Belief in evolution?

[Cool Frog]

They had more kids, too. Nobody's gonna live 900 years and not have more than 3 kids.

I would like to see an experiment that replicates this story. Two people have children, and their children interbreed, etc. I highly doubt that they as a people would last very long.

 

[Phillip1847]

I would like to see an experiment that replicates this story. Two people have children, and their children interbreed, etc. I highly doubt that they as a people would last very long.

Not approved by your local ethics board.
On humans anyway.
We all came from some incest. You have 2^n ancestors(where n is generations), and eventually that number grows over earths population.

 

[Cool Frog]

Not approved by your local ethics board.
On humans anyway.
We all came from some incest. You have 2^n ancestors(where n is generations), and eventually that number grows over earths population.

Incest affects offspring differently depending on familial distance. It wasn't like two humans, one male and one female, evolved first and then we all came from them.

 

[Phillip1847]

Incest affects offspring differently depending on familial distance. It wasn't like two humans, one male and one female, evolved first and then we all came from them.

Clearly. That would have a lot of implications, haha. That was a tidbit that I wanted to add.

 

[Dene]

That is up for belief. Taking observations as truth is also up for belief. That's an assumption made only once you believe observations are accurate and true.

So what you're saying is the only thing not up for belief is the fact that "I" exist. Everything else is up for grabs. While true, it is completely unhelpful in any scenario other than extreme philosophy. In the real world, observables are not up for belief.

 

[Cool Frog]

So what you're saying is the only thing not up for belief is the fact that "I" exist. Everything else is up for grabs. While true, it is completely unhelpful in any scenario other than extreme philosophy. In the real world, observables are not up for belief.

Didn't you say in the morality thread that you don't like semantics arguments? That seems to be all this is. You seem to keep having issues with the terminology people use in causal conversation. Your argument against the word "belief" is also largely unhelpful in the real world because it's not how people use the word, clearly.

 

[Dene]

Didn't you say in the morality thread that you don't like semantics arguments? That seems to be all this is. You seem to keep having issues with the terminology people use in causal conversation. Your argument against the word "belief" is also largely unhelpful in the real world because it's not how people use the word, clearly.

This thread was put forward as belief in evolution vs. belief in creationism (even if not explicitly, that was obviously the point). This is clearly an improper use of the word "belief". I may as well try and get some people thinking properly about science if they're going to try and talk about it.

 

[Methuselah96]

This thread was put forward as belief in evolution vs. belief in creationism (even if not explicitly, that was obviously the point). This is clearly an improper use of the word "belief". I may as well try and get some people thinking properly about science if they're going to try and talk about it.

Just curious, what evidence contradicts old-earth creationism? I believe in a very old universe and earth that started with a Big Bang initiated by God. Then God created certain other things in different time periods of history. You could almost say, scientifically, that I believe the same thing you do without the macro-evolution. What evidence is there to support macro-evolution as opposed to creationism?

 

[Dene]

Just curious, what evidence contradicts old-earth creationism? What evidence is there to support macro-evolution as opposed to creationism?

None whatsoever. In fact, no evidence contradicts fundamentalist creationism. But these "theories", for want of a better word, are unscientific as they are infallible.

 

[JasonK]

Just curious, what evidence contradicts old-earth creationism? I believe in a very old universe and earth that started with a Big Bang initiated by God. Then God created certain other things in different time periods of history. You could almost say, scientifically, that I believe the same thing you do without the macro-evolution. What evidence is there to support macro-evolution as opposed to creationism?

If by Old-Earth Creationism you mean "the universe works exactly the way we observe it, but God is behind it all", then there is obviously no evidence to support or contradict it. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Young-Earth Creationism makes testable claims (6000-yr-old Earth, no evolution, etc.) which can be disproven. But what you're proposing can't possibly be tested, which puts it completely outside the reach of the scientific method.

 

[LNZ]

Thankfully in Australia, this is not yet a problem. But the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby) does want Creationism / Intelligent Design to compliment evolution in all non government schools. As Australia's PM is Tony Abbott (who also is a climate change skeptic and does not believe in a carbon tax), a devout Catholic, may be considering this. But he has said that only evolution will be taught in government schools.

I love these subjects a lot. I gleefully avoided planned vaccinations at school by my own devices from 1978 to 1982 (age 8 to 12).

Highlight was running across a six laned busy road and getting hit by a car to avoid a planned polio vaccine jab at school in August 1982.

If you change the parties and the subjects, you'll get the flouridation of water debate, the vaccination debate and the climate change / carbon tax debates.

Despite above mentioned childhood deed in August 1982, I love science and the scientific method. I only believe in evolution.

 

[Dene]

Thankfully in Australia, this is not yet a problem. But the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby) does want Creationism / Intelligent Design to compliment evolution in all non government schools. As Australia's PM is Tony Abbott (who also is a climate change skeptic and does not believe in a carbon tax), a devout Catholic, may be considering this. But he has said that only evolution will be taught in government schools.

I love these subjects a lot. I gleefully avoided planned vaccinations at school by my own devices from 1978 to 1982 (age 8 to 12).

Highlight was running across a six laned busy road and getting hit by a car to avoid a planned polio vaccine jab at school in August 1982.

If you change the parties and the subjects, you'll get the flouridation of water debate, the vaccination debate and the climate change / carbon tax debates.

Despite above mentioned childhood deed in August 1982, I love science and the scientific method. I only believe in evolution.

Deary me why the hell wouldn't you get vaccinated? Surely not because of the "vaccinations cause autism" thing?

And I assume you support flouridation of water supplies?

Also "complement".

 

[~Adam~]

Deary me why the hell wouldn't you get vaccinated?

Because vaccinations cause autism!!!
Even though when scientifically studied they are shown to have absolutely no link. However people like Jenny McCarthy have very loud voices.

 

[Methuselah96]

If by Old-Earth Creationism you mean "the universe works exactly the way we observe it, but God is behind it all", then there is obviously no evidence to support or contradict it. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Young-Earth Creationism makes testable claims (6000-yr-old Earth, no evolution, etc.) which can be disproven. But what you're proposing can't possibly be tested, which puts it completely outside the reach of the scientific method.

No, that would be theistic evolution. I believe for example that God created everything over a long period of time. Each of the "days" described in the Bible are long billion year periods of time when created different parts of creation. I do not believe in macro-evolution. So surely there could be something to disprove this theory?

 

[JasonK]

No, that would be theistic evolution. I believe for example that God created everything over a long period of time. Each of the "days" described in the Bible are long billion year periods of time when created different parts of creation. I do not believe in macro-evolution. So surely there could be something to disprove this theory?

When you say you don't believe in "macro-evolution", what exactly do you mean? "Macro-evolution" is not a separate process from "micro-evolution", they are identical processes observed on different timescales.

Genetic variation coupled with limited resources leads to some traits being more beneficial to survival than others. Individuals with beneficial traits pass on those traits to their offspring, while those with detrimental traits do not survive to reproduce. This process leads to small changes on short timescales, and accumulates to result in large changes when given a long time to act.

In order for micro- and macro-evolution to be separate processes, you would need two separate types of genetic material: one shared between all organisms and one which is specific to each organism. But this isn't what we observe - genetics works in much the same way across all life, and genetic material can be fairly trivially transferred from one organism to another.

 

[antoineccantin]

Thankfully in Australia, this is not yet a problem. But the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby) does want Creationism / Intelligent Design to compliment evolution in all non government schools. As Australia's PM is Tony Abbott (who also is a climate change skeptic and does not believe in a carbon tax), a devout Catholic, may be considering this. But he has said that only evolution will be taught in government schools.

I love these subjects a lot. I gleefully avoided planned vaccinations at school by my own devices from 1978 to 1982 (age 8 to 12).

Highlight was running across a six laned busy road and getting hit by a car to avoid a planned polio vaccine jab at school in August 1982.

If you change the parties and the subjects, you'll get the flouridation of water debate, the vaccination debate and the climate change / carbon tax debates.

Despite above mentioned childhood deed in August 1982, I love science and the scientific method. I only believe in evolution.

I just don't know what to say...

 

[applemobile]

Young-Earth Creationism makes testable claims (6000-yr-old Earth, no evolution, etc.) which can be disproven.

Can it? All out testing and Data may say it disproves it. But if a supreme being create the universe, don't you think they would cover their tracks to stop some pesky mortals unraveling it. Do you not think they would have defined the sciences to work in their favour, and show results to put curious minds off course. You can NEVER disprove creation. "God Did it" is the most flawless argument you will ever come across.

 

[JasonK]

Can it? All out testing and Data may say it disproves it. But if a supreme being create the universe, don't you think they would cover their tracks to stop some pesky mortals unraveling it. Do you not think they would have defined the sciences to work in their favour, and show results to put curious minds off course. You can NEVER disprove creation. "God Did it" is the most flawless argument you will ever come across.

You're right, you definitely can't disprove a God which uses his omnipotence to cover his tracks. But from what I've seen of Creationists, this generally isn't what they believe. Most of the apologists I've seen/read have maintained that the evidence really does support their claims.

 

[applemobile]

You're right, you definitely can't disprove a God which uses his omnipotence to cover his tracks. But from what I've seen of Creationists, this generally isn't what they believe. Most of the apologists I've seen/read have maintained that the evidence really does support their claims.

Well lets face it, anyone who bases their life beliefs on a book that has been translated and edited a thousand times, without as much as looking at the origional, really isn't the sort of person that uses evidence to back up their claims.

 

[DeeDubb]

Can it? All out testing and Data may say it disproves it. But if a supreme being create the universe, don't you think they would cover their tracks to stop some pesky mortals unraveling it. Do you not think they would have defined the sciences to work in their favour, and show results to put curious minds off course. You can NEVER disprove creation. "God Did it" is the most flawless argument you will ever come across.

Flawless circular logic.