Why do dumb people not believe in evolution? - Page 8 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #71 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 05:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prana25
The only thing I could really give to offer her (on our little 15 minute break) was:

1. The only problem I've found with evolution is that one species advanced drastically ahead of all other relatives that pretty much remained in close biological proximity of each other. This is likely due to the unexplained self-awareness which accelerated the process, but I can't fully buy into the idea of random genetic mutation to account for the transition of primate to advanced cognitive thought.

2. All things evolve on a scale that we can recognize. Studying etymology will easily show how language can drastically change. You can find darkened caves where fish in darkness will eventually lose their eyes for lack of necessity. Our pineal gland used to be much closer to the forehead, but for some reason, was pushed back into the center. The problem with evolution of humans is that we have a hard time really thinking about such a long span of time.

That's the real problem in my opinion. Most creationists simply don't take visual evidence and place it into the correct time frame.
Interesting. I have lots of problems with macroevolution (the idea that all living matter evolved from some unidentified blob of goo floating in water), and I'm not sure I know anyone who disbelieves generational adaptations within species. Darwin's Theory of Evolution only identifies types of the latter, and from that he extrapolated his "grander" theory.

Two of the many things his modern-day followers can't explain (without going around the block until we're too dizzy to care) are the Cambrian explosion, when enormous amounts of "new species" suddenly appear (it isn't just one species that leaped ahead, but many, many thousands) and the evolution of complex mechanisms (this latter category is the one that Darwin himself said would throw water on his theory). For example, you can see the adapation in a species of cave fish that lose their eyes. Well, how does eyesight appear? There are thousands of rods and cones, acting in concert, focused through a lens and then transmitted through an optic nerve to your brain, which assembles the image (inlcuding the "blind spot" we can't actually see) into your unique perspective...thousands of times a minute. So let's ignore the brain and the optic nerve and look just at the eye. The theory says it's small adaptations over several generations, with the hook being that they have to confer some survival benefit. Well, I'll grant you that a couple of rods and maybe a cone or two could mutate. But without virtually ALL of the rods and ALL of the cones, you're not even going to sense light (much less all of the rest of the eye structure). No way could that create a benefit that could be passed on. So it would die out. (Next consider the bacterial flagellum...etc.) These are highly complex mechanisms that aren't explained by the current state of the theory. (And punctuated equilibrium's attempt to explain things like the eye is more of a leap of faith than flying a wide-body into a skyscraper to reach valhalla...)

And then the leap that species evolved from completely different species...well, that's an even bigger can of worms.

Don't get me wrong. I was brought up being spoon-fed the whole "science knows all and here is some more, eat up" school of thought, and it was only in my post teen years that I began to wrinkle my brow occasionally about some of the stuff they were selling. And the more I looked, the more I wrinkled. In the end the more I study macroevolution, the more I see the holes in it and the less sway it has on me, period. I'm not just shooting from the hip on this.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that NEITHER "side" can definitively prove "their case". You can explain until you're blue in the face why I must be a complete idiot and you're surprised I can even type, but I'll still reject macroevolution until science has something to explain the holes that doesn't leave me shaking my head in stunned silence that anybody buys their explanations as plausible, much less scientific fact. So why call people idiots or morons or dumb? You might as well have the same discussion over which is the best color Mercedes to own (brilliant silver, by the way).

If you want to read a good primer on the "intelligent design (leaving God out of the equation, whatever your conception may be) vs. the theory of evolution, pick up a copy of "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" by Philip Johnson, a professor at UC Berkeley. It's 131 pages will go by in an hour or two, as I say it's a primer that will perhaps open your eyes, if not your mind. His longer work, "Darwin on Trial" is a good read but will make you work more.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. (Winston Churchill)
Check Codes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #72 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:27 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
One does not need to go around the block much to explain the Cambrian Explosion. What looks like an "explosion" to us are really just the first animals to form hard shell body parts, which fossilized much easier than soft tissue animals who probably predominated for millions of years before as plant eaters. As predators appeared, shells appeared.

I personnally find my proof down at the throughbred track. Anyone who has bred dogs or horses knows evolution is a fact.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #73 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:29 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Goodness, not the tired old creationist eyeball defense again: Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #74 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:31 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
I personnally find my proof down at the throughbred track. Anyone who has bred dogs or horses knows evolution is a fact.
The mere existence of dogs is proof enough. These are man-made animals created over a few thousand years via selective breeding. Dynamic speciation in the Rift Lakes also provides some overwhelming and extremely compelling evidence.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #75 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:33 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Prana25's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 04 SL55 AMG
Location: Sacramento, CA - US
Posts: 927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Read your own link. Most of what little Einstein wrote on the subject rejected religion, while recognizing that it has some use for mankind. But does he say its use is the worship of God? No, he sees it as part of the search for him. And the body of work is small, some interviews, a few essays, where for the most part Einstein rejects religion in favor of a scientific spirituality based upon "The Unknown" having a possibility of containing what we call "God". He certainly had no use for religion that is pretty obvious.
Well, you're correct in the semantics. I should have clarified between religion and spirituality.
Prana25 is offline  
post #76 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
One does not need to go around the block much to explain the Cambrian Explosion. What looks like an "explosion" to us are really just the first animals to form hard shell body parts, which fossilized much easier than soft tissue animals who probably predominated for millions of years before as plant eaters. As predators appeared, shells appeared.

