Can an expert explain Evolution to me?

[Jadzia]

The mechanism are up for discussion at a very fine and high level - the idea that there is no consensus on evolution is creationist claptrap, it's something they have pushed for over 100 years with no success.

Scientists are annoyed by creationism because it tries to undermine reasoning with authority. It also tries to create an annoying casm in our quest for knowledge and understanding; where there isn't an adequate explanation for why and how, for cause and effect. For a searching mind this is a terrifying consideration to be left with "it was just created all at once like this, and arbitrarily."

But it is also possible that the universe was created just 5 minutes ago, with everything created as we see it, as I look around the room and desks and coworkers, my memories of the past, etc etc. Just like waking up in a morning can feel like a new beginning; a new life; a new universe. So creationism 5000+ years ago, yes that's also a possibility.

I do like to keep my mind as open as possible, as you probably all know by now. So I don't discount this, or traditional creationism as mere claptrap. But when something is stated as fact, when we don't know that it is fact, like religious ideas often are (and some scientific theories too), anything in an authoritarian way, I start to lose respect for people.

This is why I like mathematics most, from an academic perspective. Because mathematicians don't really care; they just look for models and forms which resemble and reproduce what they see.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^But if you keep your mind that open, down to the fact you don't know that the universe existed 5 minutes ago, then you have to keep your mind open to the fact that everything is just imaginary and you are an insane idiot jibbering in the corner of a room.

I'm not trying to insult you saying that. I just mean if you're willing to keep your mind that open, then absolutely anything could be true.

 

[Sean Aaron]

It's worth pointing out that one of the primary objections to Darwin's work amongst the Victorians was the the implication that the Natural World (tm) wasn't created for Humanity's enjoyment. This caused some people to view nature as a cold and cruel place, whereas Darwin took delight in the wonder that existed due to the struggle of life to survive; indeed his prose gets poetic on the subject and the passion in the Origin is one of the things that makes it so compelling. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it. The man was truly a giant in the quest for knowledge.

So the objection of the Creationists is down to their fundamental world-view needing alteration to accomodate evolutionary theory; they cannot adapt and so undertake an exercise in futility trying to poke holes in it. Someday their ideology may become extinct, I hope.

 

[Jadzia]

^But if you keep your mind that open, down to the fact you don't know that the universe existed 5 minutes ago, then you have to keep your mind open to the fact that everything is just imaginary and you are an insane idiot jibbering in the corner of a room.

I'm not trying to insult you saying that. I just mean if you're willing to keep your mind that open, then absolutely anything could be true.

I do find this an interesting topic of discussion, even though it doesn't belong in an evolution thread... sorry to OP for the digression.

But yes that is truely possible Bob, and this is why pleasure and comfortable experiences are of comparable important to our sense of truth and knowledge.

In the "real world" that others see, I may be an insane idiot jibbering in the corner of a room living some fantasy life, with a fantasy home and career, and fantasy everything else.

But to me it would be reality, and just as real to me as your reality is to you.

Would that invalidate my reality and my experiences? Do they become meaningless and pitiful because to others they look like fantasies?

Whatever the true nature of reality is, we can never know what supports the reality we experience, that is, what it is like "outside".

Compare with when Moriarty stepped off the holodeck, and Picard didn't know where he was, remarking at the end of the episode, "All of this, may all just be a computer program running on a little device sitting on somebodies desk"

You can never be sure that you have stepped off the holodeck. There are films such as eXistenZ which explore this idea of virtual reality entrapment further.

Any one of us could all be insane idiots jibbering in the corner of a room, or living out our lives in a holodeck, or The Matrix, or playing a game of eXistenZ. But would that make our lives worthless?

Indeed, is the reason why your mind isn't as open as mine, because you believe that your life experiences would be worthless and pitiful if they equated to an arbitrary fantasy.

I think the most important question, which is of interest to psychiatry too: What does this mean to those insane people who do live in a continuous fantasy world? Are their lives meaningless and pitiful because their experiences look like fantasies to us? Are their experiences inferior, because they seem unreal to us? Is it ethically right for us to try to pull them out of their established reality, and into ours? Is ours really superior, just because it is more fundamental?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^But if you keep your mind that open, down to the fact you don't know that the universe existed 5 minutes ago, then you have to keep your mind open to the fact that everything is just imaginary and you are an insane idiot jibbering in the corner of a room.

I'm not trying to insult you saying that. I just mean if you're willing to keep your mind that open, then absolutely anything could be true.

I do find this an interesting topic of discussion, even though it doesn't belong in an evolution thread... sorry to OP for the digression.

But yes that is truely possible Bob, and this is why pleasure and comfortable experiences are of comparable important to our sense of truth and knowledge.

In the "real world" that others see, I may be an insane idiot jibbering in the corner of a room living some fantasy life, with a fantasy home and career, and fantasy everything else.

But to me it would be reality, and just as real to me as your reality is to you.

Would that invalidate my reality and my experiences? Do they become meaningless and pitiful because to others they look like fantasies?

Whatever the true nature of reality is, we can never know what supports the reality we experience, that is, what it is like "outside".

Compare with when Moriarty stepped off the holodeck, and Picard didn't know where he was, remarking at the end of the episode, "All of this, may all just be a computer program running on a little device sitting on somebodies desk"

You can never be sure that you have stepped off the holodeck. There are films such as eXistenZ which explore this idea of virtual reality entrapment further.

Any one of us could all be insane idiots jibbering in the corner of a room, or living out our lives in a holodeck, or The Matrix, or playing a game of eXistenZ. But would that make our lives worthless?

Indeed, is the reason why your mind isn't as open as mine, because you believe that your life experiences would be worthless and pitiful if they equated to an arbitrary fantasy.

To be honest, no, I wouldn't say that's the reason my mind isn't as open as yours. I can except that as a possibility, I can even understand the point of view that says no reality matters but the reality in your head. But to question shared experience, whether that experience is in your own head, a shared delusion, or in fact reality, just seems unnecessarily taxing.

As I said, I can accept the possibility, just as I except the possibility that I could cross the street and end up on Mars due to quantum indeterminacy, that doesn't mean I think it's at all likely.
I can accept the possibility that things could be true, but that doesn't mean I would believe them without proof.

 

[Alaedhros]

If there is an expert in the study of evolution, can you please explain it to me? When I say expert I mean someone that has a bachelor, masters, PhD in biology and works in the field today as a scientist.

I am just looking for the evidence and data that convinces so many people in the scientific community that they are correct. It seems like evolution is the one thing they state as fact, when it has always been my experience that scientists always speak of everything as a theory.

Please enlighten me.

It just occurred to me that if you're looking for an expert to explain evolution and lay out the arguments for its existence, then this is probably exactly what you want.

 

[Jadzia]

As I said, I can accept the possibility, just as I except the possibility that I could cross the street and end up on Mars due to quantum indeterminacy, that doesn't mean I think it's at all likely.
I can accept the possibility that things could be true, but that doesn't mean I would believe them without proof.

What does it take to convince you to believe something? -- Empirical proof?

What is empirical proof? -- Substantial evidence?

If you accept it is at least possible that the fossil evidence you're looking at was created as is, by a supreme being, just as you were created by it 5000+ years ago, in a way that is fictitiously indicative of evolution, then how is it evidence? -- Because of what I consider likely?

How do you come by your notion of what is "likely"?

Sorry but I'm trying to make a skeptic of you Bob.

Additionally, something about likely. Just because something is 99% probable, doesn't mean it is 99% true. It could still be 100% false, and probability wouldn't compensate you one iota for your error.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

As I said, I can accept the possibility, just as I except the possibility that I could cross the street and end up on Mars due to quantum indeterminacy, that doesn't mean I think it's at all likely.
I can accept the possibility that things could be true, but that doesn't mean I would believe them without proof.

What does it take to convince you to believe something? -- Empirical proof?

What is empirical proof? -- Substantial evidence?

If you accept it is at least possible that the fossil evidence you're looking at was created as is, by a supreme being, just as you were created by it 5000+ years ago, in a way that is fictitiously indicative of evolution, then how is it evidence? -- Because of what I consider likely?

How do you come by your notion of what is "likely"?

Sorry but I'm trying to make a skeptic of you Bob.

Additionally, something about likely. Just because something is 99% probable, doesn't mean it is 99% true. It could still be 100% false, and probability wouldn't compensate you one iota for your error.

Damn it, I had a reply typed up, then my computer went tits up.

I guess I'd come by my notion of likely by past experience, and what that tells me can, and does happen. But I suppose if that is all just bullshit made up by some higher power and I wouldn't ever know, how can I possibily know what is an isn't likely.
But I would say entertaining these ideas are just taking an unlikely possibility and putting too much thought in to it.

It's possible that the universe was created at 2:30 yesterday afternoon, with all the history put in place for us to ponder over, but it's also possible that I am a pink aardvark sat at a keyboard with delusions of personhood, now that doesn't mean I think either is true, or remotely likely.

You can either think that reality is independent of what is in your head, or only part of what is in your head. The former means accepting what is agreed upon by people besides yourself, and taking proof and evidence as just that, because if it isn't real the only other measure of reality is what you and others agree upon.
If you believe the latter then the only thing that matters is what is in your own mind, in which case you should probably be section for the safety of yourself and others, because who knows what you'd do when you don't believe anything is real or matters?

 

[Tyberius]

Evidence does not equal fact. I think Sean said it best. There are a lot of reasons to believe that evolution occurs, but that does not make it true. If you are saying that different species have changed over time to adapt to their environment, that is one thing. To say that a water creature evolved to walk on land and no longer breath water is another. It is the latter that I hear and read about all the time and the one that I do not believe evidence supports, because there is still much debate about the facts.

I don't know if I understand the line in the sand you are drawing.

Is there a competing theory in play?

 

[Steven Of Nine]

To say that a water creature evolved to walk on land and no longer breath water is another. It is the latter that I hear and read about all the time and the one that I do not believe evidence supports, because there is still much debate about the facts.

No, not really. There is dispute of the facts, but not scientific discussion.

Theologically evolution is disputed, or more accurately discounted. But it's not argued against. Show me an argument that demonstrates evolution is not occurring, as opposed to those that say it is happening.

What 'fact', or datum, is used to argue against evolution that is also used to argue for it? That is a debate. Simply saying one doesn't buy the argument, or that this text says the Earth was in situ as is, and didn't 'evolve' is not actually argument or debate, but simple naysaying.

Not sure if this made an appearance in the thread, or not:

The Beak of the Finch

 

[Shawnster]

There is, however, an area where many would say that modern science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.” (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible? Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes.

The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.

As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.

Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.

Is It Proved?

How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.” So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin’s theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much more than it does evolution.

Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: “Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else.

The Origin of Life

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different”!

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.” The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.

Why Not Creation

Despite the problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this? Why does even an authority such as Francis Hitching, who honestly points up the weaknesses of evolution, reject the idea of creation? Michael Denton explains that evolution, with all its failings, will continue to be taught because theories related to creation “invoke frankly supernatural causes.” In other words, the fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. Surely, this is the same kind of circular reasoning that we met up with in the case of miracles: Miracles are impossible because they are miraculous!

Besides, the theory of evolution itself is deeply suspect from a scientific viewpoint. Michael Denton goes on to say: “Being basically a theory of historical reconstruction, [Darwin’s theory of evolution] is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science. . . . Moreover, the theory of evolution deals with a series of unique events, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation.” The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible’s account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completely reasonable account of how these “unrepeatable” “unique events” came about during creative ‘days’ that stretched through millenniums of time.

 

[BCI]

Keep out of mischief!

When science is so bad and wrong, why tries creationism of the copy and paste variety to cloak itself in scientific sounding speech?

Copy and paste without reference is intellectual theft. Is that supposed to convince somebody?

 

[Sean Aaron]

Darwin's theory was based upon a lot more than just his visit to the Galapagos. Right off the bat you FAIL!

 

[JoeZhang]

For example I have a very good friend who works in astronomy and he does not believe in evolution. To say their is a consensus is not true either.

That's like saying your plumber friend doesn't agree with your mechanic. Astronomy and Evolutionary Biology are 2 entirely different science. Because someone is a scientist it doesn't make them an expert in all branches of science.

Indeed, it's an appeal to authority - I have a PhD in Information science - but that really means you understand a really really narrow area of expertise, that's it ! It doesn't make you an authority on other areas of domain expertise.

 

[JoeZhang]

a lot of old bollocks

Wow - you can use cut and paste!!! great news, you can reload a photocopier.


Oh wait, you thought that people would take you seriously?


please sit at the back of the line.

 

[Galactus]

For example I have a very good friend who works in astronomy and he does not believe in evolution. To say their is a consensus is not true either.

That's like saying your plumber friend doesn't agree with your mechanic. Astronomy and Evolutionary Biology are 2 entirely different science. Because someone is a scientist it doesn't make them an expert in all branches of science.

Indeed, it's an appeal to authority - I have a PhD in Information science - but that really means you understand a really really narrow area of expertise, that's it ! It doesn't make you an authority on other areas of domain expertise.

But that was not my point. The point I was trying to make is that even scientist with a scientific mind can disagree about evolution. I mean what do you think is the difference between you and someone in the field of biology. If you had wished, do you think you could not have obtained a PhD in biology? Your intelligence is the same, where you direct it is the difference. There are too many examples of people being experts in many different fields.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.

Well, not that the whole thing isn't a load of bollucks, but this stuck out like a sore thumb.

Cain had 5 sons, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methujael, Methushael, and Lamech. So riddle me this, Batman, who was their mother? Wence came their wives?

Adam and Eve had another son, Seth, to replace Abel. Wence came Seth's wife?

There is a lot of information missing in the Bible, in which case you cannot base conclusions thinking strictly what is written is the only "fact". The more obvious interpretations are that either "god" created more than Adam and Eve but didn't bother to mention anyone else, or "god" was the god/creator of the Jews, and the gods/creators of other peoples just don't get mentioned in the Torrah.

Relating this to your statement, humans did not, quite obviously, decend from a single pair in the way it is described in Genesis. A much larger gene pool was available at the time, and there was already diversity in the race.

Or possibly "dust" is the Hebrew word for "Neanderthal".

 

[Shaw]

But that was not my point. The point I was trying to make is that even scientist with a scientific mind can disagree about evolution. I mean what do you think is the difference between you and someone in the field of biology. If you had wished, do you think you could not have obtained a PhD in biology? Your intelligence is the same, where you direct it is the difference. There are too many examples of people being experts in many different fields.

I've stayed out of this thread based on your original request...

"If there is an expert in the study of evolution, can you please explain it to me? When I say expert I mean someone that has a bachelor, masters, PhD in biology and works in the field today as a scientist."​

Now it looks as though you are saying that anyone in the sciences would have an equal opinion to someone who specialized in an area of biology.

Why were you originally asking for responses from such a narrow group, and why wasn't PlixTixiplik's answer good enough for you? You ask for help from someone like him, he provided some answers, but yet you seem to give more weight to your astronomy friend in this area.

Beyond this floating qualification of an expert, it sure seems like you had your mind made up from the start. No explanation would have been enough for you, so why ask?

 

[Shawnster]

Cain had 5 sons, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methujael, Methushael, and Lamech. So riddle me this, Batman, who was their mother? Wence came their wives?

Adam and Eve had another son, Seth, to replace Abel. Wence came Seth's wife?

There is a lot of information missing in the Bible, in which case you cannot base conclusions thinking strictly what is written is the only "fact".

Where did Cain get his wife if there was just one family?

Gen. 3:20: Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. (So all humans were to be the offspring of Adam and Eve.)

Gen. 5:3, 4: “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (One of Adam’s sons was Cain, and one of Adam’s daughters must have become Cain’s wife.)

Gen. 4:16, 17: “So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch." (Notice that Cain did not first meet his wife in the land to which he fled, as if she were from another family. Rather, it was there that he had sexual relations with her to produce a son.)

 

[StarryEyed]

But that was not my point. The point I was trying to make is that even scientist with a scientific mind can disagree about evolution. I mean what do you think is the difference between you and someone in the field of biology. If you had wished, do you think you could not have obtained a PhD in biology? Your intelligence is the same, where you direct it is the difference. There are too many examples of people being experts in many different fields.

I've stayed out of this thread based on your original request...

"If there is an expert in the study of evolution, can you please explain it to me? When I say expert I mean someone that has a bachelor, masters, PhD in biology and works in the field today as a scientist."​

Now it looks as though you are saying that anyone in the sciences would have an equal opinion to someone who specialized in an area of biology.

Why were you originally asking for responses from such a narrow group, and why wasn't PlixTixiplik's answer good enough for you? You ask for help from someone like him, he provided some answers, but yet you seem to give more weight to your astronomy friend in this area.

Beyond this floating qualification of an expert, it sure seems like you had your mind made up from the start. No explanation would have been enough for you, so why ask?

Like I said, he doesn't need an expert to explain evolution to him; he needs an expert to explain logic to him.