"I will never accept evolution"

[MustKnow]

I dont know if you have ever looked inside of a computer program or built one but if you did i think you would see a microbe is very much like a program.

 

I personally will never accept evolution, i think what happened here is some body found out about mutations then took it too far. Just about all mutations result in death, deformation, or simple nothing. Not to mention if you did have a successful mutation that benefited you doesn't go to say your children will inherit it.

[Mokele]

I dont know if you have ever looked inside of a computer program or built one but if you did i think you would see a microbe is very much like a program.

 

Only if the programmer was drunk, stupid, and stoned at the time. A code littered with useless scraps, dead code, duplicates, and the occasional lethal error?

 

I personally will never accept evolution

 

So why are you here? No scientist EVER says that they will 'never accept' something. If sufficient evidence is presented, refusal to believe is nothing but willful ignorance.

 

i think what happened here is some body found out about mutations then took it too far.

 

Wrong. We didn't even begin to understand mutation until more than 50 years *after* Darwin published.

 

ust about all mutations result in death, deformation, or simple nothing.

 

Wrong again. Most mutations are actually neutral or nearly so. More are damaging than helpful, but beneficial mutations do crop up often enough.

 

Plus, remember, "beneficial" can depend on habitat. Longer legs are useful if you're running away, but can be detrimental if you're burrowing.

 

Not to mention if you did have a successful mutation that benefited you doesn't go to say your children will inherit it.

 

Um, yes, it does, unless you have *very* few children. Remember, most species have hundreds, or even thousands, of offspring.

[Pangloss]

I personally will never accept evolution

 

Then why discuss it?

[MustKnow]

Then why discuss it?

 

 

your right, i dont know why i ever get involve with these discussions its as bad as arguing religion or politics. Everyone thinks they are "The One" with the answer. Its hard to get one to see another point of view with so much pride in the way. Like i said i for one will not credit my exists to a theory of a bunch of random chemicals that some how produced this complex being who can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life.

 

 

LONG LIVE THE SOUP!

[mooeypoo]

I personally will never accept evolution, i think what happened here is some body found out about mutations then took it too far.

Then what are you doing here?

 

One important thing about being open minded is never saying "i'll never accept". You might say that you didn't see any good evidence as of yet - and then there's a reason for a debate. You might say that the evidence given so far are bunk - and there's a reason for a debate. But if you say you will never accept a concept, then you're wasting your time asking (because you are not truly interested in answers no matter how compelling they are) and our time answering.

 

It's also a bit pretentious of you. What you are saying, really, is that no matter how compelling an evidence might be, you will always insist on stomping your feet in the ground and refuse to accept it. You state this before knowing what the potential answers might be - which shows nothing other than closed mindedness to a concept.

 

I do not believe in the general concept of ghosts. You will never hear me say, however, that i will never accept their existence. I might. If the right evidence are put forth. My standards are high, indeed, but I am not as pretentious as to think I know everything.

 

This is a science forum, following the scientific method. We debate for the sake of learning from one another, not for the sake of "debunking" and not for the sake of hearing lectures.

 

If you already decided that no matter what comes up in this debate, you will never consider the evidence, then I suggest you reconsider your time in this forum.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I personally will never accept evolution,

 

But you need an explanation. How can you, for example explain the existence of retrovirus fragments in your DNA. I don't think you can explain that one without accepting something very similar to evolution.

[Pangloss]

your right, i dont know why i ever get involve with these discussions its as bad as arguing religion or politics. Everyone thinks they are "The One" with the answer. Its hard to get one to see another point of view with so much pride in the way. Like i said i for one will not credit my exists to a theory of a bunch of random chemicals that some how produced this complex being who can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life.

 

I think people do listen, and ideas have a tendency to percolate and coalesce over time. It just doesn't happen very often under direct confrontation, which is why I usually advise folks here to focus on listening. Everyone who walks in the door here already knows what their own opinion is. What's interesting about discussion is hearing what others have to say. Even if it doesn't change your mind, it may give you new insight or ideas.

 

But hey, we all close our ears now and then. Just human nature. But it may be better not to advertise it when it happens.

[Ophiolite]

your right, i dont know why i ever get involve with these discussions its as bad as arguing religion or politics.

Will you consider this possibility? Any debate requires a set of ground rules. Frustration can arise when one or more participants are unaware of the ground rules, or consciously choose to ignore them.

 

I think you may be unaware of the ground rules that are implictly embedded in any scientific discussion. I'd like to point out a couple.

 

1. As mooeypoo has pointed out in science we can never absolutely prove anything. Scientists will generally argue this is one of its great strengths. Creationists often argue it is one of its great weakenesses and rant on (sorry, but many of them are rants) about how science is incapable of proving evolution, while they blithely ignore the deliberate choice in establishing the methodology of science that we will not to be able to prove anything. (And that includes many things that the creationistswould believe to be proven.)

 

This is rarely as 'weak' as it sounds. When the body of observation and experiment have been sliced and diced in so many ways, by so many researchers and have generated the same answers and yielded solid predictions, then the hypothesis or theory is accepted as pretty well factual. It is as proven as anything is ever going to be and scientists would be happy to bet their house on its 'truth'.

 

Evolution is in that category as far as science is concerned. You can reject the conclusions, but only in as much as you reject the entire scientific method. It is not scientists that conclude evolution is real, it is the scientific method that demonstrates it.

 

2. Science is methodologically naturalistic, a point that many scientists overlook. By this I mean that science takes as axiomatic that everything we perceive in the universe can be explained by the working of natural laws.

 

This may seem to undermine the open minded stance expressed in point 1. That is not so. By saying the process is methodoligically naturalistic we are saying that perhaps aspects of the universe are supernatural in character, but we aren't going to deal with those. Our methods can't deal with those. They might exist, but their character is outside our remit.

 

If you choose, on the basis of faith, or for any other reason to accept the existence of the supernatural and claim to have some understanding of some aspects of its character, that's fine, but it has no place and absolutely no valdity in a scientific discussion.

 

Everyone thinks they are "The One" with the answer.

The scientists in the discussion think that science has the answer. Either evolution occured pretty much as science has described it, or God made the universe so that it looked as if evolution had occured that way. Since science, as pointed out before, is methodologically naturalistic, the second alternative has no meaning within a scientific disucssion.

 

Its hard to get one to see another point of view with so much pride in the way.

I agree and there can be much pride on both sides. When a scientist exhibits that pride, or arrogance (or whatever you wish to call it) it should be ignored. Scientists are human and subject to error. Science, withint the sphere defined for it, is not, or rather that error is readily corrected in the light of fresh evidence, or fresh appreciation of old evidence.

 

i for one will not credit my exists to a theory of a bunch of random chemicals that some how produced this complex being who can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life.

 

And that is your choice. I have no problem with that. I do hope, however, that you accept that this is a logical fallacy. You are arguing against evolution on the grounds of personal incredulity. Again, such arguments have no place in a scientific discussion.

[MustKnow]

The reason i wont accept evolution is because the information just isnt good enough for me. The same with ID and creationism some parts sound good yet other parts dont seem as good. It might make more sense if i said i accept some parts of creationism, but not all of it, yet i dont accept any of evolution. Do i acknowledge mutations happen and can be benefical yes, it has been proven, but what i dont believe is these mutation lead to the existence of all life and their design. As it has been said here many times life is complex.

 

Life is too deliberate to be a series of random mutations. Its one thing if there is a mutation after something has been engineered and designed its another thing when a cell formed at random.

 

Why is it in most of the physics community they say the laws of physics have been built to support life and if one law was off it would be in possible thus they must have been wrote that way for a reason. Yet this biggest miracle happened at random?

 

This is what i see when i take a step back and examine this world and universe we live in, there is a system in place functions, like in software, everything that exist even in space perform some kind of function has an intent. Is this hard to prove nope, look out your window, the plants produce oxygen and take in our carbon, a system built one on top of another for each other. Seems pretty deliberate doesn't it?

 

If you never have i would recommend you build something complex of your own and see how it goes. Its on thing to theorizes its another thing to have and understanding of designing.

[Sisyphus]

I agree. Intelligent people don't tend to accept something just because someone told them so, they like to see the evidence and judge for themselves. An intelligent person who does not have enough biology background to see the evidence for evolution is unlikely to accept it simply because its the scientific consensus.

 

I don't know about that. It depends on what you mean by "accept." Nobody has enough of a background to fully understand every field of science, yet there's all sorts of things we accept anyway, because we recognize that the process works, or, more accurately, that there isn't a better answer, so rationally we should act as if it were true, with reserve in proportion to the uncertainty in the consensus. Doubt about the basic premise of evolution is essentially nonexistent in science. If I thought it didn't make sense (as was once the case) and I cared enough to be curious, I would try and figure it out for myself and ask questions, but I would still provisionally accept it, because it would be irrational to think that I know better before I even bother to learn.

[iNow]

The reason i wont accept evolution is because the information just isnt good enough for me. The same with ID and creationism some parts sound good yet other parts dont seem as good. It might make more sense if i said i accept some parts of creationism, but not all of it, yet i dont accept any of evolution.

 

I must point out... Your personal standards seem HORRIBLY inconsistent if you think that the the evidence is favor of evolution is not good enough for you, but you simultaneously state that you accept parts of creationism which have no evidence in their favor at all. I want to introduce you to the term, "double standard."

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard

Double standards are when certain applications may be acceptable to one group, but seen as taboo to another. Such double standards are seen as unjust because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb "life is not fair" is often used to justify double standards in life.

 

There is a distinction to be made between double standards and hypocrisy, which implies the stated or presumed acceptance of a single standard a person claims to hold himself or herself accountable to, but which in practice may be disregarded. For example: a man who believes it is his right to have extramarital affairs, but that his wife does not have such a right holds a double standard. A man who publicly condemns extramarital affairs while maintaining his mistress is a hypocrite.

 

Please notice, I tried to avoid calling you a hypocrite, despite the fact that a strong argument could be made about it applying to you.

[habana999]

The reason i wont accept evolution is because the information just isnt good enough for me. The same with ID and creationism some parts sound good yet other parts dont seem as good. It might make more sense if i said i accept some parts of creationism, but not all of it, yet i dont accept any of evolution. Do i acknowledge mutations happen and can be benefical yes, it has been proven, but what i dont believe is these mutation lead to the existence of all life and their design. As it has been said here many times life is complex.

 

 

This guy is a wind up, surely?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Please notice, I tried to avoid calling you a hypocrite, despite the fact that a strong argument could be made about it applying to you.

 

I admire your diplomacy

[Mokele]

Mustknow, you have some assigned reading:

 

Evolution, by Futuyma.

 

Read it cover to cover. Then come back.

[GDG]

your right, i dont know why i ever get involve with these discussions its as bad as arguing religion or politics.

 

If you are supporting ID or creationism, you are arguing religion. There is no scientific basis for ID or creationism. Rejecting evolution because "it couldn't possibly produce something as complicated as humans" just shows that you do not yet understand evolution or biology.

 

Everyone thinks they are "The One" with the answer. Its hard to get one to see another point of view with so much pride in the way. Like i said i for one will not credit my exists to a theory of a bunch of random chemicals that some how produced this complex being who can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life.

 

Nobody knows all the answers, and no scientist claims to. As for understanding the mysteries of the universe, that's why most of us are interested in science. You are not making any progress in that direction if you just reject established science.

 

As scientists, we do accept things that can be proven. We are open minded because we will consider relevant evidence (although do not be surprised if we scrutinize your evidence pretty closely), and change theories to accommodate the data. It is the close minded person who rejects things because they don't understand, and makes no attempt to understand.

[Brian_Pears]

Why is it in most of the physics community they say the laws of physics have been built to support life and if one law was off it would be in possible thus they must have been wrote that way for a reason. Yet this biggest miracle happened at random?

 

This is known as the Anthropic Principle - if any of the laws or fundamental constants of physics were even slightly different, then life would be impossible. (Usually followed by 'Therefore GodDidIt').

 

Many physicists turn to the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics to explain this -- our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes, each with its own laws and constants, and life evolves only in those universes capable of supporting it.

[MustKnow]

This is known as the Anthropic Principle - if any of the laws or fundamental constants of physics were even slightly different, then life would be impossible. (Usually followed by 'Therefore GodDidIt').

 

Many physicists turn to the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics to explain this -- our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes, each with its own laws and constants, and life evolves only in those universes capable of supporting it.

 

I promised myself not to say anything about evolution anymore but i am besides myself. God created Vs the lottery. So now in the world of physics and creation of life it boils down to either some kind of god made it or we are just that lucky? Maybe its just me but i see a pattern, those you reject God instead embrace luck?

[Mr Skeptic]

Who said anything about luck? For all we know, the universe extends forever. For all we know, there are infinitely many universes with various different laws of physics, and several of them have laws of physics that can support life, or the universe had to have laws that can support life. What we do know for sure, is that there is at least one universe that supports life. On the other hand, how many gods have you seen?

 

The odds of winning the lottery, in case you didn't know, are 100%. Its only the odds of any particular person winning that are low.

[Mokele]

I promised myself not to say anything about evolution anymore but i am besides myself. God created Vs the lottery. So now in the world of physics and creation of life it boils down to either some kind of god made it or we are just that lucky? Maybe its just me but i see a pattern, those you reject God instead embrace luck?

 

It's not "luck". You're neglecting natural selection. Selection imposes order onto random variation, and results in obvious, orderly end-products.

 

Do you not believe crystals exist? Because it's the same principle - you start with molecules in solution, randomly bouncing around. But a few simple rules about how each molecule can bond to the other, repeated over and over, result in a highly structured, ordered end-product.

 

So far you have *completely* ignored natural selection, the primary driving force of adaptive evolution. This is like trying to understand how cars work while completely ignoring the engine, transmission, wheels and drive-train.

[mooeypoo]

I promised myself not to say anything about evolution anymore but i am besides myself.

Are you? If you're still coming into this discussion with a closed mind, then you are not besides anything.

 

God created Vs the lottery.

Huge strawman, MustKnow, along with a false dichotomy.

 

First off, science does not talk about luck at all. You're misrepresenting the other side just so you could argue against it easily.

 

Second, these aren't the only options. There are many -- MANY -- many more. Even if evolution is untrue (which would require a vast explanation about all the evidence found for it) that does not automatically mean "god did it".

 

 

Please avoid logical fallacies, as they don't contribute to the argument at all, let alone your points.

[MustKnow]

I just read what i thought was an interesting article, it had to do with Quantum physics and the measurement of a particle. I dont know what they called it but it boiled down to a particle that was different at any given point until it was observed. What the person was purposing was how did anything come to exist if there was no one around to observer the particle.

 

 

I never ignored natural selection. that is easily seen by observation, but that doesn't prove a fruit fly turned into a dragon fly, nor does mutations. The view on mutation and natural selection is equivalent to saying if you get a 1 trillion piece puzzle mix it up place it in a box and shake it until it is a complete puzzle is bogus. And is essentially what you are going to have to do to prove it to the rest of the world once and for all.

Edited May 4, 2009 by MustKnow

[mooeypoo]

I just read what i thought was an interesting article, it had to do with Quantum physics and the measurement of a particle. I dont know what they called it but it boiled down to a particle that was different at any given point until it was observed. What the person was purposing was how did anything come to exist if there was no one around to observer the particle.

Did you post in the wrong thread? I don't quite see the connection to anything in here...?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I never ignored natural selection. that is easily seen by observation, but that doesn't prove a fruit fly turned into a dragon fly.

Again with the strawman, my friend.

 

Look. If you're really interested in debating evolution and its processes, you need to start having a more open mind about this. For one, you need to start reading about evolution and the replies people put forth.

 

Your last sentence shows how little you know about this subject. It's a recurring statement-sentence from all those anti-evolution preachers like Kent Hovind, meant to ridicule evolution in front of the laymen. It has NOTHING to do with what evolution *ACTUALLY* claims.

 

Either start listening, or stop debating. Really. Read the rules, and give us the same respect we give you by not wasting either our time or yours.

[MustKnow]

I just read what i thought was an interesting article, it had to do with Quantum physics and the measurement of a particle. I dont know what they called it but it boiled down to a particle that was different at any given point until it was observed. What the person was purposing was how did anything come to exist if there was no one around to observer the particle.

 

 

I never ignored natural selection. that is easily seen by observation, but that doesn't prove a fruit fly turned into a dragon fly, nor does mutations. The view on mutation and natural selection is equivalent to saying if you get a 1 trillion piece puzzle mix it up place it in a box and shake it until it is a complete puzzle is bogus. And is essentially what you are going to have to do to prove it to the rest of the world once and for all.

 

 

its relevant because it implies someone was there to observer it. I know what the theories of natural selection and evolution are. You are taking current today data and implying it to something that happened almost a billion years ago. there is no prove anywhere that it was business as usual that long ago.

[Mokele]

Look, I'm going to lay it out for you:

 

It's obvious you know absolutely nothing about how evolution actually works, or about how it's studied or what the evidence is. Yet you've clearly simply *decided*, based on ignorance and false ideas, that it cannot be true, and refuse to actually learn about it.

 

If you want to actually *learn* something about the subject you're criticisizing, Go Here.

[mooeypoo]

its relevant because it implies someone was there to observer it. I know what the theories of natural selection and evolution are. You are taking current today data and implying it to something that happened almost a billion years ago. there is no prove anywhere that it was business as usual that long ago.

Quantum physics has nothing to do with evolution, MustKnow, and your questions SHOW you have no clue what evolution truly is. I suspect you learned what preachers claim evolution is, rather than what evolution ACTUALLY claims, seeing that your questions are all either logical fallacies or misrepresenting the theory.

[MustKnow]

what am i missing then?