
I'd say you are; neither are based on fact. I'm sure scientologists have reasons for believing in thetans (I think that's what you're referring to) but their claim is no more (or less) based in reality than the Christ-mythers' claims.
I'm sure many people (Young Earth Creationists, for example) would claim that their arguments are based upon fact. It's possible that with such muddled claims it's impossible to draw a dividing line between faith and fact, regardless of what their proponents might claim to be basing their argument on.
If someone is making a claim about religion, e.g. God exists, that can be called a statement of faith. But whether that assertion is defensible or not is another question. We should stop suggesting that faith vs. fact is synonymous with false vs. true.
And unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that Bosk has in the past expressed his disbelief in the theory of evolution and the accepted age of the Earth, for two examples. I'm sure there are several more things he believes that clashes with mainstream academic opinion, but I don't want to misrepresent them.
Yeah, I'll wait to hear his opinion as well.
-
Oh yes, the old evolution being by the hand of god gig. Classic.
Similar warnings for you. You are free to disagree with anything you like. But your P/R posts that I have seen lately are nothing but trolling. Either contribute or stay out of P/R please.
The latter is probably a good idea, I only come onto this side when I'm tired and bored anyway, so I can be a bit boorish. A bit of a dick, actually. A huge cock, one might say. A sizely penis might be the term, or fat, pulsing john thomas.
Sorry Joe, I never meant to hurt you, I never meant to make you cry.
-
That would make sense, seeing as how time is a cube.
Which also makes sense because cubes are circles.
Anyway, I don't think people's religious beliefs can actually be wrong. Beliefs are opinions, and there are no right or wrong opinions. There may be proof for some things, but you have to believe science and math are correct, it is possible for someone to not believe that I suppose. I don't know philosophically if that makes them wrong or just in disagreement with most of the world. It really is relative I suppose. Someone may actually truly believe the world is flat, and though it sounds crazy and is proven to be untrue by people who believe in science and empirical evidence, this person may not even believe in such a thing. What if they believe they are in the Matrix? Are they wrong? Maybe, but I guess if you can believe in God why not believe in the Matrix. To me they both seem just as credible.
-
Oh yes, the old evolution being by the hand of god gig. Classic.
Similar warnings for you. You are free to disagree with anything you like. But your P/R posts that I have seen lately are nothing but trolling. Either contribute or stay out of P/R please.
The latter is probably a good idea, I only come onto this side when I'm tired and bored anyway, so I can be a bit boorish. A bit of a dick, actually. A huge cock, one might say. A sizely penis might be the term, or fat, pulsing john thomas.
Sorry Joe, I never meant to hurt you, I never meant to make you cry.
It's okay. There are times when, if you were a piece of equipment that belonged to Brett Favre, you'd be a purple helmet. But most of the time, not.
That would make sense, seeing as how time is a cube.
Which also makes sense because cubes are circles.
Anyway, I don't think people's religious beliefs can actually be wrong. Beliefs are opinions, and there are no right or wrong opinions. There may be proof for some things, but you have to believe science and math are correct, it is possible for someone to not believe that I suppose. I don't know philosophically if that makes them wrong or just in disagreement with most of the world. It really is relative I suppose. Someone may actually truly believe the world is flat, and though it sounds crazy and is proven to be untrue by people who believe in science and empirical evidence, this person may not even believe in such a thing. What if they believe they are in the Matrix? Are they wrong? Maybe, but I guess if you can believe in God why not believe in the Matrix. To me they both seem just as credible.
DON'T MENTION THE MATRIX IN HERE!!! EVER!!! SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND HAS SOME SORT OF SUPER-SENSORY PERCEPTION SO THAT SHE KNOWS WHENEVER PEOPLE POST MATRIX-RELATED STUFF IN P/R AND THEN SHE SHOWS UP!!! STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND SHE RETURNS!!! WILLIAM WALLACE AND OTHER OLD-TIMERS KNOW OF WHOM I SPEAK. :dangerwillrobinson:
And unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that Bosk has in the past expressed his disbelief in the theory of evolution and the accepted age of the Earth, for two examples. I'm sure there are several more things he believes that clashes with mainstream academic opinion, but I don't want to misrepresent them.
Yeah, I'll wait to hear his opinion as well.
What?? You know pretty much exactly what I believe in that regard.
-
What?? You know pretty much exactly what I believe in that regard.
I have an idea, but I won't speak for you.
-
Short answer: I believe evolution within species takes place; I believe macro evolution that has produced and is producing different species likely does not. I believe in a young earth, but do not know how young. And I believe there is scientific evidence supporting a young earth. I will leave it to WW to argue the specifics. He and I may differ on some of the specifics, but it's not important enough to me for me to take a position on every specific sub-issue.
-
DON'T MENTION THE MATRIX IN HERE!!! EVER!!! SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND HAS SOME SORT OF SUPER-SENSORY PERCEPTION SO THAT SHE KNOWS WHENEVER PEOPLE POST MATRIX-RELATED STUFF IN P/R AND THEN SHE SHOWS UP!!! STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND SHE RETURNS!!! WILLIAM WALLACE AND OTHER OLD-TIMERS KNOW OF WHOM I SPEAK. :dangerwillrobinson:
OMG WHAT HAVE I DONE?!
-
Short answer: I believe evolution within species takes place; I believe macro evolution that has produced and is producing different species likely does not. I believe in a young earth, but do not know how young. And I believe there is scientific evidence supporting a young earth. I will leave it to WW to argue the specifics. He and I may differ on some of the specifics, but it's not important enough to me for me to take a position on every specific sub-issue.
My views has changed some in the last year, so I probably won't be arguing for a young earth. I still think Darwinism has been pushed far past it's utility by folks like Dawkins, but a lot of reading and researching into both science and theology has forced me to back off my previously help point of view.
-
Gene mutation does not need to happen to cause evolution though. Natural selection can cause evolution. Bigger faster people, more likely to survive and pass on their genes for being bigger and faster eventually lead to bigger and faster people as small and slow die out. That is natural selection which over time becomes evolution.
Gene mutation can also aid in evolution and cause evolution to occur. It can be the catalyst, but is not necessary.
EDIT: Unless gene mutation causes the differences in the first place. Which might actually be true and why we have so many different types of people.
Nailed it with your edit. Mutations are what caused those people to be bigger and faster, and thus selected for.
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?
Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.
The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.
Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?
I haven't said anything about creation or the origin of life. But the basis for evolution is differences in DNA. The source of differences in DNA is genetic mutation. There can be no apes, moles, or mice unless they genetically diverged somewhere along the phylogenetic tree. In order for this to happen, their DNA had to change (mutate), to give them different attributes. Then some mutations are selected for and against.
-J
-
I'd say you are; neither are based on fact. I'm sure scientologists have reasons for believing in thetans (I think that's what you're referring to) but their claim is no more (or less) based in reality than the Christ-mythers' claims.
If someone is making a claim about religion, e.g. God exists, that can be called a statement of faith. But whether that assertion is defensible or not is another question. We should stop suggesting that faith vs. fact is synonymous with false vs. true.
Big block of text cut out. Sorry.
I just wanted to point out that I did not equate faith vs. fact with false vs. true. What I said was that the people making the unsound arguments we talked about would justify them for those reasons; a "Christ-myther" would claim his argument sound based on his factual merit, a Scientologist would use spiritual justification.
However, I think it's obvious that naturalistic/historical methods of inquiry are superior to faith-based ones. Unfortunately, many tend to claim the former despite relying on the latter. I guess that's the similar thread of the examples we've discussed.
-
DON'T MENTION THE MATRIX IN HERE!!! EVER!!! SHE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED HAS NOT BEEN BANNED AND HAS SOME SORT OF SUPER-SENSORY PERCEPTION SO THAT SHE KNOWS WHENEVER PEOPLE POST MATRIX-RELATED STUFF IN P/R AND THEN SHE SHOWS UP!!! STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND SHE RETURNS!!! WILLIAM WALLACE AND OTHER OLD-TIMERS KNOW OF WHOM I SPEAK. :dangerwillrobinson:
FEAR NOT the return of the NAMELESS ONE! Have you not SEEN the evidence of the endless DELUSION of your surroundings? Do you think that is AIR that you are breathing? Do you still INSIST that there IS, in fact, a SPOON?
He that has ears, LET HIM HEAR!
-
STOP IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
lol
-
evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there.
That's not what evolutionists say.
creation is virtually impossible
How?
-
creation is virtually impossible
How?
I actually agree with him. It is virtually impossible.
...that's why it took God to do it.
-
fuck
-
evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there.
That's not what evolutionists say.
What? Latvianxave8 may not be the best emissary on these matters, but he's right here.
-
evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there.
That's not what evolutionists say.
What? Latvianxave8 may not be the best emissary on these matters, but he's right here.
My quip was directed at his last statement. Evolutionists believe that life evolved out of nonlife (self-replicating RNA gradually becoming more complex, for example).
-
My views has changed some in the last year, so I probably won't be arguing for a young earth.
Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield were just telling me the other day they didn't feel like they had sold out completely yet and were looking for someone to teach them how. Can I have your phone number?
-
Bosk, with all due respect, how is that not trolling? If some has the exact opposite view points, and I said what you just said, I would most certainly receive a warning and maybe even a ban.
-
It's called humor.
-
I stand by what I said. If I said it, there would be some form of hell to pay.
-
If you called someone on this forum a sellout who you were friends with in real life and you were calling them out for flipflopping on an issue, I would likely chalk it up to friendly banter unless there was a reason not to. If you choose to read it otherwise, I'm not sure what to say to you about that.
-
My views has changed some in the last year, so I probably won't be arguing for a young earth.
Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield were just telling me the other day they didn't feel like they had sold out completely yet and were looking for someone to teach them how. Can I have your phone number?
Well, my snare drum actually sounds like a snare drum, and in the mid 90s I didn't suddenly have the urge to write bluesy songs. So they need to find somebody who has really sold out.
-
It's called humor.
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_2.png)
-
>:(
-
Gene mutation does not need to happen to cause evolution though. Natural selection can cause evolution. Bigger faster people, more likely to survive and pass on their genes for being bigger and faster eventually lead to bigger and faster people as small and slow die out. That is natural selection which over time becomes evolution.
Gene mutation can also aid in evolution and cause evolution to occur. It can be the catalyst, but is not necessary.
EDIT: Unless gene mutation causes the differences in the first place. Which might actually be true and why we have so many different types of people.
Nailed it with your edit. Mutations are what caused those people to be bigger and faster, and thus selected for.
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?
Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.
The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.
Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?
I haven't said anything about creation or the origin of life. But the basis for evolution is differences in DNA. The source of differences in DNA is genetic mutation. There can be no apes, moles, or mice unless they genetically diverged somewhere along the phylogenetic tree. In order for this to happen, their DNA had to change (mutate), to give them different attributes. Then some mutations are selected for and against.
-J
Whether or not you actually brought up the origin of life is not important. I just gave a clear example of how evolution can occur with NO gene mutation what so ever. There CAN be apes, moles, and mice if they were not genetically diverged along the phylogenetic. Do I believe that they were created in real life? No. Were they created in my scenario? Yes.
-
Can religious opinions be wrong? Yes they can be wrong, they may also be right. I have many opinions that some would call wrong, but opinions are exactly that Opinions. any thing can be wrong, is it wrong to have an opinion that differs from 99% of the prevelant opinions? No, everyone has free will to belive, or to disbelieve anything they wish. are those who hold the major percentage of the opinion right just because they are more? does might make right. A thousand years ago everyone knew the world was flat and the sun and all the planets revolved arround the world. this was a scientific fact, a thousand years ago. what facts that we know now will be shown to be fallacies a thousand years from now? How can one say to another you are wrong, or you are right? when even a renownd scientist once stated "Reality is just an illusion, albeit a very realistic one". when one can coe allong and prove without a shadow of a dought, that there is no God, then I will just find something else to beleive in. Untill that day comes I will continue to belive, and till my dying day I shall profes his greatness with my last breath.
Now you have read just a minute portion of my oppinion.
:yarr
-
I didn't know the MIB believed in god. And is there anyone here that actually believes that dinosaurs were fake?
-
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?
Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.
The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.
Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?
I haven't said anything about creation or the origin of life. But the basis for evolution is differences in DNA. The source of differences in DNA is genetic mutation. There can be no apes, moles, or mice unless they genetically diverged somewhere along the phylogenetic tree. In order for this to happen, their DNA had to change (mutate), to give them different attributes. Then some mutations are selected for and against.
-J
Whether or not you actually brought up the origin of life is not important. I just gave a clear example of how evolution can occur with NO gene mutation what so ever. There CAN be apes, moles, and mice if they were not genetically diverged along the phylogenetic. Do I believe that they were created in real life? No. Were they created in my scenario? Yes.
:facepalm:
What the hell? Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken instead of going to such ridiculous lengths to try to avoid it. :lol ::)
-J
-
I didn't know the MIB believed in god. And is there anyone here that actually believes that dinosaurs were fake?
Young Earth creationists don't necessarily say that dinosaurs are "fake," just that they were in existence much later than evolutionists date them.
-
What about carbon dating?
-
I think a lot of them see carbon dating as flawed.
-
How?
-
I didn't know the MIB believed in god. And is there anyone here that actually believes that dinosaurs were fake?
Young Earth creationists don't necessarily say that dinosaurs are "fake," just that they were in existence much later than evolutionists date them.
They were also vegetarians and lived contemporaneously with humans, according to most young earthers. Honestly, I've always found that a bit hard to swallow, even when I was a YEC.
-
Yeah...no. That makes no sense.
-
I used to be a YEC and thought evolution was a conspiracy. Then I read a book by an Evangelical Christian that explained how every YEC argument was baseless. About the same time, one of my professors who was a YEC made a remarkable case, saying: "If God creates a tree, would the tree have tree rings? Yes. In other words, it would have the appearance of age. So when God created the universe, it's obvious that it had the appearance of age. Case closed." If you know anything about tree rings, you'll see how LOL that argument is. After realizing that YEC was nonsense, I was pretty much set on the downhill path to become a postmodernist good-for-nothing :)
-
I used to be a YEC and thought evolution was a conspiracy. Then I read a book by an Evangelical Christian that explained how every YEC argument was baseless. About the same time, one of my professors who was a YEC made a remarkable case, saying: "If God creates a tree, would the tree have tree rings? Yes. In other words, it would have the appearance of age. So when God created the universe, it's obvious that it had the appearance of age. Case closed." If you know anything about tree rings, you'll see how LOL that argument is. After realizing that YEC was nonsense, I was pretty much set on the downhill path to become a postmodernist good-for-nothing :)
A Professor made that case?
You need to get your tuition back! :lol
-
Well, it was in a Bible class. But yea, there were some pretty silly ideas represented at my uni.
-
No... evolution can theoretically happen without gene mutation. You know why? Because evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, it deals with life once it is already there. If a ton of life forms were created spontaneously (by God, or whatever you choose), then no gene mutation is needed for evolution to occur. Evolution is not by itself a process, but the result of a process. This process is natural selection. Do I need to explain this?
Lets say a three species of animal were created spontaneously by God. None of them experience any gene mutation, ever. Evolution can still occur, in this fashion. There are placed in an environment in which a species that has thumbs would have the upper hand.. The three species are an ape, a mole, and a mouse. To start the population out, we will say that it is 40% Ape, 20% Mole, and 40% mouse. Lets wait 200 million years and check the populations again.
The population is now 90% ape, 8% mole, and 2% mouse. This population has undergone evolution, but no gene mutations had occurred.
Even though this scenario is by far unlikely (as creation is virtually impossible), do you still at least get what I am trying to say?
I haven't said anything about creation or the origin of life. But the basis for evolution is differences in DNA. The source of differences in DNA is genetic mutation. There can be no apes, moles, or mice unless they genetically diverged somewhere along the phylogenetic tree. In order for this to happen, their DNA had to change (mutate), to give them different attributes. Then some mutations are selected for and against.
-J
Whether or not you actually brought up the origin of life is not important. I just gave a clear example of how evolution can occur with NO gene mutation what so ever. There CAN be apes, moles, and mice if they were not genetically diverged along the phylogenetic. Do I believe that they were created in real life? No. Were they created in my scenario? Yes.
:facepalm:
What the hell? Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken instead of going to such ridiculous lengths to try to avoid it. :lol ::)
-J
Because I wasn't mistaken? I was actually correct when I said there is a debate between whether natural selection is entirely responsible for evolution or if it is only a part of the process?
-
Huh? What besides natural selection is an explanation for evolution?
-
Huh? What besides natural selection is an explanation for evolution?
Well, thats the debate. On one side we have people who say natural selection is the only necessary component for evolution. On the other side we have people who say you also need things like dna mutation, genetic drift, etc.
-
There is no argument that both natural selection and genetic drift contribute to evolution.
-
There is no argument that both natural selection and genetic drift contribute to evolution.
And DNA mutation. This debate must be raging within his mind or something. :lol
-J
-
There is no argument that both natural selection and genetic drift contribute to evolution.
And DNA mutation. This debate must be raging within his mind or something. :lol
-J
I wouldn't say DNA mutation causes evolution. Mutation causes drift and selection, which in turn cause evolution.
-
Semantics, dude. Species can't evolve, none of that stuff (selection, drift) can occur, without genetic variation. Genetic variation arises through mutations.
-J
-
I see what you're saying. I'm just saying it's redundant to include DNA mutation as a part of evolution because it is already included within the other two causes.
-
There is no argument that both natural selection and genetic drift contribute to evolution.
And DNA mutation. This debate must be raging within his mind or something. :lol
-J
No... it's def. going on within the scientific community..
Give me a little bit, i'll be back with a link of the video I saw in which Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and author) discusses the different debates going on about evolution.
EDIT: Here ya go, it starts at around 2:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr5mBuZZhis&feature=related
-
Wow, that lady is a moron. :lol
Anyway, I don't see how you concluded that Dawkins was drawing a distinction between natural selection and DNA mutation with his comments. All he said was there is debate as to how important natural selection is to evolution (although I'm not aware of any such debate). DNA mutation is inherent to the theory of natural selection, the two can't be divorced.
-J
-
That video... watching those kinds of arguments only makes people dumber. They're both just trying to come up with phrases that make them appear to have the upper hand, fighting fire with fire.
-
^ Magma ftw.
Anyways, that person sounds like an IRL troll. If they aren't, then they're just plain ignorant.
-
I stand by what I said. If I said it, there would be some form of hell to pay.
Chill out. I can take a joke. Besides, I'm right about the issue. It all balances out in the end.
-
:lol
I didn't know the MIB believed in god. And is there anyone here that actually believes that dinosaurs were fake?
:rollin
"A minute ago, you knew we were, alone in the universe."