Many people, particularly US Republicans think that there is a huge issue on the Theory of Evolution. This results from widespread misinformation particularly in America where the Republican party uses Jesus as their poster-boy to lure in votes from the religious. People refuse to believe in it for the following reasons:
- They don't really understand what evolution is.
- Their relatives and friends are against evolution, so they are against evolution as well.
- If the introduction of the bible is wrong than that means than everything else in the bible is wrong too so they refute evolution no-matter how much much sense it makes or how much proof there is in favor of the topic ( check this link).
People who don't understand evolution often have the following misconceptions on the topic:
- If people evolved from apes, then apes should have become extinct.
- The Theory of Evolution is a theory and theories are just that because there is not enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
- They think that there isn't enough proof in favor of evolution.
I will resolve the above misapprehensions here:
- Life began million of years ago (about 2.7 billion years) and is mostly made up of the following: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur. All these were abundant on planet earth during those times. Science knows more or less how life started and they have successfully created life in laboratories; and I'm not talking about eggs and sperm here, I'm referring to creating living organisms from completely inanimate materials. The first organisms were uni-cellular and very basic (a lot like the modern amoeba). These organisms evolved to adapt to the diverse forms of environment: first the sea, then earth and finally the sky. You will find living organisms who are adapted to living in waters which are above boiling point or living in the coldest regions of the earth and other places that were previously thought impossible to support life. So how do organisms evolve to suit their environment? This mostly happens thanks to mutations. Mutations are small changes that occur spontaneously to the genes. This happen in the very early stages of conception. Mutations can be helpful or they may be harmful. An example of a harmful mutation is albinism. Although albinism occurs a lot, you rarely find albinos in the wild. This is because albino organisms are not well adapted to living in most environments...albinos are often victims of predators since their white color makes them easily recognizable. However, albinism is quite popular in domestic animals since they are not susceptible to natural predators. On the other hand, mutations can be very helpful with allowing a species to continue its existence. A good example is the peppered moth.
Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light coloration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-colored trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, due to widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees which peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-colored moths, to die off due to predation. This is the best example of evolution. Of course evolution under normal circumstances usually takes millions of years.
- People did NOT evolve from apes. But both apes and people evolved from a common ancestor. Also, there is no reason why apes should be extinct since they are perfectly well adapted to living in their own environment just like humans are perfectly adapted to their own environment. If you get a group of people and throw them in a jungle they will find lots of problems with coping with the new environment and most probably will not survive for more than a few weeks. It is important to understand that evolution is not a linear process, i.e. it usually branches out in different directions so more than one species can originate from the same ancestor. Consider horses and zebras. They both have the same common ancestor but none of them died out; they're both thriving and well adjusted at living in their own environments. Or take dogs and wolves as another example; wolves are the ancestors of dogs. Poodles and Labradors both share a common ancestor which is the wolf. continuing with dogs as an example, this is one of the best ways for people to understand evolution since it is an artificial rendering of evolution. Dog breeders choose the traits that they want to make evident in later generations, example if they want a dog with short legs, the dogs with the shortest legs are always bred until eventually, in later generations, the right height is reached. However it would be highly uncommon for animals with short legs to thrive in natural environments. I just can't understand how people can argue with such strong evidence.
- Evolution is a Theory yes, just as gravity is a theory. The only reason they are theories is because they are still waiting for proof to show the contrary of what it is that they are stating. In other words, there is still nothing that proves the contrary of what they are saying. All proof shows that gravity and evolution are 'Good' theories, but there will never be enough proof to make it stop being a theory. Many people think that the term "Theory" in science has the exact same meaning as the same term used in every day speech. To better understand what science means by the term "Theory" you'll have to understand the Scientific Method, which explains the occurrence of a natural phenomenon. First someone (usually a scientist) comes up with a hypothesis which is equivalent to any other idea. As soon as the hypothesis is publicized other scientists will bombard it with experiments in an attempt to disprove it. Think of a computer program undergoing testing. If the results of the experiments do not disprove the hypothesis, then this becomes a theory. to read more about this click here.
Also I really hate it when religious people come out with a phrase like "There is a lot of proof against evolution...bla bla". Then they fail to mention what this proof is. Excuse me! If you think that way: You're wrong. There is no single piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution. If you don't want to believe it and you rather believe in fairy tales than you are just a self proclaimed STUPID.
12 comments:
Nice piece of work, but at the same time as you are trying to prove it, you failed to identify what the theory is all about, haven said that, i suggest you should look though the inventor and what are the critics saying before we embark in a delightful discussion, because we are going to get one soon
Huh? What do you mean "you failed to identify what the theory is all about". I've just wrote this long post all about evolution. It's all there is to it. It's so easy to understand what evolution is all about. And as to "what are the critics saying", I've also explained that in this post. I think that you didn't even read what I wrote.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2828
http://www.discovery.org/a/6401
read this too
http://www.exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_24-25.pdf
All scientists huh no evidence against evolution huh!
only a true scientist keep his mind open to all the possibilities. Only a true intellectual can keep his focus unbiased by prejudices.
Read more on both sides of arguments, instead of what serves you best
I still stand by what I said, there is no proof that contradicts the theory of evolution. I have read the links that you left me...there was nothing that I hadn't already read from creationists who are stupidly still trying to prove the contrary of evolution without intelligence design. Basically these are the points that they have come up with which 'prove' why evolution is still just a hypothesis:
1. Richard Dawkins is an extremist.
2. Religious people don't want to believe in Evolution.
3. Scientists have not found many fossils of the missing links of modern creatures (Example: no one ever found a fossil of a creature that shows the transition between primitive lizards and the modern turtle).
Here's how these points don't prove anyhting:
1. I don't see how Richard Dawkin's beliefs are going to change the facts of the Theory of Evolution...it's completely irrelevant.
2. Again I say...
3. It is important to understand that fossils only form in the proper conditions, therefore it is pretty rare for a creature living millions of years ago to become a fossil. It is even more rare that fossils are actually found. Personally I find it very funny when critics of evolution say that no transitional fossils have ever been found...this is so not true. Fossils have been found which show the transition between dinosaurs and birds, fish and amphibians etc, etc.
So is that all you got?
Suddenly evolution is just a hypothesis eh?? suddenly dawkins is also an extremist eh?
you know Im religious, and I believe in evolution.
you know your trying to sound scientific and saying pretty much nothing. I thought i was the one showed to you the inconsistencies in the gap betweens lizards and turtles?? so ur for example was from me.
"It is important to understand that fossils only form in the proper conditions, therefore it is pretty rare for a creature living millions of years ago to become a fossil"??? haha wot ru saying? so just cos we havent filled in all the pieces or we still havnt worked out all the details or jus cos we havnt found all the fossils, dsnt mean evolution is not the truth eh?
so we should have faith that evolution is right, even though becos of poor weather and soil chemistry fossils happen to be rare and inconclusive at times? we should still be able to formulate a absolutely non contradictory theory and assert its universality eh?
You still standing by ur dogam even though there is a growin scientific community that is starting to critically review the theory of evolution? those who are daring to break the taboo by talkin about the controversies in evolution are just pseudoscientists eh?
heheheh can yu hear urself?
ur pseudoscience jargon dsnt fool everybody. You have not stated anything constructive here and it is only prejudice and bias that compels u to deny the fact that evolution is Not a rock solid theory, that there are still controversies within it which necessitates encouraging intelligent discourse on it, instead of vilifying such scholarship. you know its typical of the scientific coummunity to reject anything that is against conventional thought, just as religious dogma can be.
and before you start to write with this manner of confidence you need to have the balls to accept the fact that you might be wrong, esp you realli dont hv a clue wot ur talkin about! even i know they say birds came from dinasours. but as one of the authors has stated there is a reason where academic freedom is being stifled, becos there is n way a scientists ego will allow a god to creep into sciece- he'd rather rest assured in saying something had billions of years to evolve and become the complex being it is today. to me that sounds more dogmatic and closed off.
so i stand by all i'v said as well
u shud listen to what ur prophet dawkins in an interview with Time said-
"DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
...I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html
then what the hell r these muslims talkin about eh
also, i find it interesting that my comments hav been blocked in that blog.
Hmmm, it seems that we have the same opinion but we're having problems communicating them...
1. No I do not think that TTOE is a hypothesis, I was just pointing out the points that I read from the links you sent me in the previous post.
2. I don't think that Richard Dawkins is an extremist. He just doesn't want people to believe in magics...again I say: I was just pointing out the points that I read from the links you sent me.
3. When I said that it is rare for fossils to form and even rarer for them to be found, I was trying to explain why many transitional fossils (example lizard to turtle) have not been found yet. And you are right, just cos they have not been found doesn't mean that there were no missing links between organisms. That's what I meant to say.
4. I will believe in evolution until someone else comes up with a better theory backed up by hard proof (so no, a magic man in the sky who waves his magic wand around and creates all existence does not qualify as a better theory. And no, a piece of archaic literature does not even start to qualify as proof.)
Fair enough
as i said, yu mean to say we need to have Faith that evolution is correct to the word. Yu have no doubt that proof will keep mounting on itself till the pyramid of evidence points towards evolution as the universal commonality that demonstrates why and how all life forms may have been derived from common ancestral roots- either that or it build on itself like a house of cards, in which case it won't hold for very long. There are voices of dissent within the scientific community, valid arguments which seek to encourage open discourse on evolution, as the rue spirit of scientific endeavor demands, instead of the matter being closed as conclusive beyond a shadow of doubt and cataloguing it as a taboo to improve on it.
I appreciate that you seek common ground.
The missing links so you see, can be held either way- if you say you believe(have faith) they will eventually fall into place, and if is say proof is mounting that the "abominable mystery' which Darwin refereed may continue to remain a mystery if intelligent discourse refuses to remain open to all possibilities. And this possibility should be inclusive of an entity that may have been the primal force behind setting in motion all else. There is much controversy over the big bang theory as well, with voices of genuine dissent inclining away from the theory citing it's deduction was through at least a partially theological lens (ie Big bang appears to corroborate the new testaments explanation of the trigger for the universe as we know it), and inkling towards the more recent 'String theory'. You may read it on the Humanitad foundation blog.
Empirically God cannot be disproved. And the succession of abrahamic holy books, certainly the more recent one, does not claim to be a scientific manual. It stand merely as a reiteration that he does exist (where empirically fails), and that we are to pursue this truth till we come about to that inevitable(as it claims) realization that his existence is undeniable! unlike the contradiction in the new & old testaments (and in between), there is a real case for God made in the Qur'an. The fact that laymen and orthodox clergy have been trying to equate pseudoscience in order to equate this statement the Quran makes, does not render the book false; just as you say dawkins cannot undo TTOE and just as I say harun yahya cannot undo ours.
So, your oversimplification that he is an old man in the sky waving a magic wand does not do justice to our argument and is clearly an irrational dismissal. I say we need to consider the possibility of His existence so long as we cannot disprove otherwise. The problem is that orthodox scientific thought is not willing to remain open to all the possibilities if this implies the possibility of His existence.
Scientific endeavor has brought us out of the darkness of religious dogma and the veneration of that which we do not understand as Supernatural. This has however not diminished the utter fascination and 'supernaturality' of even the most simplest of natural matter. In my field alone, the absolute and utter complexity of the most minute of mechanism (say for example the assembly of proteins from DNA through mRNA, tRNA to the finished product is absolutely mind boggling; what we study in high schools is a gross gross gross oversimplification of science and does not do justice to the utter complexity and precision of it all to the molecular level!! For example the understanding of an average school guy of the working of our alimentary tract is that of a hollow tube from the oral cavity to the the other end, with enzymes being secreted and nutrients being absorbed along the way!!! this is heresy on scientific terms because it is far more complicated by several oder of magnitudes ).
As science progresses, to me it seems to reinforce the case for God by the second! I fail to understand how western intellectuals are able to so easily expound their insignificance in the face of such absolute grandeur and lay all the honors on one single theory which has been claiming this universality since the old man went to galapagos, and which only seems to offer an excuse to disregard the case for God.
As you can see from Dawkins understanding as well, he is at the end of the day simply not able to Discount the possibility of the existence of "something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding".
Evolutionary biology in fact in now way stands as the vanguard against God- it certainly does so against religious dogma and superstition. Religion and God are not the same; the latter is a human attempt to understand the former, and the reason it so often clashes with science is because both are pursuing the same thing. The message of Qur'an makes a very strong case for scientific endeavor, instead of spoon feeding us everything it encourages intellect and rational discourse. This however does not work if we assume the supreme irrationality is the idea of God himself. Sun worshippers and other collisions into a greater divine truth, does not render false the underlying fundamental calling of theology- that there is every reason to believe in the existence of a force behind all that IS and WAS. Centuries of human collusion and a veritable bog of legalistic decrees may have made this message in theological books obscure. But against just as pseudoscience cannot discredit true scientific rationale, neither can religious dogma undo God.
We cannot overlook the possibility of his existence, esp when we are constantly forced to come to the understanding that we cannot empirically disprove Him. That we are not able to empirically prove Him does not null his existence, just as you say those "missing links" in TTOE will eventual fall into place. That is faith my friend, right there, and I sincerely urge you to not discount this possibility completely.
I would also request you to do away with those prejudices you have build up against religion/Islam after seeing people do fanditha/ blind thasbeeha over something we cannot quantify, and engage in a self discourse over the text of Qur'an and judge it on its own merit and divorced of a bias against either side, and most importantly without adulteration by clerical indoctrination. If you were to see scholarly works by reza azlan, norman ansari and others like them (NOT the refusineks) , you may be able to develop a clearer picture of the message in Quran.
I have recently written a piece against religious dogma, and you may be able to read it in facebook Notes application.
Scientific discourse IS the calling of Qu'ran, and the sharia and hadith which seem to have superseded it do Not. And giving due consideration to the possibility of His existence , does not discourage scientific discourse as is often implied- after all why should it?, and early islamic dynasties did in fact lay the very foundations to the scientific renaissance that launched europe from the dark ages and into the light, so to speak. Numerous unbiased acclaimed historians have written extensively on it, and which im sure you have come across by way of me. Notable among them being William Drapers 'Intellectual debt of Europe'.
There is an alliance of christian evangelism and political zionism against moslems, and therefore the Book they carry as well. we must not let these ancient prejudices get in the way of true scientific discourse that gives Islam's holy book a fair day in court.
True scientific discourse has not room for arrogance and dogma either, but unfortunately conventional scientific schools of thought have ALWAYS resisted new ideas, and ridiculed it's proponents even to the point of madness, literally. It is true, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and however much we may learn on the mysteries of the universe we may never be fully able to completely take it all on. It maybe that this scares us more than anything- that we are not in control. Man is thus by nature of Ego. A scientist was at one time ridiculed in the royal academy of sciences at london for suggesting that vegetable & fruits were good for health, and that infections in hospital delivery rooms can be washed by the obstetricians washing their hands with alcohol. You my research the names of these pioneers if you don't believe me (I seem to have forgotten).
I urge you to not completely denounce this Greater possibility.
cheerio
Wow, that was a long comment. I seriously enjoyed reading that. I agree with most of what you said.
However...
Some points I need to clarify. I don't have faith in the theory of evolution. Faith means that you should believe in something without questioning and I believe that the words Faith and Science do not go in the same sentence. I think that evolution is the best explanation for how the rich diversity of life on earth came about. If a better theory is discovered and proven, I would gladly take it into consideration.
I've read about the string theory and, together with the big bang theory, they make a lot of sense, and while I appreciate that it is only a theory, it is certainly better than how the bible and other holy books explain creation (by magic).
You are right. No one can disprove god. But just because you cannot disprove something, that doesn't automatically make it real. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns and fairies but to actually believe in them simply because you cannot disprove them is simply crazy.
Also, might I add that you are as much of a non-believer in the supernatural as I am. The god that I am referring to is the supernatural entity described in holy books; the one who created everything as it is written in archaic text. So if the bible says that God created everything in seven days, and you happen to be a christian, then that means that you have to believe in exactly that. You say that you see God in the elegant reality of the universe and the complexities of nature. Well in that case I would agree with you that god does exist. if you follow that logic, you will be able to see god everywhere. If you see god as a the energy that drives the fabric of existence, you will be able to "see god in a lump of coal" (yes i really like this quote).
Finally might i add that i don't have anything against the notion of god and I certainly don't want to interfere with what people want to believe. But I absolutely oppose any form of suffering caused by religious beliefs. IMO putting religion before the priorities of human rights is extremely dangerous and is unjustifiable.
I realli dont like repeating myself, and what i write i try to do so as an exact response.
"I don't have faith in the theory of evolution. Faith means that you should believe in something without questioning and I believe that the words Faith and Science do not go in the same sentence"
This sounds very shall we say politically correct; but my response this notion was derived from your own logic-
*response- Yu have no doubt that proof will keep mounting on itself till the pyramid of evidence points towards evolution as the universal commonality that demonstrates why and how all life forms may have been derived from common ancestral roots EVEN when it still hasn't ! And EVEN when their are details which have not been worked out, EVEN when there are ongoing controversies which continue to boggle todays scientist in Exactly the same way it did Darwin- the reason maybe that they are scientifically closed off!! so while TTOE is a work-in-progress, its proponents continue to assert that it is rock-solid, and you continue to invest the faith in saying all those missing links will eventually be filled!! That is blind investment, that is faith in the science which you hope will prove God wrong Eventually.
Again-
"But just because you cannot disprove something, that doesn't automatically make it real. You cannot disprove the existence of unicorns and fairies but to actually believe in them simply because you cannot disprove them is simply crazy." to paraphrase dawkin himself (against him), this has to be the biggest cop out ever!! This is the best the prophet of atheism could do, and which also made me realize immediately he is hiding behind unicorns and the like, to escape the dilemma of not being able to quantify a God in metric terms!
*like i said-
your oversimplification...does not do justice to our argument and is clearly an irrational dismissal. I say we need to consider the possibility of His existence so long as we cannot disprove otherwise. The problem is that orthodox scientific thought is not willing to remain open to all the possibilities if this implies the possibility of His existence.
*again-
The message of Qur'an makes a very strong case for scientific endeavor, instead of spoon feeding us everything it encourages intellect and rational discourse. This however does not work if we assume the supreme irrationality is the idea of God himself. To discount something because we can only 'derive' non-empirical proof to that something, is does not sound very scientific to me.
Not to sound pompous or anything, but read through what i had written again, because i think every sentence offers to convey something.
Finally, i have no problem with you having an 'issue' with whatever belief I or anybody else may hold. I only wished that you stand true to what i believe to be the true spirit of scientific endeavor.
Regarding your belief that religion stands as an excuse/ideology for mass slaughter and violence, and then to imply that it outdoes the excesses of those without a belief in a God or an allegiance to a religion- I completely disagree.
The present age bears witness to this, and while NO religion, in it's fundamental form, permits or even condones the merciless slaughter of innocents/noncombatants/civilians- any attempts to blame or even justify such acts on the underlying theology is a misguided fallacy or simply premeditated distortion in it's most despicable form; it is PEOPLE who are at fault , whether they seek to distort such sacred documents as Constitutions or International treaties, or divine texts, it is PEOPLE who having as much propensity for evil as much as good- choose to do more evil than good.
What is currently happening in the world does not have anything to do with a radical islam per se, and while what are you are able to 'see' is them blowing themselves up, u need to try and understand the geopolitical agendas at stake before u can fathom the bigger picture. One needs to stop imagining that western powers are benevolent and incapable of the same 'evil' that those radicals are capable of.
There is a revised version of one such response i gave on this matter on the Notes application now as well. There are many non-partisan non-biased authorities, western scholars and intellectuals who continue to provide insight into the power play raging throughout west asia. I am just too tired to reiterate it all here, and you must surely know how best to come closer to this understanding .
as you are aware i have not hesitated when it comes to lambasting my own 'side' wherever i have seen fault. Truth stands clear and where I am not able to deny it, i sincerely embrace it. Western hypocrisy shines as evident as the sun, and this is an essential component to understanding the reasons for a rise in militant political-islam.
anyway good talk
cheerio
always have had a sixth sense. always know who is who
Post a Comment