Evolution Questions

[Zwinmar]

All of you have provided some valuable insight which I did not have previously. Thank you for that.

There is a lot of things that you guys said that I was ignorant of, as such, I will research this indepth, and either this semester or the next take a course in college.

My intent is to look into this like I would a research paper, verifying my sources, etc...I will look at this as the historian I am studying to become, keeping an open, but critical mind on everything.

If nothing else, I will pay a visit to the professor at the college.

[Surlethe]

Check out Darth Wong's site (he nearly flamed you for not reading it before you PMed him) and the talk.origins archive. They're good online starting places for discovering your misconceptions about evolution and correcting them.

[R. U. Serious]

Given that you appear to not be much into reading (and you're in college? seriously?), maybe you want to start with this talk by Ken Miller:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(skip the first two minutes; and the Q & A at the end is also not all that brilliant, but the talk itself is very informative)

[Darth Servo]

Zwinmar, perhaps you should take a look at Mike Wong's Fundie Phrase Dictionary.

[Darth Servo]

Given that you appear to not be much into reading (and you're in college? seriously?), maybe you want to start with this talk by Ken Miller:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(skip the first two minutes; and the Q & A at the end is also not all that brilliant, but the talk itself is very informative)

So funny how in the Q&A portion, he points out that Muslims were emailing him asking him to read the works of an Islamic anti-evolution writer. The Islamic anti-evolutionist's "arguments" were copy and paste jobs of US creationist/ID morons and also was accusing evolution of being a "western Christian plot to subvert the morals of Islamic youth...Charles Darwin studied for the priesthood of the Church of England and that proves to you that he was just another crusader"

[Feil]

All of you have provided some valuable insight which I did not have previously. Thank you for that.

There is a lot of things that you guys said that I was ignorant of, as such, I will research this indepth, and either this semester or the next take a course in college.

A very good attitude to have. You might do well to start with BIO 101 (or its equivalent) if you know as little as you seem to know. Ignorance is no cause for shame, so long as you seek knowledge and do not delude yourself into believing you have an understanding when in truth you do not even know how much you lack.

My intent is to look into this like I would a research paper, verifying my sources, etc...I will look at this as the historian I am studying to become, keeping an open, but critical mind on everything.

If nothing else, I will pay a visit to the professor at the college.

Read. Read, read, and read some more. Here is a good place to start.

[B5B7]

Whilst some good points have been made, I feel some clarification is in order. There are facts such as evolution, gravity, electricity, etc. and there are theories to explain them.
There has been more than one theory of evolution eg Lamarckism.
"The Theory of Evolution" is actually shorthand for "the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". It is normally just called the theory of evolution as it has been extensively tested and emerged as the correct theory.

[Ted C]

My main concern with it is that it is a theory, not a law, for the scientific community to say that it is fact without testing it on a continual basis, as any theory should be, I find that, distatesfull. Escpecially when it comes to politics. While I personally will never believe that my ancestors were apes (that just doesnt make sense to me), I am open for actual evidence.

In a nutshell, a Law is a known fact about how some part of the environment operates, while a Theory is explains the known facts.

For instance, the Law of Gravity is that massive bodies attract each other with forces that you can easily predict if you know their masses and the distance between them. Theories of Gravity explain why massive bodies attract each other. Any explanation that was inconsistent with the known facts would be invalid and unworthy of being called a theory. If more than one theory exists which explains the facts, they are all valid theories until new observations eliminate one or more of them.

With those definitions in mind, there is a "Law of Evolution". All species have obvious similarities (starting from the fact that all of them use the same molecular code -- DNA -- to define their structure). Some species have more in common than others. Lions and tigers have more in common than lions and wolves, for instance; and lions and wolves have more in common than lions and horses. Comparing the species to determine how much they have in common, you can build a "tree" of species relationships into which any species on the planet will fit. The fact that you can construct this tree so easily makes it obvious that all living things on the planet are related.

The Theory of Evolution explains how and why those relationships exist. No other theory even comes close to explaining all those relationships, which is why the Theory of Evolution is the only acceptable scientific explanation of the facts.

[Darth Wong]

In a nutshell, a Law is a known fact about how some part of the environment operates, while a Theory is explains the known facts.

Not exactly. A law is a guideline, not a fact. For example, the Ideal Gas Law is a function which tells us how an ideal gas would behave, never mind the fact that there is no such thing as an ideal gas. And Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is still referred to as a law in physics textbooks even though it has been superseded by Einstein's work, because it is still a useful guideline.

In fact, the Theory of Relativity is superior to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, yet it is still called a "theory" while Newton's outdated work is called a "law". Pretty much annihilates the stupid creationist mantra about how it's "just a theory, not a law". It is quite possible for a "theory" to be superior to a "law".

[Ted C]

In a nutshell, a Law is a known fact about how some part of the environment operates, while a Theory is explains the known facts.

