Question for people that believe in evolution

[ftv1975]

Well, someone's surely said this already but people don't believe in evolution, they except the evidence or they don't. Belief is for things that have no evidence, namely in religions. However, as to why I accept the soundness of evolution is that scientists have provided concrete evidence. We have fossil records, dna tests, and numerous examples of species that have evolved just in the last few houndred years. For example, look up london subway misquitoe's. An entirely new species of mesquitoe have evolved in an artificial enviornment there, the london subway system. They can no longer breed with the parent masquito population on the serface and have different apearance and feeding habits. Then there's all the bacteria and other single cell lifeforms we've seen evolve before our very eyes, and the proto bio matter that scientists have synthesized from non organic matter. Bottom line, evolution is fact, there's no belief involved.

ya! i have been corrected about the belief already. i was given a few videos to watch and they brought up adapting. now does adapting exist? like when you poison a ant and it develops a tolerance does this mean the ant adapted to circumstances or that it created a mutation? would it be fasle for me to say that a mutation was created?

again these are just thoughts. just looking for feedback.

 

[Quiddity]

No, we're not. We're talking about religion. Whatever you're talking about, it clearly isn't Biology, and has nothing to do with Biology.

So your criticism is of science in general? For example, Victor Stenger is a particle physicist. Do does this cause you to question particle physics?

Not as a whole, no...but it would certainly be relevant if parts of it was being interpreted in such a manner. However, it's a diservice to science to pretend a naturalized epistemology isn't in the works.

 

[Autodidact]

So the thousands upon thousands of theist scientists who agree with evolution are skewing the data to support the existence of God?

If a catholic tells me that Jesus shat skittles does that make it a biblical truth? Can I assume this is an accurate portrayal of the catholic belief?:sarcastic

Francis Collins, geneticist, says that evolution is evidence for the Christian God. Should this cause me to question genetics?

 

[Luminous]

ya! i have been corrected about the belief already. i was given a few videos to watch and they brought up adapting. now does adapting exist? like when you poison a ant and it develops a tolerance does this mean the ant adapted to circumstances or that it created a mutation? would it be fasle for me to say that a mutation was created?

again these are just thoughts. just looking for feedback.

so ur asking if development of addictions/tolerance are mutations. i dont think they are. i believe that the replicating creature has to be born with the mutation. but i guess a mutation can be created...like cancer by carcinogens.

 

[Zephyr]

ya! i have been corrected about the belief already. i was given a few videos to watch and they brought up adapting. now does adapting exist? like when you poison a ant and it develops a tolerance does this mean the ant adapted to circumstances or that it created a mutation? would it be fasle for me to say that a mutation was created?

again these are just thoughts. just looking for feedback.

The ant may have had a mutation that gave it a resistance in the first place (which may have originally been a "useless" mutation). Say you poisoned a whole bunch of ants. Most will die, but let's say a few survive. Assuming they were poisoned evenly, these survivors have demonstrated that something in their genetic code has given them the ability to survive that dose of poison. As they reproduce, their offspring are likely to also resist poison in a similar manner. Repeat with a new poison, and watch most of them die, while the survivors keep reproducing.

Ok, now replace "ants" with "bacteria" and "poison" with "antibiotics" and you have not only a case of easily-observable evolution and natural selection, but also the root cause behind these antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" that have been causing all sorts of medical problems in recent times. MRSA, for instance.

 

[Autodidact]

ya! i have been corrected about the belief already. i was given a few videos to watch and they brought up adapting. now does adapting exist? like when you poison a ant and it develops a tolerance does this mean the ant adapted to circumstances or that it created a mutation? would it be fasle for me to say that a mutation was created?

again these are just thoughts. just looking for feedback.

Mutations happen during reproduction. Evolution is not something an individual creature does; it's change in the whole population as each succeeding generation is a little different.

An easy way to understand it is to think of breeding we do on purpose. Say we want a solid red chicken, or whatever. We don't do it with a single chicken. We take some chickens, take the hens and roosters with a few red feathers and breed them. They have chicks, some with no red, some with some red, some with more red. We take the chicks with the most red feathers and breed them. We're going to get a generation with again, a spectrum, but some probably more red. We keep doing this for say 100 generations, we can probably get an all red chicken. So it's change in the population of chickens over time, never during the lifetime of a single chicken.

ToE says that this happens naturally, so that populations of animals change over time in nature. Instead of a chicken-breeder doing the selecting, nature does it. Stuff that doesn't work tends to die out. What does work survives, breeds, and reproduces, like our redder chicks.

 

[Runewolf1973]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

The simple fact that all things change proves evolution is true. That is at it's most basic what evolution is...a form of change. If there were such thing as a God that created all this Universe exactly the way it is, then it would surely stay exactly the way God had made it or intended it to stay. It would be a force far to great for us to be able to affect it's change. However, we DO affect it in many ways. Therefore, the change in this universe is not governed by a god of any sort, it is directed by natural Energy and it's ability to change form.

 

[Quiddity]

:sarcastic i FIRMLY believe in FSM, THANK YOU!!! R'Amen.
but on a serious note, i dont have to disprove the spaghetti monster, since there is no evidence for its existance. however... i cant prove it doesnt exist. but i can say how the story of creation in FSM and other such believes go against scientific findings and therefore, fail as hypothesis; this all leads to the fact that there is no such thing as scienceism. and that science is the best method for learning about and understanding our environment.

i guess if i were to 'disconnect' myself from science there'd be no reason not to worship such a being. since without science there is no real need for logic therefore if something is possible i need no evidence for me to believe it to be true. therefore everything is true. even lies.

ummmm sorry about wat i just wrote in that self code it makes no sense to me either. my point is that science makes my environment make sense. it explains things in great detail and with the least assumptions possible.

You aren't paying attention. It's not about proving or disproving anything (which btw is an exercise of logic and not a function of science).

It's about the epistemological system behind the scientific method.

 

[Quiddity]

So the thousands upon thousands of theist scientists who agree with evolution are skewing the data to support the existence of God?

If a catholic tells me that Jesus shat skittles does that make it a biblical truth? Can I assume this is an accurate portrayal of the catholic belief?:sarcastic

Did I say all scientist were doing this?

 

[Autodidact]

You aren't paying attention. It's not about proving or disproving anything (which btw is an exercise of logic and not a function of science).

It's about the epistemological system behind the scientific method.

Then start a thread about the epistemological system behind the scientific method. This one is about the theory of evolution.

I don't think when someone is asking you to discuss the evidence for a specific scientific theory, it's helpful instead to discuss the epistemological underpinnings for science itself.

I will just observe that science seems to be doing a pretty good job, so far.

 

[Quiddity]

All you've offered is examples of two scientists making arguments about gods. That is not in dispute. No one is saying scientists don't take positions on the existence or non-existence of gods.

That doesn't mean the existence or non-existence of gods is "science". If it were "science", someone would be doing research on it and publishing the results in scientific, peer-review journals.

The fact that there is not a single scientific article in the scientific peer-reviewed literature that addresses the existence or non-existence of gods is ample evidence that the subject is not "science".

Jose,

Seriously, read what I am saying. They aren't simply making arguments; they are saying science can be used as a legitimate tool to disprove God.

You don't see the difference?

 

[Quiddity]

Then start a thread about the epistemological system behind the scientific method. This one is about the theory of evolution.

I don't think when someone is asking you to discuss the evidence for a specific scientific theory, it's helpful instead to discuss the epistemological underpinnings for science itself.

I will just observe that science seems to be doing a pretty good job, so far.

No doubt.

However, I gave my opinion about the theory of evolution in the beggining of my post. But I'll grant you that it can be another topic.

I will retract.

 

[Autodidact]

Jose,

Seriously, read what I am saying. They aren't simply making arguments; they are saying science can be used as a legitimate tool to disprove God.

You don't see the difference?

Yes, and that's an interesting thread. In fact, I don't know if it's ever been done here at RF. Maybe you should start it.

 

[Autodidact]

No doubt.

However, I gave my opinion about the theory of evolution in the beggining of my post. But I'll grant you that it can be another topic.

I will retract.

Thank you.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes, and that's an interesting thread. In fact, I don't know if it's ever been done here at RF. Maybe you should start it.

I'm glad you were atleast able to stay partial.

You seem to have been the only that understood. Well done!

Really, if you see the snappy responses from what looks like mostly non-theist; is it really that difficult to see how blinded and bias non-theist can get as well?

That spaghetti monster is quite a power being I tell you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose,

Seriously, read what I am saying. They aren't simply making arguments; they are saying science can be used as a legitimate tool to disprove God.

You don't see the difference?

Since when do two people decide what is or isn't "science"? If these two individuals feel the existence or non-existence of gods are "science", why aren't they researching it and publishing the results?

Again, if there is no research into it and there are no published articles on it, it's a good bet it isn't "science".

Get back to us when such things come to be. Until then, you're just arguing via bald assertion.

 

[Venatoris]

Did I say all scientist were doing this?

Yes, you did. Right here.

It's about the epistemological system behind the scientific method.

All scientists use the scientific method... in theory anyway.

 

[Quiddity]

We all know you have an axe to grind. And even have some reasons to grind it. But your axe has nothing to do with ToE.

Go peddle your wares elsewhere.

You're late...

 

[Morse]

Since when do two people decide what is or isn't "science"? If these two individuals feel the existence or non-existence of gods are "science", why aren't they researching it and publishing the results?

Again, if there is no research into it and there are no published articles on it, it's a good bet it isn't "science".

Get back to us when such things come to be. Until then, you're just arguing via bald assertion.

Carl Sagan actually wrote a book on science and pseudoscience.

 

[Quiddity]

Since when do two people decide what is or isn't "science"? If these two individuals feel the existence or non-existence of gods are "science", why aren't they researching it and publishing the results?

Again, if there is no research into it and there are no published articles on it, it's a good bet it isn't "science".

Get back to us when such things come to be. Until then, you're just arguing via bald assertion.

You're just repeating yourself.