MacInsiders Logo

biology w/o evolution

 
Old 04-19-2011 at 12:53 AM   #31
Revolution1
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 87

Thanked: 19 Times
Liked: 77 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by SydVicious View Post
In my opinion, the dumber you are, the more heavily you lean on religion. It was a great invention back in the day where it gave the uneducated (who didn't have access to as much knowledge as we do, and were more isolated) some guidelines to run by, but to believe in something without any proof in this day and age is just stupid.
I completely agree with you. If we weren't brainwashed by our parents as kids and were asked to believe in an invisible man in the sky watching our moves as an adult, the majority of us would laugh incredulously and ridicule the person making the suggestion.

Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact! You can't "believe" in it, it's an actual phenomenon that has been observed. And, say what you will, it's not compatible with religious beliefs. I find it baffling how students continue believing in deities and heaven and hell after being exposed to science. Man, they must have been brainwashed really well!
Old 04-19-2011 at 01:24 AM   #32
Mr.Prodigy
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 238

Thanked: 12 Times
Liked: 43 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by SydVicious View Post
In my opinion, the dumber you are, the more heavily you lean on religion. It was a great invention back in the day where it gave the uneducated (who didn't have access to as much knowledge as we do, and were more isolated) some guidelines to run by, but to believe in something without any proof in this day and age is just stupid.
I know quite a few people who are successful physicians, researchers, and professors who could be considered religious. Sorry, but I just don't see the correlation aformentioned. Science does not necessarily contradict religion.

Old 04-19-2011 at 01:34 AM   #33
SydVicious
Account Locked
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 77

Thanked: 1 Time
Liked: 21 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Prodigy View Post
I know quite a few people who are successful physicians, researchers, and professors who could be considered religious. Sorry, but I just don't see the correlation aformentioned. Science does not necessarily contradict religion.
sorry I should have been clearer, the uneducated leaning on religion does not mean educated people rely less on religion, it is just an observation.
Old 04-19-2011 at 02:03 AM   #34
Revolution1
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 87

Thanked: 19 Times
Liked: 77 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Prodigy View Post
I know quite a few people who are successful physicians, researchers, and professors who could be considered religious. Sorry, but I just don't see the correlation aformentioned. Science does not necessarily contradict religion.
That's exactly what I find so baffling! We have religious beliefs drilled so hard into our heads as children that we blindly accept them, even after learning about the scientific method and evolution. We cling to the idea of God, as it gives us the false and comforting belief that there is a lot of more to our meaningless lives and that we, as humans, are special. I suppose everyone needs a fantasy to get them through life, right?


Sorry for going a little off-topic!

Last edited by Revolution1 : 04-19-2011 at 02:19 AM.
Old 04-19-2011 at 02:10 AM   #35
RememberTwce
Memento Mori
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,019

Thanked: 137 Times
Liked: 878 Times




Let people believe what they wish without criticism, isn't that exactly how we (those who don't believe) wish to be treated?



Great webcomic.

Old 04-19-2011 at 05:56 AM   #36
Mowicz
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,538

Thanked: 274 Times
Liked: 529 Times




The reason I don't buy into what was termed "Macro evolution" by someone in this thread, is because it's a historical account created from bits and pieces. It's like we're receiving a radio transmission that's degraded substantially...we can look at the parts that are intact, and make guesses as to what comes in between those chunks to form a coherent message. But statistically speaking, the probability that we've pieced it together perfectly is so small that, well, for all intents and purposes we can assume we're wrong. Whether it's a good estimate or not...in particular, whether it relays the appropriate message...it's probably not right. I mean if there are people who argue about whether or not the holocaust happened, and that was less than a century ago...I guess being a number driven person, I find it hard to trust. Can I suggest a better theory? Certainly not...but I still see it as a leap of faith.

My view of scientific theory is that while it strives to be perfect (as anything should), it'll never be complete. I mean think about it, if we've evolved with various imperfections, do we have any reason to believe that our five senses are complete? That we're able to detect everything there is around us? I'm partial to the idea that we're 'missing' a sense or two...simply based on, well, empirical observation.

There are many things we can't perceive directly with one sense, but we know it exists. If we had a society of blind people (if you'd like, suppose we evolved in a lesser manner, and didn't develop eyesight), would they be able to scientifically test for the colour green? Probably not, they likely wouldn't stumble upon colours corresponding to varying wavelengths of light either, since it would be unmotivated, and "mumbo jumbo" that would have to be accepted without proof.

In short, I think it's too much of a stretch to assume both, that evolution is fact (handwaving what it is exactly that I mean here) and that our senses are all-encompassing. Even if someone were to evolve some sort of 6th sense, that broke the boundaries of our imagination, it'd be declared pseudo-science and probably wouldn't be investigated as much as it should.