Not exactly. A law is a guideline, not a fact. For example, the Ideal Gas Law is a function which tells us how an ideal gas would behave, never mind the fact that there is no such thing as an ideal gas. And Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is still referred to as a law in physics textbooks even though it has been superseded by Einstein's work, because it is still a useful guideline.

In fact, the Theory of Relativity is superior to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, yet it is still called a "theory" while Newton's outdated work is called a "law". Pretty much annihilates the stupid creationist mantra about how it's "just a theory, not a law". It is quite possible for a "theory" to be superior to a "law".

Having gotten through the whole thread, now, I can see where several others had more accurate definitions of "law".

I think the important thing we've pointed out is that a scientific "Law" is not superior to a scientific "Theory".

[TheFeniX]

An additional analogy would be wolves and dogs. Both modern day wolves and dogs share a common ancestral species but it would be incorrect to say that dogs came from wolves and vice versa.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't most (if not all) Canines inter-breed and create fertile off-spring? This would make me assume they are still in the same species.

[Surlethe]

An additional analogy would be wolves and dogs. Both modern day wolves and dogs share a common ancestral species but it would be incorrect to say that dogs came from wolves and vice versa.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't most (if not all) Canines inter-breed and create fertile off-spring? This would make me assume they are still in the same species.

According to the animal diversity web, dogs are a subspecies of wolf. This would indicate that they can interbreed effectively.

That point doesn't affect the strength of his analogy, however.

[The Spartan]

But aren't dog breed begining to genuinely speciate away from their wolf ancestors and themselves anyways?

For instance, a Great Dane might breed well (represented thusly: ->) with, say, a Saint Bernard -> Rottweiler -> German Shepherd Dog -> Labrador Retriever -> Basset Hound -> Dachshund -> Chiahuahua. But a Chiahuahua with a Great Dane?

Note: I just pulled the breed names out of the air, the point of the example, and my question, is that not all breeds can reliably, well, breed together. Or they're observably begining to reach that point, are they not?

[Master of Cards]

But aren't dog breed begining to genuinely speciate away from their wolf ancestors and themselves anyways?

For instance, a Great Dane might breed well (represented thusly: ->) with, say, a Saint Bernard -> Rottweiler -> German Shepherd Dog -> Labrador Retriever -> Basset Hound -> Dachshund -> Chiahuahua. But a Chiahuahua with a Great Dane?

Note: I just pulled the breed names out of the air, the point of the example, and my question, is that not all breeds can reliably, well, breed together. Or they're observably begining to reach that point, are they not?

They can breed with each other and produce fertile offspring but it's not likely to happen for um size issuses.

[Punkus]

Just a quick thought,

I wanted to say I am disturbed that a person comes to these forums and asks a mostly legitimate question regarding evolution, and the first two replies he receives are scathing reprimands.

Sharing knowledge is not about criticizing everyone who asks a question of us for which we do not entirely approve. Every time a question is answered with irritation or outright rudeness, it signals (to me, anyway) that the person being asked is not as interested in providing assistance to the questioner on his or her path towards greater knowledge as they are in treating the knowledge they do possess as a means to a more base, and probably more selfish, end.

When someone asks a question about science, no matter how irritating or convoluted it may seem, I would urge everyone to be more understanding and willing to offer assistance.

P.S.:
I realize I am new here, but I saw this thread and felt I had to say something. I felt I needed to put in my thoughts, and frankly I'd rather go down in flames for speaking my mind than go on being afraid of saying anything at all.

[Coyote]

...After getting hundreds of almost identical versions of his argument in the past, my patience for that kind of zero-effort, "can't even bother to read the main website" argument has pretty much disappeared. If I didn't tell him to make a thread, I would have responded by just flaming him to a crisp for his ignorance and intellectual sloth.

Just out of curiosity, have you considered having a sort of form-letter ready to cut & paste right back, addressing the garden-variety argument? Maybe invite them to start threads in the form letter?

It seems a definition of the term "theory" would be a good thing to have in the first sentence of the form.

[Coyote]

Just a quick thought,

I wanted to say I am disturbed that a person comes to these forums and asks a mostly legitimate question regarding evolution, and the first two replies he receives are scathing reprimands.

The problem is, the answers he sought were already here on the board, but rather than look for them he just started to talk crazy talk. It represents laziness and a lack of desire to educate oneself-- which questions the reason for being here in the first place.

So far he seems willing to re-examine his pov, which is good. But seriusly, he didn't even really try, either.

[Eleas]

So far he seems willing to re-examine his pov, which is good. But seriusly, he didn't even really try, either.

Honestly, the impulse to ask people knowledgeable on the subject to their faces is vastly preferable to a person uncritically absorbing the contents of a webpage. The back-and-forth, while perhaps annoying, does help in preventing him from exchanging dogma with misconception.

[wolveraptor]

Obviously, it's preferable that both methods are used. That way, the people who are being questioned don't have to explain the most basic of terms, like "theory" and "law". Hell, both of those terms are defined according to both their colloquial and scientific definitions on Webster, if I'm not mistaken.

[Eleas]

Obviously, it's preferable that both methods are used. That way, the people who are being questioned don't have to explain the most basic of terms, like "theory" and "law". Hell, both of those terms are defined according to both their colloquial and scientific definitions on Webster, if I'm not mistaken.

As you say, "obviously." But seems to me that what this guy is looking for isn't information so much as active convincing to overrule his emotional preference. If he's trying to break free of the tendency to think with his gut, bawling him out for doing so seems counterproductive.

[Zwinmar]

Zwinmar, perhaps you should take a look at Mike Wong's Fundie Phrase Dictionary.

This helped alot. As did the others, I'm still attempting to read through it all however. A lot of the language used in some of them are, well above me. I am fully aware that my background within the church, and the school of that church has formed some very obvious fallacious ideas.

At about the age of 16 I figured out it was all bullshit, but what exactly I didnt know. There was and is too many contradictions that I saw, the main one being that the preacher preached AT me after my mom died. Dispite the fact they refused to let her go to the doctor, and when she did they said a different doctor would tell her different. She died a year later. So yeah I want and have nothing to do with the church now.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Just a quick thought,

I wanted to say I am disturbed that a person comes to these forums and asks a mostly legitimate question regarding evolution, and the first two replies he receives are scathing reprimands.

Like any other forum we have those who might have had a bad day, or maybe just missed the bigger picture. We have a lot of people come in, and do hit and run posts so some of our members have developed knee jerk reactions to these posts which are very similar in content.

[metavac]

Anyways, I would like to know how the theory of evolution can be taught as fact, when in reality it is still a theory. (as i understand it anyways).

Well, it helps to start out by noting that fact refers to knowledge gathered through observation, measurement, reasonable inference or some combination of the three. The difference between law and theory is a matter of degree, but both still meet these criteria.

[Darth Wong]

Just a quick thought,

I wanted to say I am disturbed that a person comes to these forums and asks a mostly legitimate question regarding evolution, and the first two replies he receives are scathing reprimands.

Sharing knowledge is not about criticizing everyone who asks a question of us for which we do not entirely approve.

That's why the website to which this forum is attached is full of explanations for basic concepts like this. The irritation factor comes from the fact that so many people don't bother to read it.

Every time a question is answered with irritation or outright rudeness, it signals (to me, anyway) that the person being asked is not as interested in providing assistance to the questioner on his or her path towards greater knowledge as they are in treating the knowledge they do possess as a means to a more base, and probably more selfish, end.

Are you seriously suggesting that any time someone exhibits irritation, he must be playing some kind of nefarious head-game? It's impossible to simply be annoyed and act accordingly?

When someone asks a question about science, no matter how irritating or convoluted it may seem, I would urge everyone to be more understanding and willing to offer assistance.

That's why I recommended that the guy open up a thread, because I was sure to flame him to a crisp if I tried to respond via PM. If you spent as much time as I did creating the creationtheory.org website and then had someone ask you questions which make it obvious he couldn't bother reading any of it, you'd be annoyed too.

P.S.:
I realize I am new here, but I saw this thread and felt I had to say something. I felt I needed to put in my thoughts, and frankly I'd rather go down in flames for speaking my mind than go on being afraid of saying anything at all.

Flames is what we do

[Rye]

Just a quick thought,

I wanted to say I am disturbed that a person comes to these forums and asks a mostly legitimate question regarding evolution, and the first two replies he receives are scathing reprimands.

To be entirely fair to the guy, on a good day I would be bothered enough to respond to him, but the fact is, books and decent evolution websites are easy to come by, this very site has one, for fuck's sake. If he wanted to know the answer, he could probably check it extremely easily with a bit of common sense.

Sharing knowledge is not about criticizing everyone who asks a question of us for which we do not entirely approve.

That may be, but it'd get pretty fucking tiresome if someone asked you why your name was Punkus in every single post, even if it was a different user. Repeating questions that have already been answered can get so tiresome it's better to just ignore them and watch some porn.

Every time a question is answered with irritation or outright rudeness, it signals (to me, anyway) that the person being asked is not as interested in providing assistance to the questioner on his or her path towards greater knowledge as they are in treating the knowledge they do possess as a means to a more base, and probably more selfish, end.

Nah, if anything, it's down to irritation at the question asked for various reasons, maybe sometimes there's some lame bullshit about wanting to "smack the creationist" on here or whatever, not some attempt to keep the knowledge of the very straightforward, well known and evidenced arguments for evolution and common descent in their heads.

When someone asks a question about science, no matter how irritating or convoluted it may seem, I would urge everyone to be more understanding and willing to offer assistance.

It's down to the individual, I would say. I imagine if kuroneko or surlethe schooled me on physics one time, replete with flames, I'd feel annoyed, but then, what I asked would probably not be phrased with things like "I refuse to believe humans are descended from apes no matter what," either.