Did humans descend from Apes?

[Kaon]

Accepting the findings of science is not scientifically destructive. Merely asserting they must be wrong without credible evidence is what is scientifically destructive. The proving was taken care of a long time ago.

I am not talking about sophomoric back and forth between people who demand and dont necessarily give (intellectually.) I am talking about, for example, scientists and engineers that disagree with the status quo. There are many scientists that claim the status quo because of the academic pressure; it would be ignorant to pretend that it doesn't exist.

That pressure trickles down socially - which results in one being a "tard" (extreme) for simply disagreeing with the status quo.

 

[Gene2memE]

I am not talking about sophomoric back and forth between people who demand and dont necessarily give (intellectually.) I am talking about, for example, scientists and engineers that disagree with the status quo. There are many scientists that claim the status quo because of the academic pressure; it would be ignorant to pretend that it doesn't exist.

That pressure trickles down socially - which results in one being a "tard" (extreme) for simply disagreeing with the status quo.

There are plenty of scientists - engineers are irrelevant to this question - who are engaged in the field of biology and disagree with the status quo, and are still well regarded in the scientific community.

The obvious - and now sadly deceased - example would be Stephen Gould, who's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium caused much vehement debate during the 1970s, but is now pretty much an accepted part of the theory (although the degree of rapid change vs gradual change is still a hotly debated topic).

Another great example is RL Millstein and her arguments about population genetics, speciation, natural selection and random drift. Lots of controversy there, lots of bucking the status quo, but she's still a well recognised academic who is actively publishing.

Here's a whole book on the topic of controversial figures in biology: Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology | Yale University Press

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am not talking about sophomoric back and forth between people who demand and dont necessarily give (intellectually.) I am talking about, for example, scientists and engineers that disagree with the status quo. There are many scientists that claim the status quo because of the academic pressure; it would be ignorant to pretend that it doesn't exist.

That pressure trickles down socially - which results in one being a "tard" (extreme) for simply disagreeing with the status quo.

But denial of evolution is in the same category as denial of the sphericity of the earth. Yes, you can find people who say those things. They are clearly wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

Were you there when the dinosaurs were wiped out?

How do you know dinosaurs are not abdominal creatures created by ancient civilizations for the purposes of terrorizing their enemies?

Were you there to see creation itself, or the building blocks of life ebb up and evolve into what we know of as life?

I am being serious; how can you make such a judgment so much so that you can apply it to the entirety of the human population. You must have pictures/video, no?

I can make such a judgement because I know science.

Your arguments are wholly irrational and have no place in science.

 

[tas8831]

I don't think the Theory of Evolution was ever meant to be taken seriously as it is today - but I believe it was supposed to be an alternative to the already evil ways humanity treated each other.

Well, to each his own, but that is not at all what the Theory of Evolution was ever about.

 

[Kaon]

There are plenty of scientists - engineers are irrelevant to this question - who are engaged in the field of biology and disagree with the status quo, and are still well regarded in the scientific community.

The obvious - and now sadly deceased - example would be Stephen Gould, who's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium caused much vehement debate during the 1970s, but is now pretty much an accepted part of the theory (although the degree of rapid change vs gradual change is still a hotly debated topic).

Another great example is RL Millstein and her arguments about population genetics, speciation, natural selection and random drift. Lots of controversy there, lots of bucking the status quo, but she's still a well recognised academic who is actively publishing.

Here's a whole book on the topic of controversial figures in biology: Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology | Yale University Press

Oh ok.

 

[Kaon]

But denial of evolution is in the same category as denial of the sphericity of the earth. Yes, you can find people who say those things. They are clearly wrong.

Exactly, because the theory is TRUTH right?

This is what I am talking about. People say, "We know it isn' truth and just a theory, not absolute truth," but the psychology says something else.

 

[Kaon]

I can make such a judgement because I know science.

Your arguments are wholly irrational and have no place in science.

Excellent. Nothing else for us to discuss then.

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly, because the theory is TRUTH right?

This is what I am talking about. People say, "We know it isn' truth and just a theory, not absolute truth," but the psychology says something else.

No, becaues the comparison is apt. The sphericity of the Earth is to the flatness of the Earth as the theory of evolution is to biblical special creation. One need not make a claim of "absolute truth" for either the sphericity of the Earth or the theory of evolution for that comparison to hold.

 

[Kaon]

Well, to each his own, but that is not at all what the Theory of Evolution was ever about.

The entire enlightenment period of the west, and after, was about political protest through a knowledge revolution.

Theory of evolution was meant to serve as a way of looking at humans differently (specifically slaves,) and providing a scientific critique to challenge the contemporary Church and humanist idea that (again, specifically,) blacks were inferior savages destined to be taken over by more advanced "races."


Yes, that is greatly what ToE is about. It was never meant to be taken as axiom like academic and by consequence layperson lot have done.


And, the way people behave to those who do not believe it is almost on par with when you tell an American you are a "gay atheist Trump supporter." I would think humans would have learned from their mistakes. But, we are as ignorant and arrogant as ever.

 

[Kaon]

No, becaues the comparison is apt. The sphericity of the Earth is to the flatness of the Earth as the theory of evolution is to biblical special creation. One need not make a claim of "absolute truth" for either the sphericity of the Earth or the theory of evolution for that comparison to hold.

Have You ever seen the Earth at high orbit to verify it for yourself?

Have you ever seen a non-CGI photo of the Earth from orbit?

How is it that you ascertain your knowledge on this topic?

 

[Jimmy D]

Theory of evolution was meant to serve as a way of looking at humans differently (specifically slaves,) and providing a scientific critique to challenge the contemporary Church and humanist idea that (again, specifically,) blacks were inferior savages destined to be taken over by more advanced "races."

Where do you get this idea from?

 

[VirOptimus]

Excellent. Nothing else for us to discuss then.

I was never discussing with you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Have You ever seen the Earth at high orbit to verify it for yourself?

Have you ever seen a non-CGI photo of the Earth from orbit?

How is it that you ascertain your knowledge on this topic?

Er, you have heard of maps right?

 

[Kaon]

Er, you have heard of maps right?

Cartography isn't photographic/visual evidence of something; it is an interpretation of a topological and/or topographical surface traversed and compared against another frame of reference. Most maps lack scale or the mathematical detail it would take to discern the specific geometry of the surface you draw.

 

[Kaon]

Where do you get this idea from?

19th century scientific and religious (literary) history.

 

[VirOptimus]

19th century scientific and religious (literary) history.

Well, its complete rubbish and I very much doubt you can cite any source at all.

 

[Jimmy D]

19th century scientific and religious (literary) history.

Specifically?

I don’t recall ever reading anything Darwin wrote like that?

 

[Jimmy D]

Cartography isn't photographic/visual evidence of something; it is an interpretation of a topological and/or topographical surface traversed and compared against another frame of reference. Most maps lack scale or the mathematical detail it would take to discern the specific geometry of the surface you draw.

Yes, I know how maps work.

Am I correct in thinking that you don’t actually believe in a flat Earth, but were merely responding to something someone else wrote?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Exactly, because the theory is TRUTH right?

This is what I am talking about. People say, "We know it isn' truth and just a theory, not absolute truth," but the psychology says something else.

Well, I was just say "the theory is true". I would reserve the identification of TRUTH with all caps for Jesus.