Sci/Tech Not that it matters, but how convinced are you by the Theory of Evolution?

[1031]

That's not the case here.

If you know something is fact (eg germ theory) and people question it or deny it and their argument is based on a logical fallacy, then they have an inability or unwillingness to comprehend the subject matter.

Your post, for example, displays numerous logical fallacies. Strawman, ad hominem and non-sequitur at a minimum.

I didn't call you names and if you make an accusation, it's only fair you explain why or how you understand something as being illogical or insulting.

"If you know something is fact" A lot of things that were once fact have since been found incomplete explanations. I know you know this.

edit:
Why are you so determined to make this something personal? Any time I have a different point of view from you, you make a concerted effort to take this particular route. It doesn't offend me but it does make me wonder what your problem is.

 

[Leigh]

I didn't call you names and if you make an accusation, it's only fair you explain why or how you understand something as being illogical or insulting.

"If you know something is fact" A lot of things that were once fact have since been found incomplete explanations. I know you know this.

Yeah but no

 

[yuki2054]

I disagree with that.
I find no incompatibility with evolution and Christianity, for instance.

I do however find the argument that I or others must be thinking a certain way because of a faux-religion of science and academia offensive. That is an ad hominem used by the video to discredit anyone other than those in the video. It is indeed a personal attack.

They answer a fake interview with such accusations instead of the data points.

You know, the data like black and white math, since the only two real arguments in the entire video are math based. So that should be rather easy to show (PhD in mathematics...surely his numbers are published somewhere right??? ). But instead the aemotional data points supporting evolution are responded to by such personal accusations. Why can't they respond with the aemotional conflict data?

Don't you care to see how he got to that at least to back your view?

I find this all very interesting. I once talked to a mathematician, who said that the odds for evolution, are actually small. But because there is no viable alternative, they are all we've got. Personally I like to believe that we did all come from Adam and Eve. But that was a long time ago. And men and women were much shorter then.

Please don't hate on this post. This is just my opinion. Which i am entitled to. My degree was in the arts/humanities, not sciences. Although if you want to discuss Sociology with me, I may fare better...

 

[member 3289]

@Splinty I found another source you can steal from me the next time you argue with an anti-evolutionist:


View: https://youtu.be/rdZOwyDbyL0#t=09m20s

 

[sparkuri]

View: https://youtu.be/FDSpLBNQk5I

@Splinty

 

[Splinty]

View: https://youtu.be/FDSpLBNQk5I

@Splinty

If I sit down and watch this 60 minute video, will the mathematician post his proof so I can assess whether his stated odds have a foundation? Because that's all I really care about...because that's the foundation of his entire position.

 

[member 3289]

Time-stamped. It will literally take 2 mins of your time


View: https://youtu.be/syD88cLj1jU#t=05m30s

 

[sparkuri]

If I sit down and watch this 60 minute video, will the mathematician post his proof so I can assess whether his stated odds have a foundation? Because that's all I really care about...because that's the foundation of his entire position.

Tty in an hour

 

[Leigh]

If I sit down and watch this 60 minute video, will the mathematician post his proof so I can assess whether his stated odds have a foundation? Because that's all I really care about...because that's the foundation of his entire position.

I don't watch videos claiming evidence for religious legitimacy any more unless the person recommending it provides a reasonable explanation first. I've been spammed so many times with videos that are utter nonsense from religious friends.

 

[Splinty]

I don't watch videos claiming evidence for religious legitimacy any more unless the person recommending it provides a reasonable explanation first. I've been spammed so many times with videos that are utter nonsense from religious friends.

What about videos about melted rocks?

 

[silentsinger]

What about videos about melted rocks?

"Jesus Christ, Marie. They're minerals!"

 

[so long]

I personally think it it a major fallacy in our Zeitgeist that people always try to use it as an argument to say 'we evolved to do X' or 'X is going on today which was created to be perfectly like this by evolution'
and this is like the end all be all go-to argument.

more so, I think that people misuse that very popular theory (still the best theory we got and I think it can also be used for example to analyze structures in societies, companies, culture) ever so often for some claims to sell stuff.

let me have a go at it and just come up with some bullshit as an example.

"Your body was not meant to be wearing a backpack. 100.000years ago there was no backpacks. We were roaming around and [insert assumption], people didn't wear backpacks. I'm selling the original, carefully reconstructed PALEO BAG made from deer skin (or deer skin imitation product for the Paleo-Vegans). People would hunt big game and carry it back to the cave on their shoulders and bag [assumption, though quite reasonable]. My PALEO BAG let's you do that. For just 299€"

 

[so long]

Breeding through selection, either for body type or character is IMO quite well proven by THE DOG alone.
Or fossils of animals or plants (are there mushroom fossils?).
Or stuff like rudimentary bones like legs in water mammals and so forth.
I'm totally not not denying that.

But taking "evolution" and putting a spin on it to make an argument that what is in the world today because the holy evolution created it that way is wrong.

 

[member 1013]

If I sit down and watch this 60 minute video, will the mathematician post his proof so I can assess whether his stated odds have a foundation? Because that's all I really care about...because that's the foundation of his entire position.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sjAyesKyYE8


You just want it all don’t ya

 

[so long]

Actually, funny thought, is is it even possible to disprove the effect of evolution? because the assumption is so all encompassing (some stuff happens, some shit dies, some survives, history is writtem by the winner, the evolutionary winner, and therefore evolution has taken place). I could also postulate that gravity or electromagnetic force is what made all life what it is today on earth. And even if there was just 1 species that is just clones of one being then you could say it is just perfectly balancing out all selective pressures and evolution is still in effect.

 

[kneeblock]

Actually, funny thought, is is it even possible to disprove the effect of evolution? because the assumption is so all encompassing (some stuff happens, some shit dies, some survives, history is writtem by the winner, the evolutionary winner, and therefore evolution has taken place). I could also postulate that gravity or electromagnetic force is what made all life what it is today on earth. And even if there was just 1 species that is just clones of one being then you could say it is just perfectly balancing out all selective pressures and evolution is still in effect.

That's the basic high concept of evolution, but of course today there are specifications of the mechanism whereby traits are inherited, specifications of how those traits interact with the environment, specifications of what types of environmental pressures favor certain mutations, etc. The main innovation of Darwin's theory was to prove that there was a mechanism that accounted for species variability and ultimately that all life was connected by this mechanism.

 

[sparkuri]

I don't watch videos claiming evidence for religious legitimacy any more unless the person recommending it provides a reasonable explanation first. I've been spammed so many times with videos that are utter nonsense from religious friends.

Ah, you're assuming it's religiously based.
He has no degree or official study in theology.
Since he lives near me, I will get ahold of him for a @Splinty - Stephen Q&A so splintonomy can check the math.

 

[yuki2054]

Ah, you're assuming it's religiously based.
He has no degree or official study in theology.
Since he lives near me, I will get ahold of him for a @Splinty - Stephen Q&A so splintonomy can check the math.

@Splinty is it possible that both theories are correct? Ergo we were created a long time ago. And have evolved (mainly grown bigger, stronger, and cleverer) since then?!

And no I'm not watching any convoluted videos swaying one way or the other. In the beginning was the word... so you guys damn well listen to mine!!!!!!!!!

 

[sparkuri]

@Splinty is it possible that both theories are correct? Ergo we were created a long time ago. And have evolved (mainly grown bigger, stronger, and cleverer) since then?!

And no I'm not watching any convoluted videos swaying one way or the other. In the beginning was the word... so you guys damn well listen to mine!!!!!!!!!

Amazing how so many will choose to listen to this or that on pre-conceived notions.
Give it 5, maybe you'll gove it 10 etc.
What's the harm?

He's an old earth guy, so what's the harm?
His credentials are there.

 

[Splinty]

@Splinty is it possible that both theories are correct? Ergo we were created a long time ago. And have evolved (mainly grown bigger, stronger, and cleverer) since then?!

Point zero is unknown and will probably never be truly known until God herself comes down and tells us. I also have stated that I don't think evolution and religion are in competition with each other (unlike @sparkuri who I believe at least alluded to it).

There is very strong data to support common ancestral lines across all eukaryotes and even reasonable data and theories to show a link between them and prokaryotes, with the latter actually being an earlier ancestor (see mitochondria and chloroplast theories) instead of a separate evolution or design.

 

[yuki2054]

Point zero is unknown and will probably never be truly known until God herself comes down and tells us. I also have stated that I don't think evolution and religion are in competition with each other (unlike @sparkuri who I believe at least alluded to it).

There is very strong data to support common ancestral lines across all eukaryotes and even reasonable data and theories to show a link between them and prokaryotes, with the latter actually being an earlier ancestor (see mitochondria and chloroplast theories) instead of a separate evolution or design.

But I still believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. In the time they lived, many millions of years ago, there were also lots of gods and goddesses, and demons that roamed the Earth. Hinduism, in that respect, is bang on. By the way, in case you didn't know Hinduism is the oldest of the religions. Buddhism was one of her babies! Xx

 

[Leigh]

But I still believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. In the time they lived, many millions of years ago, there were also lots of gods and goddesses, and demons that roamed the Earth. Hinduism, in that respect, is bang on. By the way, in case you didn't know Hinduism is the oldest of the religions. Buddhism was one of her babies! Xx

You are, of course, entitled to this belief. Are you basing it on any evidence?

 

[Jesus X]

I find it to be shallow and pedantic.

 

[Chief]

Hoping not to offend, but I personally believe that it is all pointless. Granted I approach these questions through a philosophical lense and I'm posing no argument here, only questions that I feel can't be answered.

As @Splinty points out, none of this answers true origin, which is all I care about, so I don't even bother. Adam & Eve, Primordial Soup, God, Prime Mover advanced lifeforms who've created us... none of it answer what came before and so to me, the question of evolution is like asking what color the next Russian doll might be in an infinite set of dolls. The question I'm interested in is how did the dolls come to be in the 1st place, given the absence of space, time, matter and movement? All of the answers I've ever heard only try to make guesses (often educated, sometimes not) about what the previous color doll might have been. Like matter from parallel universes to an all mighty Being. Answer those and we're still left with the original question.

I have no math and never went to college.

 

[yuki2054]

You are, of course, entitled to this belief. Are you basing it on any evidence?

I have a statue of Eve. And I used to have one of the gods and goddesses, and one of the demons. Also the first words in the Bible, are "in the beginning was the WORD" !! X