Evolution - is it real?
Discussion
blueg33 said:
Caddyshack said:
It is quite odd that we can believe in Santa then one day we are told he is not real and we accept it, same with the Easter bunny but because people do not want to accept that dead is dead they will still believe in Jesus / their religion.
Yet, everyone else’s religion / other religions are so obviously nonsense to us when we think about them.
When people say things like "he (the deceased) will be up there looking down and think this is very funny" it just makes me think they are delusional.
Sorry if this offends people with strong beliefs.
The people who believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny are 5 years old. Yet, everyone else’s religion / other religions are so obviously nonsense to us when we think about them.
When people say things like "he (the deceased) will be up there looking down and think this is very funny" it just makes me think they are delusional.
Sorry if this offends people with strong beliefs.
Religion is slightly different. It seems likely that those who are revered by a religion were probably just charismatic leaders - something we are not used to today
Combine charismatic leader with 2000 years of Chinese whispers and you get religion.....
Caddyshack said:
blueg33 said:
Caddyshack said:
It is quite odd that we can believe in Santa then one day we are told he is not real and we accept it, same with the Easter bunny but because people do not want to accept that dead is dead they will still believe in Jesus / their religion.
Yet, everyone else’s religion / other religions are so obviously nonsense to us when we think about them.
When people say things like "he (the deceased) will be up there looking down and think this is very funny" it just makes me think they are delusional.
Sorry if this offends people with strong beliefs.
The people who believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny are 5 years old. Yet, everyone else’s religion / other religions are so obviously nonsense to us when we think about them.
When people say things like "he (the deceased) will be up there looking down and think this is very funny" it just makes me think they are delusional.
Sorry if this offends people with strong beliefs.
Religion is slightly different. It seems likely that those who are revered by a religion were probably just charismatic leaders - something we are not used to today
Combine charismatic leader with 2000 years of Chinese whispers and you get religion.....
Further, plenty of people believe that Richard the Lionhart was a good guy.
It's not evolution which is the theory. The full title is "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection". So Evolution is a given it's the natural selection bit which was Darwin's theory, and that's been pretty conclusively proved.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
blueg33 said:
Caddyshack said:
blueg33 said:
Caddyshack said:
It is quite odd that we can believe in Santa then one day we are told he is not real and we accept it, same with the Easter bunny but because people do not want to accept that dead is dead they will still believe in Jesus / their religion.
Yet, everyone else’s religion / other religions are so obviously nonsense to us when we think about them.
When people say things like "he (the deceased) will be up there looking down and think this is very funny" it just makes me think they are delusional.
Sorry if this offends people with strong beliefs.
The people who believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny are 5 years old. Yet, everyone else’s religion / other religions are so obviously nonsense to us when we think about them.
When people say things like "he (the deceased) will be up there looking down and think this is very funny" it just makes me think they are delusional.
Sorry if this offends people with strong beliefs.
Religion is slightly different. It seems likely that those who are revered by a religion were probably just charismatic leaders - something we are not used to today
Combine charismatic leader with 2000 years of Chinese whispers and you get religion.....
Further, plenty of people believe that Richard the Lionhart was a good guy.
I read about the location of "the burning bush", where natural gas escapes on a mountain side covered in flints. It makes sense that the story could evolve through word of mouth and without scientific knowledge it could seem like a biblical event.
I think the main reason people argue against commonly accepted truths is less to do with a weakness in a theory per se, but more because they find the implications wholly unpalatable.
For example, if you accept evolution occurs then you have to accept all living things look like they do by chance rather than design, and that man is not fundamentally different from animals. Equally, if you accept the Earth is a sphere, you have to accept that there is no fixed ‘up’ or ‘down’ and that an invisible force is what causes things to not fly off.
These are really quite profoundly unintuitive results, and so we shouldn’t be too surprised that some people find it hard to accept them, and therefore any theory that results in them. They aren’t really idiots, just people who are very inflexible thinkers.
For example, if you accept evolution occurs then you have to accept all living things look like they do by chance rather than design, and that man is not fundamentally different from animals. Equally, if you accept the Earth is a sphere, you have to accept that there is no fixed ‘up’ or ‘down’ and that an invisible force is what causes things to not fly off.
These are really quite profoundly unintuitive results, and so we shouldn’t be too surprised that some people find it hard to accept them, and therefore any theory that results in them. They aren’t really idiots, just people who are very inflexible thinkers.
simonrockman said:
It's not evolution which is the theory. The full title is "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection". So Evolution is a given it's the natural selection bit which was Darwin's theory, and that's been pretty conclusively proved.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
A huge amount of recent medical progress is about prolonging post-reproductive life and largely irrelevant. Reducing childhood and early adult mortality and infertility are removing selection pressures, but other factors remain including sexual selection. It’s also the case that you’re considering what may turn out to be a small proportion of humanity in a transient period of ease.but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
otolith said:
simonrockman said:
It's not evolution which is the theory. The full title is "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection". So Evolution is a given it's the natural selection bit which was Darwin's theory, and that's been pretty conclusively proved.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
A huge amount of recent medical progress is about prolonging post-reproductive life and largely irrelevant. Reducing childhood and early adult mortality and infertility are removing selection pressures, but other factors remain including sexual selection. It’s also the case that you’re considering what may turn out to be a small proportion of humanity in a transient period of ease.but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
If a gene makes it's carriers less likely to survive childhood but hasn't quite died out because it provides an advantage in adult life, it's likely to become far more prevalent.
Apart from medical intervention, there has even been a suggestion that autism is increasing partly because stereotypically 'geeky' traits are less of a social liability than in previous generations.
My daughter is reading zoology at Uni. I just mentioned this thread and its title - cue much eye rolling.
Her comments
Of course its real, we can see the development through skeletons and genetics
Its happening all the time, but change are infinitesimally small over a short time frame
Yes humans are evolving too, potentially at a slower rate due to medical interventions and environmental modification
And finally
What idiot came up with the question?
Her comments
Of course its real, we can see the development through skeletons and genetics
Its happening all the time, but change are infinitesimally small over a short time frame
Yes humans are evolving too, potentially at a slower rate due to medical interventions and environmental modification
And finally
What idiot came up with the question?
67Dino said:
For example, if you accept evolution occurs then you have to accept all living things look like they do by chance rather than design,
It's not really chance. Chance or accident isn't the best way of describing evolution. It isn't chance that the water in the puddle is exactly the same shape as the dip it sits in. The water has moulded itself to fit the available space. Evolution is a process that has driven different plants and animals to fit their particular niche. So it isn't chance that a specific species of bee fits perfectly into a particular type of flower that's unique to where that bee lives. M5-911 said:
The only interesting thing about Behe is his massive cognitive dissonance. crofty1984 said:
To be fair, "theory" has been corrupted a little by common usage to mean "guess".
OP - As others have said, theory in a scientific context boils down to this:
If something is a theory in the scientific sense, what it's saying is - "This is the best way we can come up with to explain this thing that happens. We're not saying it's 100% absolutely true and will never be superseded by something more accurate when science advances, more detailed observations can be made, when new evidence comes to light, etc. But for now we've tried and tried and tried to prove this wrong and trip it up and find a better or more accurate way to explain the thing that happens, and at EVERY turn, this explanation has been proved to be the best one."
Once there is a theory don't the scientists then try to prove it wrong on the basis that just one "wrong" confirms the theory as wrong vs always finding things that align with the theory? This principle doesn't seem to apply to OP - As others have said, theory in a scientific context boils down to this:
- Something happens or is observed.
- Scientists guess why this might happen or how it works - a hypothesis. This is the equivalent of guess, NOT theory.
- It is up to the scientist to prove their hypothesis is correct, or at least that there are no better explanations.
- It is tested by experiment, if the experiment shows something other than what the hypothesis predicted, the hypothesis is wrong (assuming the experiment was reasonable and fair). No ifs, no buts, it's wrong. It may need the tiniest tweak, or it might be bats
t mental, but wrong it is and wrong it shall remain. - Every other scientist in the world has the opportunity to poke holes in the hypothesis, prove that it's wrong, prove that they have a better explanation, set up experiments to make it fail or require tweaks or to prove there's a hole in it somehow.
If something is a theory in the scientific sense, what it's saying is - "This is the best way we can come up with to explain this thing that happens. We're not saying it's 100% absolutely true and will never be superseded by something more accurate when science advances, more detailed observations can be made, when new evidence comes to light, etc. But for now we've tried and tried and tried to prove this wrong and trip it up and find a better or more accurate way to explain the thing that happens, and at EVERY turn, this explanation has been proved to be the best one."
TX.
Castrol for a knave said:
M5-911 said:
The only interesting thing about Behe is his massive cognitive dissonance. Facinating to know how you have form such a strong opinion without even listening.
Science is never "over" or "finalised". Research continues into nearly everything. This research generally confirms already held "proven" theories. Sometimes it tweaks and refines the theory and very rarely, it completely overthrows it.
The last situation is very rare and only happens a couple of times in a century.
The last situation is very rare and only happens a couple of times in a century.
simonrockman said:
It's not evolution which is the theory. The full title is "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection". So Evolution is a given it's the natural selection bit which was Darwin's theory, and that's been pretty conclusively proved.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
People seem to be getting taller each generation? Is that evolution?but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
TX.
Terminator X said:
People seem to be getting taller each generation? Is that evolution?
TX.
Partly. Better nutrition combined with sexual selection. Most people think being tall is an attractive feature. Although of course some men prefer petite women, but not many women prefer short men. They may well have children with a short man, because other aspects of his looks or personality make up for it. Tom Cruise probably does ok for partners. But all things being equal, I would guess that more short men die childless than tall men. So the tall gene is passed on more frequently. TX.
(This is just me postulating, I don't have any figures to back it up, before anyone asks)
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff