Fairytale?

[Aron-Ra]

Well at least you paid attention, Lilandra, and picked up on my gender.

I am not trolling, the last thing I want is an argumentative response. I'll leave the trolling to you mates. Parody possibly because I was "poking some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work". I do think you all need to laugh at yourselves a little. You guys are a little too serious at times.

Come on!! Are you saying you couldn't see the similarities of that "tree of life" picture with that of a "castle"? The castle image did "so go" with my analogy of the kingdom of clade. As a matter of fact, I thought it was quite cute and original.

I think this issue is important enough to take seriously, and to study in-depth, and really try to understand it from all sides -rather than to assume my own conclusions and ridicule those who know by praising my own ignorance.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think this issue is important enough to take seriously, and to study in-depth, and really try to understand it from all sides -rather than to assume my own conclusions and ridicule those who know by praising my own ignorance.

Indeed.

Scientists take this sort of thing seriously because we know how science can be ignored. We know how science can be abandoned in preference to personal "beliefs" of how things are.

 

[Inan3]

I think this issue is important enough to take seriously, and to study in-depth, and really try to understand it from all sides -rather than to assume my own conclusions and ridicule those who know by praising my own ignorance.

Why?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why?

I know Aron is more than capable of answering for himself, but as a scientist I find that question puzzling.

What is more important than knowing what is going on around you? What is more important than understanding the physical reality you are dependent on each and every millisecond of existence?

Science is more than just test tubes and microscopes. Science can be a way of life. If I were to become unemployed as a scientist tomorrow I'd still look at the world as a scientist.

Evolution is important because it is a well-founded, well-attested scientific model that does everything a proper scientific model should:

1. Explains all the variability in the data
2. Invokes the minimum number of factors necessary to explain the data.
3. Uses only factors in the model that are testable and can be agreed upon by all observers.

Nothing else is needed to explain any of the data we see before us.

Evolution is important to defend precisely because those who attack it almost never do so out of interest in the quality of the science but for religious reasons or, worse yet, for personal reasons of distaste (they don't like thinking of themselves as 'mere animals' or 'related to monkeys').

Science is worth defending from poorly educated folks who would rather see it destroyed than bother to learn it. Evolution is worth defending because it is good science.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think this issue is important enough to take seriously, and to study in-depth, and really try to understand it from all sides -rather than to assume my own conclusions and ridicule those who know by praising my own ignorance.

Why?

Some people say that ignorance is bliss, and these people are somehow content with not knowing which way is North, or where their home is on a map, or who's in charge of their government, or even how old they are, or whether the earth is flat. But I say knowledge is power, and I want to know what time it is. I want to know where I am and what I am -geographically, demographically, and phylogenetically. What else could be so important?

 

[Inan3]

I say knowledge is power, and I want to know what time it is. I want to know where I am and what I am -geographically, demographically, and phylogenetically. What else could be so important?

All I really wanted to know was why you thought it was so important. You didn't have to make your comments about those "other" people.

 

[Atheuz]

Why?

Same reason you're a Christian. They want to know who they are, where they came from, what the point of everything is and so on - You're probably gonna give me some yibber yabber about how you're a Christian because of God, you're not - You're a human being, you're curious about your existence and Christianity provides those answers.

 

[Lilandra]

Well at least you paid attention, Lilandra, and picked up on my gender.

I am not trolling, the last thing I want is an argumentative response. I'll leave the trolling to you mates. Parody possibly because I was "poking some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work". I do think you all need to laugh at yourselves a little. You guys are a little too serious at times.

Come on!! Are you saying you couldn't see the similarities of that "tree of life" picture with that of a "castle"? The castle image did "so go" with my analogy of the kingdom of clade. As a matter of fact, I thought it was quite cute and original.

Actually I am either serious or pretending to be serious. I have a dry and somewhat warped sense of humor.

I guess I am reading all your posts as literal.

But you post stuff like this...

That may not be a fairy tale but it is unproved fiction. It is a myth that is propagated as the truth.

I really haven't seen you demonstrate an understanding of evolution in order to come to the conclusion that it is "unproved fiction".

In fact, what you've shown is that perhaps evolution as you currently understand it is what actually is unproved fiction.

You show that you understand evolution and people will take your judgement of it more to heart.

 

[Inan3]

Actually I am either serious or pretending to be serious. I have a dry and somewhat warped sense of humor.

I guess I am reading all your posts as literal.

But you post stuff like this...


I really haven't seen you demonstrate an understanding of evolution in order to come to the conclusion that it is "unproved fiction".

In fact, what you've shown is that perhaps evolution as you currently understand it is what actually is unproved fiction.

You show that you understand evolution and people will take your judgement of it more to heart.

I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution because I don't see it as a viable truth.

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those who believe in it but I really have been presented anything that I find convincing. Don't get me wrong I have been given volumes of information but not what I consider evidence. I have been told that there is a lot of evidence even told what they consider the evidence is but I don't find any of it "as" evidence. I wish I could explain what I am trying to say better but it doesn't seem to be coming out correctly at the moment.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution because I don't see it as a viable truth.

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those who believe in it but I really have been presented anything that I find convincing. Don't get me wrong I have been given volumes of information but not what I consider evidence. I have been told that there is a lot of evidence even told what they consider the evidence is but I don't find any of it "as" evidence. I wish I could explain what I am trying to say better but it doesn't seem to be coming out correctly at the moment.

What do you say to evolutionary biology being applied in fields like pharmaceuticals, medical research, agriculture, etc? Why would private industry make use of a science that isn't "true"?

 

[Inan3]

What do you say to evolutionary biology being applied in fields like pharmaceuticals, medical research, agriculture, etc? Why would private industry make use of a science that isn't "true"?

Ok Pete, tell me how is it used this way?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution because I don't see it as a viable truth.

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those who believe in it but I really have been presented anything that I find convincing. Don't get me wrong I have been given volumes of information but not what I consider evidence. I have been told that there is a lot of evidence even told what they consider the evidence is but I don't find any of it "as" evidence. I wish I could explain what I am trying to say better but it doesn't seem to be coming out correctly at the moment.

To start with: what do you consider 'evolution' to be? Specifically, are you scepticle about the phenomenon itself, it's predictions, it's models (specifically Common Descent), etc?

 

[Inan3]

To start with: what do you consider 'evolution' to be? Specifically, are you scepticle about the phenomenon itself, it's predictions, it's models (specifically Common Descent), etc?

I think it's the models themself that I question but not sure of the terminology. What do you mean by the "phenomenon"?


Maybe I can explain it this way. Here's something that I looked at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.php a site for the University of California Museum of Palenontolgy. It's a great site very user friendly.

Now this information states certain things but my mind says "they can't know that that actually happened.. they can only surmise.. and I'm supposed to believe this because they say it?" It sounds feasible but I certainly need more than just their word for it.

Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.


Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern beluga — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

 

[personofnothingness]

What makes anyone believe in 'creation' more than evolution? The Bible? A book that humans copied "directly from the mouth of God"? If creation is true, then why not giant flying pandas that can talk and do tricks? Why, in the Bible, did it not mention prehistoric animals, only humans, and animals from that time period? Because it's not true. I'm sure that the Bible has many valuable life lessons in it (as do aesop's fables), but it's not THE TRUTH. IT'S NOT REAL. IT WAS PROBABLY MADE UP. I'm stressing this point because many people don't seem to get it. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the fact that(you can poke all the holes in the blanket we call evolution (although all your 'holes' are from thirty-year old articles and experiments) you want, but it's better than nothing on a cold day) that creation is true.

 

[Inan3]

What makes anyone believe in 'creation' more than evolution? The Bible? A book that humans copied "directly from the mouth of God"? If creation is true, then why not giant flying pandas that can talk and do tricks? Why, in the Bible, did it not mention prehistoric animals, only humans, and animals from that time period? Because it's not true. I'm sure that the Bible has many valuable life lessons in it (as do aesop's fables), but it's not THE TRUTH. IT'S NOT REAL. IT WAS PROBABLY MADE UP. I'm stressing this point because many people don't seem to get it. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the fact that(you can poke all the holes in the blanket we call evolution (although all your 'holes' are from thirty-year old articles and experiments) you want, but it's better than nothing on a cold day) that creation is true.

Because you're new I'm gonna forgive you. Welcome.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution because I don't see it as a viable truth.

And conversely, you don't see it as a viable truth only because you don't understand it.

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

You decided that had to be the outcome before you started, and you're determined to make sure that it is. Otherwise, I could fix that easily enough.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those who believe in it but I really have been presented anything that I find convincing. Don't get me wrong I have been given volumes of information but not what I consider evidence. I have been told that there is a lot of evidence even told what they consider the evidence is but I don't find any of it "as" evidence. I wish I could explain what I am trying to say better but it doesn't seem to be coming out correctly at the moment.

Define what you think scientists are talking about, but that you haven't seen any "evidence" for yet.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think it's the models themself that I question but not sure of the terminology. What do you mean by the "phenomenon"?


Maybe I can explain it this way. Here's something that I looked at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.php a site for the University of California Museum of Palenontolgy. It's a great site very user friendly.

Now this information states certain things but my mind says "they can't know that that actually happened.. they can only surmise.. and I'm supposed to believe this because they say it?" It sounds feasible but I certainly need more than just their word for it.

Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.


Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern beluga — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

I read this twice, and I still can't tell. What is your problem with this?

 

[Inan3]

I know Aron is more than capable of answering for himself, but as a scientist I find that question puzzling.

What is more important than knowing what is going on around you? What is more important than understanding the physical reality you are dependent on each and every millisecond of existence?

Science is more than just test tubes and microscopes. Science can be a way of life. If I were to become unemployed as a scientist tomorrow I'd still look at the world as a scientist.

Evolution is important because it is a well-founded, well-attested scientific model that does everything a proper scientific model should:

1. Explains all the variability in the data
2. Invokes the minimum number of factors necessary to explain the data.
3. Uses only factors in the model that are testable and can be agreed upon by all observers.

Nothing else is needed to explain any of the data we see before us.

Evolution is important to defend precisely because those who attack it almost never do so out of interest in the quality of the science but for religious reasons or, worse yet, for personal reasons of distaste (they don't like thinking of themselves as 'mere animals' or 'related to monkeys').

Science is worth defending from poorly educated folks who would rather see it destroyed than bother to learn it. Evolution is worth defending because it is good science.

Now just think about your last paragraph for a minute...poorly educated folks are going to be able to destroy science???? I think not! Also, I do not think that is their intention.

You just honestly and passionatley shared a part of yourself and I say, bravo. Now I ask you can you understand that there are people who feel exactly the way you do about their faith in God. Everything you said above replace science and evolution with God and faith in God. Can't you empathize with them in any way? I'm not asking that you agree with them but understand them. They are as passionate and honest about it as you are.

You say what is more important than what is going on around you? I say God and people are more important to me. I say that only to show that there are many who don't hold you strong convictions about science, even those that do believe in evolution. They are just not as passionate about it as you are. That's not a crime. My perception of life is that that's what makes the world go round.

They say you shouldn't talk about politics and religion because people always get upset. That's because they're passionate about it. So we'll throw science in there or perhaps music preferences or sports, etc. Everyone has their niche in life that they think is the most important of all. Even within the several groups people have yet more distinguished preferences. Of course, everyone thinks their preference is the "more important" view.

You list 1, 2, 3 of evolution. I think the scripture fits that very same criteria only in a different way.

You state that "those who attack it almost never do so out of interest in the quality of the science but for religious reasons". Would you expect any thing less from people who have given their lives to their God and their faith as you have to your passion? You admitted just before that, that you thought it was "important to defend" evolution. Well, those people are doing the same thing, only instead of evolution, they are defending their faith and their God from those they think are trying to destroy it.

I do think that you should stand up for what you believe in even if it contradicts what I believe in but I, also, think that you have to give the next person that same consideration even if it contradicts what you believe in. Don't you think that is fair and just?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution because I don't see it as a viable truth.

Good enough. But one usually should understand something before determining if it is a viable truth. Otherwise you don't come off as being serious.

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

Interesting. You differ from the vast majority of scientists and professionals in the appropriate fields. You should publish.

You are free to disagree with all of science. That's how science works best. But be prepared that scientists will battle you on any given point.

That's what scientists do.

That's why evolution is such a strong theory. It wasn't given a free pass any more than any other great theory is ever given a free pass. It is put through the wringer so many times it winds up being stronger for the process.

Do you feel similarly about other topics in the sciences? How do you feel about quantum electrodynamics? How about String Theory? M-Theory? Plate tectonics?

Or is it just evolution you have an issue with?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Now just think about your last paragraph for a minute...poorly educated folks are going to be able to destroy science???? I think not!

Its already happened at least four times before in major empires that were to that moment the most technologically advanced in the world. Science was effectively destroyed in Greece, Egypt, Rome, and Persia, when the laymen populations and then political leadership fell into religious mystecism and superstition.

Also, I do not think that is their intention.

They admit openly that it is! It began with the mission of the Chalcedon Institute under R.J. Rushdoony. This began the political agenda of the Religious Right, and that continues with the Discovery Institute's "wedge strategy" to undermine science from within, and redefine it such that magic can be accepted as science. Yeah, that is their intention, and they said so themselves!