So the analogy I use to help explain this is, take all the valid scientific theories that there ever will be, in a sufficiently long time. (That is, until we either evolve further, die out as a species, or maybe somehow improve upon the scientific method, etc.) These theories can be placed in a gift box and wrapped up in a nice little bow.

Even if these do accurately represent perceived reality (which I'd argue against, but that's another story), I think they're still incomplete...namely, there's another gift on the table we haven't even begun to open...corresponding to undetected things that we have no idea exist, because our senses are not complete either.

Last edited by Mowicz : 04-19-2011 at 05:59 AM.

Old 04-19-2011 at 08:11 AM   #37
waldo92
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 253

Thanked: 11 Times
Liked: 104 Times




I don't see the discord between evolution and religion. Surely, an all powerful God would choose to create life via evolution. If God decided to sit down on a bench and create all life one-by-one, not only would that be inefficient, but those unchanging species would eventually die out slowly, as they would be unable to adapt to a changing environment.

If someone is religious, they should still accept evolution, because it's what you would expect based on religious belief. A lot of people, however, have a personal (and not a religious) problem with being related to monkeys and frogs and dogs and all that, because some people have huge egos and think that the absolute [b]best[b] thing that an all-powerful, perfect entity could create would be them, which implies a massive ego, above all else.
Old 04-19-2011 at 08:32 AM   #38
waldo92
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 253

Thanked: 11 Times
Liked: 104 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
The reason I don't buy into what was termed "Macro evolution" by someone in this thread, is because it's a historical account created from bits and pieces. It's like we're receiving a radio transmission that's degraded substantially...we can look at the parts that are intact, and make guesses as to what comes in between those chunks to form a coherent message. But statistically speaking, the probability that we've pieced it together perfectly is so small that, well, for all intents and purposes we can assume we're wrong. Whether it's a good estimate or not...in particular, whether it relays the appropriate message...it's probably not right. I mean if there are people who argue about whether or not the holocaust happened, and that was less than a century ago...I guess being a number driven person, I find it hard to trust. Can I suggest a better theory? Certainly not...but I still see it as a leap of faith.
but when we not only have a radio transmission, but also a thousand other pieces of evidence that almost unanimously support our original conclusion, we can be very sure that the message we derived is very close to the actual one. we might not be able to get minor details, like prepositions in the transmission or what not, but we would be able to gather the main idea, which is what actually matters most. stepping out of the analogy, fossils aren't the only piece of evidence, genetic similarity between organisms is enormously convincing, so is the empirical observation of evolution.

your other point isn't necessarily limited to evolution, it's a limitation in all science. perhaps we can't know everything there is to know about life and the universe, but that doesn't mean that we give up and rely on unsubstantiated claims. instead of that, we rely on a scientific and unbiased method to observe the world and describe the patterns, keeping in mind the limitations and imperfection of human observation. i.e. we stick to doing the best we can do to understand the world

Last edited by waldo92 : 04-19-2011 at 08:59 AM.

Grover, Revolution1 like this.
Old 04-19-2011 at 08:33 AM   #39
Rudiger
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 70

Thanked: 33 Times
Liked: 36 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mowicz View Post
The reason I don't buy into what was termed "Macro evolution" by someone in this thread, is because it's a historical account created from bits and pieces. It's like we're receiving a radio transmission that's degraded substantially...we can look at the parts that are intact, and make guesses as to what comes in between those chunks to form a coherent message. But statistically speaking, the probability that we've pieced it together perfectly is so small that, well, for all intents and purposes we can assume we're wrong. Whether it's a good estimate or not...in particular, whether it relays the appropriate message...it's probably not right. I mean if there are people who argue about whether or not the holocaust happened, and that was less than a century ago...I guess being a number driven person, I find it hard to trust. Can I suggest a better theory? Certainly not...but I still see it as a leap of faith.

My view of scientific theory is that while it strives to be perfect (as anything should), it'll never be complete. I mean think about it, if we've evolved with various imperfections, do we have any reason to believe that our five senses are complete? That we're able to detect everything there is around us? I'm partial to the idea that we're 'missing' a sense or two...simply based on, well, empirical observation.

There are many things we can't perceive directly with one sense, but we know it exists. If we had a society of blind people (if you'd like, suppose we evolved in a lesser manner, and didn't develop eyesight), would they be able to scientifically test for the colour green? Probably not, they likely wouldn't stumble upon colours corresponding to varying wavelengths of light either, since it would be unmotivated, and "mumbo jumbo" that would have to be accepted without proof.

In short, I think it's too much of a stretch to assume both, that evolution is fact (handwaving what it is exactly that I mean here) and that our senses are all-encompassing. Even if someone were to evolve some sort of 6th sense, that broke the boundaries of our imagination, it'd be declared pseudo-science and probably wouldn't be investigated as much as it should.

So the analogy I use to help explain this is, take all the valid scientific theories that there ever will be, in a sufficiently long time. (That is, until we either evolve further, die out as a species, or maybe somehow improve upon the scientific method, etc.) These theories can be placed in a gift box and wrapped up in a nice little bow.

Even if these do accurately represent perceived reality (which I'd argue against, but that's another story), I think they're still incomplete...namely, there's another gift on the table we haven't even begun to open...corresponding to undetected things that we have no idea exist, because our senses are not complete either.
You're trying to say that "statistically speaking" the scientific method will usually give the wrong answer, and that's just silly. The body of evidence for evolution is large and varied enough that it can be considered scientific fact. There's no rational argument against this.

If you'd like to say "I choose to follow my religious beliefs over anything else," that's fine, more power to you. But don't try and act like the math backs you up on it.

Oh, and why did you compare yourself to a holocaust denier?
Old 04-19-2011 at 10:03 AM   #40
waldo92
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 253

Thanked: 11 Times
Liked: 104 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudiger View Post
Oh, and why did you compare yourself to a holocaust denier?
i guess he acknowledges that denying evolution is analogous to that
Old 04-19-2011 at 10:34 AM   #41
Revolution1
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 87

Thanked: 19 Times
Liked: 77 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by waldo92 View Post
I don't see the discord between evolution and religion. Surely, an all powerful God would choose to create life via evolution. If God decided to sit down on a bench and create all life one-by-one, not only would that be inefficient, but those unchanging species would eventually die out slowly, as they would be unable to adapt to a changing environment.

If someone is religious, they should still accept evolution, because it's what you would expect based on religious belief. A lot of people, however, have a personal (and not a religious) problem with being related to monkeys and frogs and dogs and all that, because some people have huge egos and think that the absolute [b]best[b] thing that an all-powerful, perfect entity could create would be them, which implies a massive ego, above all else.
Most major religions (Christianity, Islam, etc.) state that God "created" humans just as they are today, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans brought into the earth from heaven. How is that belief compatible with evolution? You see the loopholes in religion, but you're trying to find a way around them with the things that you've learned. To each his own, but the idea of an all powerful God in this day and age is laughable to me.
Old 04-19-2011 at 10:42 AM   #42
Ownaginatios
Trolling ain't easy
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,190

Thanked: 502 Times
Liked: 1,656 Times




Evolution is a fact we can observe (lol viruses), but I don't necessarily think we can necessarily call the history of evolution a fact. On a large scale, we have almost no evidence of what happened.

Based on the evidence of human evolution, which is almost nothing - we could almost just as confidently say we naturally evolved from a common ancestor with other primates to that a technologically advanced species decided to 'engineer' their own intelligent lifeforms out of apes and drop them here.
__________________
Dillon Dixon
Alumni
Software Engineering and Embedded Systems

noor91 likes this.
Old 04-19-2011 at 10:58 AM   #43
Mowicz
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,538

Thanked: 274 Times
Liked: 529 Times




I love that you guys assume I'm religious (as if it's an insult too) when I've really given you no reason to. All you know for certain is that I'm playing devil's advocate.

At any rate, I think the purpose and message of my post have been misconstrued...so I'll try to clarify. I apologize in advance if it's scattered, but I've been up all night:

The general statement is, whether I'm religious or not, I can acknowledge the shortcomings of science and don't put my complete trust in it. I however, don't have any better answers, and so encourage it (I do have a Science degree after all...not to wave that in front of anyone or anything like that, but clearly I must have some form of appreciation of science if I'd spend the last 6 years learning about it).

The post was not about justifying why I do or don't believe in evolution (which this topic is not about), and is instead aiming to justify how someone could possibly doubt it, even with a scientific background (which is what the topic is about).

Quote:
Originally Posted by waldo92 View Post
but when we not only have a radio transmission, but also a thousand other pieces of evidence that almost unanimously support our original conclusion, we can be very sure that the message we derived is very close to the actual one.
We don't "have a radio transmission and all this other good stuff" we have a fragmented message. We're trying to create a picture of what happened historically, with only fragments of data, and substantially missing pieces. No this doesn't mean it's false, but my point is I'm not convinced that it's correct...I'm not setting out to prove or disprove it's true on a web forum, of all places. This is what I have a problem with. This isn't why I have the problem, I'm just saying I do, and justifying why it's not as wrong as it seems to do so.

If you're curious, my reason for doubting it is not creationism (which apparently, anyone who has an issue must be a creationist...right?) It's medical. I simply believe that we don't have the full picture when it comes to genetics, and while it makes good predictions (as good science should), I think it's historic implications are off the mark.

We're genetically, most similar to chimpanzees in terms of matching DNA base pairs, but our organs are more different from theirs than a pig's. I'm not the only person who noticed this as a possible discrepancy, and now scientists are looking into the possibility of introns and exons as being indicative of common ancestors (namely how DNA is cut as opposed to what the DNA says initially). I've read about it in a general context, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

If this is the case, it could greatly alter how we view the present, future, but also the past.

Quote:
your other point isn't necessarily limited to evolution, it's a limitation in all science. perhaps we can't know everything there is to know about life and the universe, but that doesn't mean that we give up and rely on unsubstantiated claims. instead of that, we rely on a scientific and unbiased method to observe the world and describe the patterns, keeping in mind the limitations and imperfection of human observation. i.e. we stick to doing the best we can do to understand the world
As you said, we're believing what we do is sufficient...or accurate. This is important, but this is a highly non-trivial assumption and I'm convinced it's not the case. I could list off some more analogies (which I should note are only analogies to aid in communication of my ideas...not to prove what I'm saying is valid, because ultimately we're playing a game of "No I'm right"), but not only are you not enjoying them, but it gives grounds for implying that I'm some kind of weirdo...so I won't bother.

I'm not suggesting we give up on science, but what you don't realize is that you have the exact same stance on a subject that religious people do: You're trying to reason through the nature of reality, and you're convinced that your method of measurement is superior to the alternative...when arguably, there are many flaws possibly even on a fundamental level... I was attempting to argue that at the level of perception, we might have issues, and in fact, I see no reason to believe otherwise, if we evolve and evolution regularly plays us for saps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudiger View Post
You're trying to say that "statistically speaking" the scientific method will usually give the wrong answer, and that's just silly. The body of evidence for evolution is large and varied enough that it can be considered scientific fact. There's no rational argument against this.

If you'd like to say "I choose to follow my religious beliefs over anything else," that's fine, more power to you. But don't try and act like the math backs you up on it.

Oh, and why did you compare yourself to a holocaust denier?
Welcome to the forums Rudiger.

I'm not saying the math backs me up. I didn't intend to start a whole spin-off topic at this time, so I'll give a brief summary of what I meant.

The mathematical style of thinking is a "ground up" approach, which is very different from the scientific method. We start with assumptions and then we deduce theorems from them. Science is in some sense working in reverse, we see the things that must be deduced and work backwards, in hopes of finding what our assumptions must be.

Given my brain's wired in this way (I'm doing a masters in math at the moment), it poses a natural skepticism, or roadblock on my way to rationalizing all this data we're surrounded with.

And I didn't compare myself to someone who denies the holocaust...I simply said that even in the "recent past" it's hard to get facts straight. Let alone over millions of years.

Last edited by Mowicz : 04-19-2011 at 11:02 AM.
Old 04-19-2011 at 11:04 AM   #44
marcie
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 184

Thanked: 39 Times
Liked: 119 Times




I have a friend who doesn't "believe" in evolution... we had a deep conversation about it and I was all "wtf what about the fossils!" and she was all "the idea of God creating a special world for Adam and Eve is just so much more beautiful..." Eh, I guess people can believe whatever nonsense they want as long as I don't have to hear about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ownaginatios View Post
Evolution is a fact we can observe (lol viruses)
I find this hilarious for some reason
__________________
~ marcie
H. Mol Bio & Genetics III
¡Science Faculty WW Rep 2011!


MirandaC, Revolution1 like this.
Old 04-19-2011 at 11:30 AM   #45
Rudiger
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 70

Thanked: 33 Times
Liked: 36 Times




Mowicz, I mentioned religion because I'm accepting of people disregarding evolution in accordance with their faith. I'm fine with it because I know many people for whom religion is a positive influence in their life and evolutionary theory has zero impact on their day-to-day, so who cares? My point, in regards to the original topic, is that someone working in science who doesn't ascribe to evolution is most often doing so for religious reasons.

What's much more strange to me is that someone opposing evolution on a 'medical' basis. Every scientist is a skeptic, that's why the system works. But you can't just disregard a theory because "I'm skeptical, and our senses are flawed, therefore I think your theory is bunk." Sure, the fossil record is very incomplete, and it's impossible to know all (or even much) of the hard data on the billions of years that life has been on our planet, but all of the evidence we do have meshes perfectly with evolution.

So I think it's completely wrong to say "I have no other theories, but there's missing data so you're all probably wrong about evolution." It's not skepticism to me, it's just bad reasoning.

REPLEKIA/., Revolution1 like this.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms