Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

[Speedwell]

How exactly does this happen? There are no 'holes' in the theory but plenty in the math.

Where? As far as I can tell, the math is pretty solid.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where? As far as I can tell, the math is pretty solid.

The chain of events, down to the molecular level, that must occur for change to happen. Impossible to chart unless the change is actually happening in real time.

 

[EJ M]

If something ever evolved from nothing all of us who have studied the TOE would have to give it up.

So........ better give it up and become a believer That's what the TOE claims started it all. ( Big bang, presto, something from nothing)

 

[EJ M]

Wow. That's amazing. Incredible that scientists haven't considered that. How did you ever figure it out?.

Oh...wait, that's right, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

One can try to divorce the TOE from the origins of the universe, but the 2 are intricately tied together. Without the first, the second falls.
Let's not forget, the TOE is only a theory, never been observed or demonstrated.
And Noah's flood was just "discovered" by several high powered "scientists", ( they got the timeline wrong, it was about 4,000 years ago, not 1-2 hundred thousand)
And one of the latest studies came up with the following;

All humans may be descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, study suggests

• Genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals from different species were surveyed
• Research prompted speculation humans and animals sprang from single pair.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One can try to divorce the TOE from the origins of the universe, but the 2 are intricately tied together. Without the first, the second falls.
Let's not forget, the TOE is only a theory, never been observed or demonstrated.
And Noah's flood was just "discovered" by several high powered "scientists", ( they got the timeline wrong, it was about 4,000 years ago, not 1-2 hundred thousand)
And one of the latest studies came up with the following;

All humans may be descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, study suggests

• Genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals from different species were surveyed
• Research prompted speculation humans and animals sprang from single pair.

Science will eventually discover that they have been studying creation all along, and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[jacknife]

One can try to divorce the TOE from the origins of the universe, but the 2 are intricately tied together. Without the first, the second falls.
Let's not forget, the TOE is only a theory, never been observed or demonstrated.
And Noah's flood was just "discovered" by several high powered "scientists", ( they got the timeline wrong, it was about 4,000 years ago, not 1-2 hundred thousand)
And one of the latest studies came up with the following;

All humans may be descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, study suggests

• Genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals from different species were surveyed
• Research prompted speculation humans and animals sprang from single pair.

No thier not, evolution deals with the change of life forms over time, big bang deals with the start of our universe they really dont overlap much. Also a theroy in science is one of highest titles a thing could have. The idea that microbs cause diseases is germ theroy.

 

[jacknife]

Science will eventually discover that they have been studying creation all along, and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Not really.

 

[Brightmoon]

I've never heard of Ken Miller before. Francis Collins, yes, though I don't think he has quite the same profile that someone like Dawkins has.

I could give you a list of Catholic scientists (not including Ken Miller, apparently ), but again, none of them are really household names in the same way.



Well, no. When a scientist makes claims about how favorable or hostile the modern state of science is to religion, they are stepping outside of their field and commenting on theology instead. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if a scientist is simultaneously trying to be a popularizer for science and attacking religious beliefs, they should not turn around and act confused if people take them at their word and reject science as incompatible with religion.

If their goal is to promote atheism rather than science, then they don't have to be cautious about this, but if they hope to improve trust in science, it's a problem they ought to keep in mind.



I don't. But the topic of this thread revolves around why people fail to accept evolution, and I think this is a factor.

I am bemused that multiple atheists here have taken me for a raving Creationist for criticizing Dawkins, though.

you never heard of Ken Miller ?!?!?! At the Dover trial, he basically shot Micheal Behe out of the water! He wrote Finding Darwin’s God about why some scientists are theists and accept evolution and the old earth

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No thier not, evolution deals with the change of life forms over time, big bang deals with the start of our universe they really dont overlap much. Also a theroy in science is one of highest titles a thing could have. The idea that microbs cause diseases is germ theroy.

But where would evolution be without the first life form? They are joined at the hip.

 

[Brightmoon]

It is not easy to find “evidence” to show that evolution does not work. But it is pretty easy to give example on things evolution never works. An example is what I talked about the idea of “backward evolution”. It should happen, but we have never seen it.

. Some American Indians with dark skin have re evolved the trait from lighter skinned ancestors. Just because you’re ignorant of something......

 

[jacknife]

But where would evolution be without the first life form? They are joined at the hip.

Your thinking of abiogensis (i probably spelled that wrong) which is the emergance of first life, and even then how the first life got here dosn't effect evolution.

 

[Brightmoon]

But where would evolution be without the first life form? They are joined at the hip.

. Mutations and natural selection occurred before cell based life started . I don’t know why you see this as a problem because viruses are basically living chemicals while not being actual cells.

 

[Brightmoon]

I mean the direction of evolution synchronized to environmental change. Applied to your example, we should see some components (functions) became simpler, then at some other times, also became more complicated.

. Are you serious!?!?!?!?! What do you think natural selection is ?

Unbelievable!!!!!! ( you know that’s not what I actually said when I read Juvies comments, this is the polite version)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your thinking of abiogensis (i probably spelled that wrong) which is the emergance of first life, and even then how the first life got here dosn't effect evolution.

Without regard to abiogenesis they are still joined at the hip.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

. Mutations and natural selection occurred before cell based life started . I don’t know why you see this as a problem because viruses are basically living chemicals while not being actual cells.

So viruses aren't alive? I was vaccinated for tetanus with a live virus. And did viruses appear before their needed 'host' appeared?

How Viruses Work - Viruses - All About Microbes - Microbe Magic

 

[Brightmoon]

Science will eventually discover that they have been studying creation all along, and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

. Scientists know that we study the Creation whether they call it that or not. One of the great truths is that Nature doesn’t deceive .That is exactly what you’d expect from something created by God. This is also why I find creationist distortions and outright lies to be ugly blasphemous behavior . a flaming atheist like Richard Dawkins isn’t lying about evolution and a creationist like Ken Ham or Jonathan Wells is.

 

[juvenissun]

???

We absolutely see that. Eyes evolving away as species move to dark habitats, and so on.

Good example. Show me their eyes come back when removed from dark. I guess this could be tested in the lab.

 

[Brightmoon]

So viruses aren't alive? I was vaccinated for tetanus with a live virus. And did viruses appear before their needed 'host' appeared?

How Viruses Work - Viruses - All About Microbes - Microbe Magic

a live virus is a virus that is able to infect you but not cause symptoms. They’ve been mutated to be defective but not to cause disease by not being complete. They’re not 100% safe because they can mutate back to virulence. Viruses are basically living chemicals

 

[OldWiseGuy]

. Scientists know that we study the Creation whether they call it that or not. One of the great truths is that Nature doesn’t deceive .That is exactly what you’d expect from something created by God. This is also why I find creationist distortions and outright lies to be ugly blasphemous behavior . a flaming atheist like Richard Dawkins isn’t lying about evolution and a creationist like Ken Ham or Jonathan Wells is.

Dawkins is an evolutionist hack. In his demonstration of the poor design of the giraffe's RLN he 'hacked' right through the evidence of ID that has been observed by others, including "Gray's Anatomy", which states this about that:


"Indeed, hints of important functions for the RLN nerve can be seen in the old authority, Gray's Anatomy, which states regarding the normal human design:

As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.

So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx.

Pro-ID biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in his article "The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe: Does it Prove Evolution?," quotes a passage from a much more recent 1980 edition of Gray's Anatomy stating much the same thing:

As the recurrent laryngeal nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior]. "

(Gray's Anatomy, 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589)

The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Does Not Refute Intelligent Design

Rather than being poor design it seems rather elegant to me.

 

[Shemjaza]

No. It has to be the intelligence of individuals.
Any (?) animal in the animal world can do a certain amazing things. I do not call them intelligence. They are only survival functions.

Ahh, find another feature characterizes human-level intelligence: painting or drawing.

Okay, you only need one of those "human" abilities? But if it's based on the individual, you still have the problem of some very young, sick or injured not counting as being part of the same species.

There's also the problem of this somewhat ad hoc method might work okay for a single species we actually belong to, but the scientific definition actually scales to the other life of the planet. You can't just have two species: "humans" and "not humans", well, I guess you could, but it wouldn't be very useful most of the time.

So........ better give it up and become a believer That's what the TOE claims started it all. ( Big bang, presto, something from nothing)

Abiogenesis and the Big Bang could be demonstrated as physically impossible and evolution would still be well evidenced.

(Also, something from nothing isn't a part of the Big Bang Theory).

Without regard to abiogenesis they are still joined at the hip.

If at any stage at all in history life was specially created, then micro and macro evolution would still be true. We can observe these principles in real time and the evidence is consistent across all life.

Common ancestry might be a dishonest illusion if life was created 6000 years ago with the genetic scars of common ancestry, but all the speciation, mutations and adaptations that have occurred over human history are still evidence for the facts of evolution.