I personnally find my proof down at the throughbred track. Anyone who has bred dogs or horses knows evolution is a fact.
"who probably predominated". That's my whole point, the answer to the Cambrian explosion is another dart at the dart-board, not hard science.

As for breeding dogs and horses, you just gunned down your own argument. Breeding involves intelligent manipulation of desireable traits, not chance mutation over time.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. (Winston Churchill)
Check Codes is offline  
post #77 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prana25
Well, you're correct in the semantics. I should have clarified between religion and spirituality.

I also thought the best encapsulation of Einstein's beliefs were in Steve Hawking's great quote, that "God is just something we have not worked the physics out for yet". I think it is actually the basis for a rational religion, where we can skip all the mumbo jumbo baloney and actually consider that there may be some force in the universe that we simply have not been able to fully understand at this point in our development as a specie. Hawkins points out in some of his writings that at this point science has few really great mysteries left, and the ones that are suggest that there may be more physical-wave forces that act on our world that we have simply not discovered yet. He points out no one has been able to explain how inert matter becomes alive. Chemistry can't fully explain it. Could it be there is some force emanating in the universe that acts like some sort of life giving gravity wave? The other big question is intelligence itself. Where does it come from? Hawkins wonders if it is the same product of the same possible force. And like matter and anti-matter, is evil another physical force that permeates and motivates objects in the universe? Do we not see an ultimate form of light, in galaxies and life giving stars, and an ultimate form of darkness, black holes which destroy everything, right in front of our eyes? Who needs a man god and hard to believe fables when there is plenty to feed one's spiritual self right in front of us, in our reality?

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #78 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 06:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
"who probably predominated". That's my whole point, the answer to the Cambrian explosion is another dart at the dart-board, not hard science.

As for breeding dogs and horses, you just gunned down your own argument. Breeding involves intelligent manipulation of desireable traits, not chance mutation over time.
I guess you didn't see my dog fucking your poodle out in the driveway yet.

The conjecture on why something is so is called a "theory". In the world of science, more and more evidence will accumulate to indicate it is true, and it will become like the "theory" of evolution, as obvious as a German Shepard putting it to your Chihuahua. My explanation is more obvious and logical than the one used by the ignorant for centuries, that some 'god' did it.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 05-10-2007 at 07:01 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #79 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 07:02 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
As for breeding dogs and horses, you just gunned down your own argument. Breeding involves intelligent manipulation of desireable traits, not chance mutation over time.
Nothing has been "gunned down" -- far from it. We're talking about selective breeding, which certainly does not exclude a changing ecosystem as the mechanism of selection and acceptance. Remove these basic precepts of evolution, and selective breeding would not be possible, and we would have no dogs.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #80 of 223 (permalink) Old 05-10-2007, 07:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Exactly. What if, instead of the hand of man, you had an environment that was exceedingly hot and the dogs had to compete or fear lots of large predators. Perhaps over time, one would end up with a fine haired dog who does not bark, due to skin disease and death by predator killing off those who had less of these attributes.

Or perhaps in another part of the world, the climate turned bitter cold for a hundred thousand years, forcing the shorthairs to move to the Equator, leaving dogs with longer hair and more finely developed senses to rule, giving a better chance of survival to those who had an advantage if they could communicate with each other over the vast frozen distance, and little to fear from other animals who hear them? Would that not explain why African wild dogs and Artic Wolves, who have no influence from man, are so totally different? Why one barks, and the other does not?


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 05-10-2007 at 07:17 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    do people still believe in evolution??? Chuck V Off-Topic 15 03-02-2004 11:18 PM
    I SHALL DEFEND THE RIGHT OF DUMB-BELLS TO BE DUMB UNTIL MY DYING DAY. Arizona Charlie C208/A208 CLK-Class 2 07-10-2002 11:56 AM
    I SHALL DEFEND THE RIGHT OF DUMB-BELLS TO BE DUMB UNTIL MY DYING DAY. Arizona Charlie R170 SLK-Class 37 06-28-2002 11:54 AM
    Sigh...When are people w/ E36's gonna learn??? Esp. ones with three people in 'em??? Arnee R170 SLK-Class 9 03-08-2001 09:12 PM

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

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome