I Don't Like Being Called Irrational. [Just because I do not accept the Theory of Evolution.]

[BrainGlutton]

@Atarii

Quite interesting.
To the study-mobile!

Here’s a very good place to start.

[Latro]

@BrainGlutton

Here’s a very good place to start.

Nice link.

I like this one:

Myth: Evolution is nothing but chance.
One of the arguments thrown at evolution is that “none of this could have just happened by chance” (see above re: religion). No evolutionary biologist argues that this is the case. Chance is flipping a million coins and having them all land on heads. Evolution by descent with modification and natural selection is flipping a million coins, keeping the heads, flipping the rest, keeping the heads, flipping the rest… If you think about it, the whole point of evolution is to accumulate “luck” in this way.

[Voyager]

The reason for the chance confusion is that they get mixed up between “evolution happens” and “homo sapiens happened.” The first is not a matter of chance, the second is. It is hard for a god believer to accept that it didn’t have to be us, thus theistic evolution.

[FinnAgain]

Well it’s also the case that there is an element of randomness to evolution: mutations are random, and whether or not their effects are beneficial or injurious often boils down to the phenotypes of the animals around them. But once selection pressures are established, there’s nothing random about 'em.

[Skammer]

OP: I promise, you can be a good and devout Christian and still believe in evolution. Give it a try!

[YogSothoth]

Atarii, you do not understand evolution. That’s why it seems like such a mystery to you when actual scientists extrapolate data from “two teeth”. In reality, you are the one who has the flaw, not Evolution

[XT]

@Skammer

OP: I promise, you can be a good and devout Christian and still believe in evolution. Give it a try!

Heck, I think even the Vatican is on board with this now. Just about everyone but those snake handling Southern Baptist types…

…er, oh. Well, never mind then…

[RickJay]

@FinnAgain

Well it’s also the case that there is an element of randomness to evolution: mutations are random, and whether or not their effects are beneficial or injurious often boils down to the phenotypes of the animals around them. But once selection pressures are established, there’s nothing random about 'em.

That’s why the coin flip example’s such a good one. You can make it appear as if all coins are heads if you just select for heads and reflip the tails.

Another example of randomness that is subject to selection would be starting poker hands. If you were to judge the manner in which cards are dealt solely by the hands that people turn over at the showdown, you would assume that there was some sort of design at play, because you’d see an amazing number of pairs and suited face cards. How could all those people have hands like a pair of jacks or Ace-king of hearts? It’s design! The deck is stacked! But the reason you see that is not because the deck was stacked. It’s because there is a selection process between the deal and the showdown where the crap hands get thrown away. A nine of clubs and a four of diamonds will usually “die,” be thrown away, just like the 140 or so total junk hands. The pair of jacks and A-K suited are selected for their strength and so are likely to “survive” to showdown.

[OurLordPeace]

@tomndebb

It might be an interesting question in another thread. It is not really relevant, here. Every group has its bigoted partisans–and they are often present on the SDMB. Their presence or absence, however, has no specific bearing on the OP’s misunderstandings or ignorance regarding the theory of Evolution.

Religion is not race, or any other characteristic that is not chosen. It’s a decision, a chosen set of beliefs. How is it not fair game?

[ElvisL1ves]

The Theory of Evolution, as the OP title says? Wrong right from the get-go. Evolution is not a theory, it is observable fact. The accepted scientific theory explaining that fact is mutation and natural selection. Do you also reject the existence of gravity? That’s just as much a fact, and there isn’t even a generally accepted theory explaining it. The ones that exist are much harder to grasp than natural selection, too.

Now: It’s actually possible to accept that evolution is real without rejecting Genesis. There are many Christians who believe that appearance of mutations is not random and that selection for them is not entirely natural, but that God has guided both processes with the goal of creating humanity and the rest of Creation, which is indeed 14 billion or so years old rather than 6000. Give that approach to faith a try if you like, it’s entirely consistent with the vast wealth of factual knowledge we have about the universe around us even if it isn’t the most parsimonious set of theories available.

[Kaviik]

@Atarii

I’m a Christian,

Just to keep things square; the largest sect of Christianity accepts the FACT of biological evolution; it is taught in Catholic Colleges and Universities; ID/Creationism is NOT taught as theory

@Atarii

I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws.

Evolution cannot be false, it is an observed phenomena, if it was not OBSERVED there could be no scientific theory modelling and explaining the observed phenomena.

On the hand there is no evidence, observation or theory for ID/Creationism

@Atarii

For instance, microevolution is true, but evolutionists like to say that macroevolution is true too, by extension, which is like saying that if I can walk across the street, then I can fly across the Atlantic, “by extension.”

Hahaha, too funny, you complain about being called irrational than present an irrational logical fallacy as an argument.
The fallacy is the Apples and Oranges fallacy.
You statement should read if you can take 5 steps to cover five feet, you can take 5000+ steps and cover 1 mile. Which is exactly what Macro is, many changes until a speciation event.

Macro evolution has been OBSERVED, to deny what has been observed is irrational IMO.

@Atarii

The point is not to say that God exists, or creation or intelligent design is true, the point is that you gotta be really arrogant to insult a certain group of people who have one school of thought, when your own theory is so terrible.

Oh look more irrational speak via use of a logical fallacy, in this case you assume facts not in evidence. Nobody is insulting the believer other than the believer himself.

To state that the belief is irrational, foolish etc is not insulting the believer, it is making a statement about the irrational claims of the belief system. If the believer wants to wear their belief as a badge and be insulted; that is their issue.

A belief cannot be insulted, but those who believe can feel insulted when their belief is exposed for the irrational babble it is.
I would say you are presenting evidence with the post that you do present irrational arguments. Heck you want to discuss biological Evolution and the Modern Synthesis but do not even have a grade school grasp of the topic.

In a nut shell; there are over 6 billion pieces of evidence that supports the Modern Synthesis in the species called homo sapiens sapiens.

There is no other theory in the fields of science that has the support that the Modern Synthesis has.

Always remember; EVOLUTION is the event that is observed it is not the theory and as said has been observed.
The Modern Synthesis is a collection of Scientific Theories that model and explain the observed phenomena.

So IMO you could clear up your confusion with a single 4 hour session of reading about what biological evolution actually is. You will have to go to science sites not religious sites for answers.

[Kaviik]

@DigitalC

It’s irrational to believe in god, believing in evolution just means he believes in less irrational stuff than this guy.

I think it is important that the word BELIEVE is not needed when something is observed.
We do not BELIEVE the sun exists, we have an observation that is approx 8 minutes old.

Meaning we know it existed at least 8 minutes ago.

Belief in God is acceptance on FAITH not confirmation via evidence.

Belief and faith are not part of the Scientific Method but of the Religious method.

[yoyodyne]

@FinnAgain

Not really, no. Heat pumps are still limited by thermodynamics and aren’t isolated, self contained systems. Try to air condition your house without your AC unit plugged in.

Try living without eating.

[FinnAgain]

Like I said, localized. A human being is a fairly complete system on its own, an unplugged air conditioner is not.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Kaviik

Evolution cannot be false, it is an observed phenomena, if it was not OBSERVED there could be no scientific theory modelling and explaining the observed phenomena.
…
Macro evolution has been OBSERVED, to deny what has been observed is irrational IMO.
…
Always remember; EVOLUTION is the event that is observed it is not the theory and as said has been observed.

I haven’t personally observed evolution. But I BELIEVE that the many, many scientists who have made the observations on which the theory of evolution is based are basically correct in what they claim to have observed and the interpretations they have drawn.

[Kaviik]

@Thudlow_Boink

I haven’t personally observed evolution. But I BELIEVE that the many, many scientists who have made the observations on which the theory of evolution is based are basically correct in what they claim to have observed and the interpretations they have drawn.

Hello Thdlow:
Actually you have observed evolution, but are just unaware of it.

You also observe natural selection with every meal you eat.

Here is the definition of Evolution that I use and under this definition each human child is an observation of evolution, as well as any other life form be it plant or animal.

“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene
pool from one generation to the next.”

• Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

[FinnAgain]

As a followup, I’ll cite Schrodinger:

[

ORGANIZATION MAINTAINED BY
EXTRACTING ‘ORDER’ FROM THE ENVIRONMENT

How would we express in terms of the statistical theory the marvellous faculty of a living
organism, by which it delays the decay into thermodynamical equilibrium (death)? We said
before: ‘It feeds upon negative entropy’, attracting, as it were, a stream of negative entropy upon itself, to compensate the entropy increase it produces by living and thus to maintain itself on a stationary and fairly low entropy level.If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, l/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order. Since the logarithm of l/D is just minus the logarithm of D, we can write Boltzmann’s equation thus:
-(entropy) = k log (l/D).

Hence the awkward expression ‘negative entropy’ can be he replaced by a better one: entropy, taken with the negative sign, is itself a measure of order. Thus the device by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of orderliness ( = fairly low level of entropy) really consists continually sucking orderliness from its environment. This conclusion is less paradoxical than it appears at first sight. Rather could it be blamed for triviality. Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they
return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however,for plants can still
make use of it. (These, of course, have their most power supply of ‘negative entropy’ the sunlight)

](http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf)

[XT]

You guys know that, like Elvis, the OP is no longer in the building…right?

[FinnAgain]

Sure he is. He was just confusing the fact that shifts in allelic frequencies definitely have been observed with the fact that there are multiple competing theories which explain evolutionary mechanics and… oh, that Elvis.

Naturally. They never stick around long enough for any real sport.

[FuzzyOgre]

@tdn

Just once I’d like to see someone stick around long enough to argue their point, clarify our points, and finally have the lightbulb go on.

I know it occasionally happens, but it’s so rare as to be really frustrating.

It happens, but in the dark. They come back later using a different user name, and pretend the past never happened.