Third of Americans Don't Believe in Human Evolution
I've been a little dismayed at times in how the arguments about Evolution/Creation have taken over some posts. Here is some information that has helped me see the issue a little clearer. Though I admit, that objectively, it still confuses me.
Evolution seems the most likely objectively, but there are several fatal flaws in evolution. Evolution shows animal A becomes animal B then animal C, however all the intermediate animals between A and B or B and C are missing from the fossil record, although logically they must have outnumbered both A and B. They explain some of this by saying evolution can happen in leaps, but for evolution to have actually occurred it would have had to happen in leaps every single time.
There is also the question of short life span animals such as mice, mayflies, house flies, bacteria, and other creatures. Science has studies these animals now for millions of their generations and seen no evidence of species evolution. Sure, they have adapted themselves to changes, but over tens of millions of their generations they show no real species change. Scientists have been able to prompt changes in labs of some bugs, but the end result has always been a bug that did not last.
Religion is in a similar situation that many of the events from the Christian bible are confirmed by other sources such as Egyptian and Roman history, but the only concrete proof for a truly objective person is missing. I think a lot of Objectivists get stuck on mysticism. I tend not to think of it that way, as there are many things that cannot be objectively proven. Examples of these would be like you knowing from across a crowded room that someone is staring at you. You turn around, and immediately look directly at them. That is a hard thing to explain using only the five senses you can objectively say exist.
I think a person has to find their own truth for their own existence, and their own path thru life and beyond. It is clear to me that to "believe" in either religion, species evolution, or a mix of the two is a leap of faith no matter how you cut it.
I agree that we each depend on our own judgement. We make our own choice. I agree also with your intention above that some "borderline" experiences are not easy to explain within the confines of high school science. I accept the minor premise that there's a lot we don't know.
That said, I disagree that any and every belief is a leap of faith. Not all claims are equally valid or equally verifiable or falsifiable. Truth exists.
I do grant that your larger claim has merit in that right and wrong, truth and falsehood, are not always subject to some simple "philosopher's stone" test. Experimental outliers do not in themselves falsify a theory. However, a large number of them would no longer be mere outliers. The evidence in favor of Darwinian Evolution or Big Bang might be weak, but the evidence against religion is overwhelming.
Objectivists call it "the error of equivalency" when you give the same status to two instances that are not commensurate, as when you say that science and religion are both beliefs and so both are leaps of faith.
I think that you can hypothesize a subconscious awareness of your surroundings that can alert you to someone staring at you and that it can be tested and demonstrated. I don't need a mystical explanation.
I agree totally with a person taking their own path and explorations through life. Beyond, I'll find out about then. Till that point, there's absolutely no method or way to determine.
Your strike me as more on the agnostic side, as am I. Maybe I'm more comfortable with that.
For my own two cents: it is clear to me that lifeforms have some measure of variability / adaptability in them. Dogs have it to a tremendous degree, other forms to lesser degree. That we've seen some of these variations come and go is clear from the fossil record, and some of this stuff is even pretty recent. I would have LOVED to have seen a Moa, and while that time has come and gone, this thing is not ancient history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa
That we have lifeforms with adaptability is not the issue. This gets called "evolution" in the same breath as "a chemical cocktail gets struck by lightning and forms amoebas and eventually ducks and giraffes and monkeys". It's this second definition that gets rejected, and people often point to the first definition as proof that the second must also be true. It's a pretty big leap to get from what we observe to what the theory really boils down to.
I don't think life on this earth (trees, insects, mammals to name three) came out of a common ancestor that was a chemical pool struck by lightning. I don't think there is a common ancestor. Life is just too varied for me to buy into that. I think the life on the planet was planted here, in various forms, initially. Call that crazy if you like, but this is an alternate explanation to evolution proposed by Richard Dawkins on Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed".
It's called "Panspermia."
A website devoted to it:
http://www.panspermia.org
There are no transitional life forms living among us.
The polls are only a measure of how effective the Federal government, and the media control our thinking.
(Sorry to see that you took a Thumbs Down. Contrary to your standards, many other people vote by what they agree with, not according to what generates good discussion. It is why I am opposed to voting.)
Name one bit of evidence that says otherwise.
>While there is justified debate in some areas that does not crumble the entire theory.
Cite one example of justified debate that you believe does not crumble the entire theory.
For that matter, KH, please cite what you understand to be the entire theory. (Hint: It can be done standing on one foot, in about 20 seconds.)
>The very testable premise is in front of you daily.
Cite the very testable premise of evolution that is in front of us daily.
>Just try to get a palm tree to thrive in Alaska.
I love this site! I love eavesdropping on Objectivists who don't research anything, but think that because they've read Atlas Shrugged and ITOE they know something!
http://www.florida-palm-trees.com/alaska...
"You’ll be surprised, but palm trees can be grown in state of Alaska . . ."
Enjoy!
Does anyone else see the irony?
I thought you wanted the conversation here and not there. I'm confused! we do meander all the time on this site-I've had my share of posts commandeered. It adds to the interest-unless it gets annoying :)
I'm interested in the logic/illogic that drives some 1/3 of arguably the most advanced nation on the planet. I understand the belief. I was raised in the church and one of the big reasons I left at 12 -13 was the continual pressure to believe as the elders and pastors taught, what the Bible said, without asking questions - much the same reason the protestant movement started, only further. I don't claim to have found all the answers outside of religious fundamental belief, but I've found enough to prove that the search and answers definitely belong on the outside,
What I wonder about is with all the knowledge and discoveries that have come during the last 50 years, otherwise rational appearing people - some obviously highly intelligent, insist on the irrationality of such a belief. It's the same irrational logic that drives the Deaf Community to deny a child a the chance to hear, apparently so that they can maintain some egoistic position of identity and wholeness in a constructed world rather than in the reality they find themselves in.
One area I see that this type of belief system loyalty (?) expresses itself strongly is the creation/evolution argument - even the development of 'creation sciences' and 'intelligent design'. There are many other expressions of this type of belief systems/scientific analysis controversy throughout our nation i.e., anthropomorphic climate change/natural climate change, Big Bang/Static Universe, liberty/collectivism, our team/their team types of thinking that at it's extremes out and out frightens me and in all ranges confuses me.
Choosing what to believe or accepting other's insisted beliefs rather than developing belief based on evidence, measurement, and repeatability strikes me as either lazy minded or demonstrative of susceptibility that could be highly limiting to the individual at least. At the same time, again I find intelligent people on the belief acceptance side just as I have on the socialism side. But it's apparently an insurmountable issue to overcome beliefs with facts and history.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but it's just indicative of what I was hoping this conversation might lead to. I enjoy the site and the meandering, don't get me wrong.
http://www.florida-palm-trees.com/alaska......
"You’ll be surprised, but palm trees can be grown in state of Alaska . . ."
Growing Palm Trees in Alaska
Since Alaska has a wide range of climates and ranges from USDA Zone 1 to 7b, there are some extremely hardy palms that can survive there. One of those palms is Needle Palm Tree, that can survive cold temperatures down to -10F when mature enough. It is possible to grow Needle Palm in Zone 5. Some other cold hardy palms that can be grown in Zone 7 are:
European Fan Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)
Pindo Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)
Sago Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)
Saw Palmetto Palm Tree – Zones 7a-11 (0 to 5 F)
Windmill Palm Tree – Zones 7b-11 (5 to 10 F)"
Nonetheless, they are adapted to an environmental range. How they then adapt to new environments outside that range is perhaps the key riddle in evolution. Despite massive extinctions, not all die out. Why? Despite population explosions, some disappear. Why? I don't know. But it is interesting.
(BTW, I gave you a point up, but you took 2 down. Apparently the cheerleaders are out. I thought that you made a good point. That you flatly embarrassed khalling was more important to some other people. Remember that her husband is here, also. You can be tag-teamed.)
Perhaps two of them carried it on a string...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHFXG3r_0...
But not zero probability, right?
LOL!!!!! Now you're suddenly interested in concepts from probability such as "likely" and "unlikely"? Love it. You were snoring loudly over those same concepts when I performed calculations in previous threads showing the astronomical odds against sufficient random mutations being beneficial and selected to turn a bear into a whale, or to do anything of interest in macroevolution. You truly are a Darwinist True Believer.
>a species of palm that could survive in AK is not the same as thrive
(Whew!!!) Nice save!
(Ahem. We all noticed how quickly you adopted the famous Bill Clinton Rhetorical Technique #9 known as "parsing otherwise well-understood words to make it appear as if there really is significant difference between 'is' and 'is', or between 'survive' and 'thrive.'" Congratulations. Did you earn a certificate for completing the course?)
But I was just meandering. Wasn't it you who posted above:
>I enjoy the site and the meandering,
Different to you, not to natural selection.
And the difference is one of degree, not of kind.
Welp..it's time to make a post!
Txs
As for an example of "justifiable debate that does not crumble the entire theory" I cited the evidences pro and con for Homo-Neatherthal interbreeding. I did that as part of a wider topic on Fertile Hybrids, which falsify the Darwinian definition of species.
That being as it is, I do accept the broader and obvious tenet that life evolves, that lifeforms evolve. Again, as I asked SolarTexan, do you claim that mammals lived in the Carboniferous. Where are the mammals of 5 million years ago? Where are the Neanderthals?... even if their DNA is 1% to 4% still within us?
You do a good job of pointing out other people's contradictions. You make very few positive claims of your own. It is a form of intellectual guerilla warfare. It is satisfying to you, perhaps, but delivers little positive value to the rest of us. (I grant that the Alaskan Date Palms were a plus.)
Thank you, amigo!
>You make very few positive claims of your own.
Thank you, again. I try not to step outside the bounds of politeness, diplomacy, decorum, and scientific rigor. The fact is, we don't have a clue how life began or how it speciated from a single "Ur" form, if, indeed, that's how it actually occurred. One famous (and controversial) panbiogeographer named Leon Croizat (you can Google him) believed that from a very early point in the Earth's history, all species existed at the same time and in all places. As the Earth began to change geologically and geographically, species began to die out, leaving the species "tracks" or patterns that we see today — sort of like a balding pattern. So maybe life started out ubiquitous and became local only by attrition. Who knows?
The idea that life started as a single "Ur-blob" at a single point on the Earth and then "mutated" and got "selected", morphing into the diverse forms we see today is probably a myth, as fictional as one of Rudyard Kipling's "Just So!" stories about animal genesis.
>It is a form of intellectual guerilla warfare.
Quite so.
>It is satisfying to you, perhaps, but delivers little positive value to the rest of us.
My sincere regrets. But if I knew how life actually started and how it diversified, I'd have a Nobel Prize, in which case, would I be talking to you? The fact is, no one knows. No one is even close.
>(I grant that the Alaskan Date Palms were a plus.)
Grazias, caballero! (It was sweet, was it not? Imagine her look of puzzlement evolving into one of shock, thence mutating into disbelief, whence it morphs into a series of closely related transitional forms: disillusionment, anger, hostility — yes, even despair — until finally it flowers into the highest form yet reached by this taxon: Holy Denial.
(moment of silence as an angel passes)
God, I wish I had been there to see it.
Anyway, thanks for the kudos!
It also doesn't look as if transitional forms ever lived among us.
Nature jumps. It doesn't creep incrementally over long periods of time.
Again, you issue a good challenge, but fail to provide substance of your own.
Fantastic! But a brown bear is a BEAR, and a polar bear is a BEAR. They're both BEARS, and all of the "transitional forms" between those two kinds of bears are yet themselves still BEARS. Everything is bears: bears at the start of the evolution; bears at the end of the evolution; bears in between the two end-points as transitions.
Prove to me right now that evidence of "bear transitions" between one bear and another bear are the same kind of thing as the lack of evidence of "transitions" between bears and whales. Or between tree shrews and humans.
You provided neither a good challenge nor anything of substance. What you did — as many on this thread have done — is confuse an instance of microevolution (the dominant appearance of a hitherto recessed trait amongst a given species, or the appearance of a new variety, race, or breed of species within a given genus) with the lack of evidence for macroevolution (the transmutation of one disparate taxon into another).
The fossil record is quite clear. Species, genera, families, orders, classes, they all come and go with alarming regularity. That is obvious. However, the mechanisms of evolution are not well understood.
Moreover, strict Darwinism fails at the observational level. On my blog is an short article about FERTILE HYBRIDS. DNA tests reveal that American arctic brown bears are more closely related to polar bears than they are to other brown bears around the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear) And so on. Fertile hybrids falsify the Darwinian definition of "species."
Similarly, human evolution is obvious from the fossil record. Yet, Human-Neanderthal relationships have been proved and disproved.
"The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Researchers compared the Neanderthal to modern human and chimpanzee sequences. Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome."
(From the Smithsonian here: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/gene...)
"A newly mapped Neanderthal genome provides strong evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred.
- Between 1-4 percent of the DNA of many humans living today likely came from Neanderthals.
- People of European and Asian heritage are most likely to carry the Neanderthal genes.
It's official: Most of us are part Neanderthal. The first draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome has provided the strongest evidence yet that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that all non-Africans today have Neanderthal gene fragments in their genetic codes."
Article from Science reported via Discovery here:
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolutio...
You can find reliable articles saying that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens separated 400,000 or only 195,000 years ago - but continued to interbeed up to 30,000 years ago. Such interbreeding defeats the Darwinian definition of species.
Also, we do clearly effect our own evolution. The recent evolution of the brain is another fascinating (and debatable) subject. Julian Jaynes suggested that the invention of writing broke down the "bicameral" mind and gave us a sense of "self."
In other topics, I cited studies in EPIGENETICS. Your grandparents' environment can have determined which of your genes is turned off or on, for instance for obesity. We obviously interact with our environments. The nature and depth of those interplays is not well understood.
Some scientist will do and say anything for government grant money.
Why is that so very different from the New York Museum of Natural History, with its famous "Horse Series" claiming to show all the transitional skeletons between ancient eohippus and modern equus. It turns out they were all distinct species that simply went extinct for whatever reason, and were not at all ancestors in any way. (The museum quietly removed the exhibit and tucked it away in the basement.)
There's as much propaganda for the Darwin story in that museum as there is for the literal Bible story in the Creation Museum. And with about as much scientific evidence, too.
Based on what evidence? Gaps in the fossil record? The gaps are real. The transitions are imaginary.
Darwinian evolution vs. a magical man in the sky — those are the only two choices? Actually, it's a false alternative.
And if you believe in Darwinian evolution of species and chemical evolution of the first self-replicating cell from inanimate chemicals then you believe in mathematical miracles (which are the one kind of miracle that can be both predicted and retroacted with great precision), which makes you a Mystic of Spirit.