These matters have been traditionally accepted, with great emphasis, for hundreds of generations. Wiser people than myself, living much closer to the actual times, accepted it.
Yeah I can elaborate. There was some uproar here in MD about teaching evolution in the schools. I don’t know why I never got it in school, or much anyway. Well a number of people were writing letters to the editor about how they didn’t believe in evolution period. I ignored them at first until some guy wrote in his letter… “I don’t believe in evolution, if there is such a thing as evolution how come we don’t see the groundhog evolving on the side of the road.” He had also said something on the lines of “and Carbon dating doesn’t prove anything because they once carbon dated a snail to be 14,000 years old.” That’s what put me over the top.
I wrote one back saying how you don’t see evolution on the side of the road because groundhogs don’t just magically evolve, it requires generations etc. I also told him you can’t carbon date a living organisam because that doesn’t work that way either. It was a few years ago that I did this so I don’t remember exactly what either of us wrote. I do know though that I never got a responce out of anyone and that seemed to end all of the debate. I really wanted to see what someone would write back too. Basically the guy thought that the groundhog would one day sprout wings and fly off, he had no clue as to what evolution was about.
I think that most people get all upset because they think that evolution deals with nothing but humans. Hell Darwin’s book had nothing to do with humans.
Kewl!!
The Earth is flat, not to mention being the center of the universe!! Excellent!
Oh, not to mention that slavery is morally correct and women are second-class citizens (well, property, actually). And Jews are evil.
Shall I continue?
People living much closer to the “actual times” believed in creationism, so you do, too? Well, the point is, there never were any “actual times” for the Biblical story of Genesis to take place because it DIDN’T take place. Now, don’t get me wrong; I believe there is a God, and that he did have an active role in creating the universe. However, I refuse to believe that God just snapped his fingers like Q from Star Trek and just magicked everything into existence. Why? Well, no less an authority than Jean-Luc Picard said that Q is not God. 
But seriously, I believe in evolution because every single reputable scientist who has spent his or her lifetime studying the evidence (and, I think, these also count as people “much wiser than me”) believes in evolution. The only scientists who don’t are Christian fundamentalists who believe what their preachers have told them instead of what science tells them. Now, I’ve heard the religious right’s argument that if the story of Genesis is not true, it eliminates the concept of original sin, and therefore Jesus’s salvation is not needed. Well, I don’t agree. I don’t believe in “original sin” because I don’t believe that God would hold people accountable for sins they did not themselves commit. However, the point of Christianity is that no matter how good you are, you will commit sins of your own at some point. Jesus’s salvation is still needed because of our REAL sins, not because of some phantom “original” sins. If you look at it that way, there’s no reason to believe that evolution and Jesus are in any way opposed.
Since you care so much to have posted… :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, one week, five days, 23 hours, 3 minutes and 50 seconds.
6638 cigarettes not smoked, saving $829.80.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 days, 1 hour, 10 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
I think I know what you’re talking about, and you’re close. In volcanic regions of Hawaii, lava flows sometimes miss spots for one reason or another. This results in little isolated ecosystems, called “kipukas” (I think???). Anyway, they looked and some of these kipukas that had been around for mumble thousands of years, specifically at the Drosophila species (fruit flies) that lived there. They found that just about each kipuka had its own little unique species of fly that had adapted to live off whatever vegetation had survived in that area. Looking at various genes and phenotypes, you can literally trace how the flies have diverged from each other over the years.
This is all off the top of my head from a lecture I heard a year or two ago, so I may have some details wrong, but I think I’m basically accurate here.
This is a response to Bad Mojo’s comment that a little horse evolving into a big horse isn’t really evolution because, well, it’s still a horse!
The important concept to realize here is that “horse” is not a scientifically defined entity. It is a generic term used by us humans to group things which are similar in our own minds. To show how specious this argument is, here is a sample dialogue:
Evolutionist: I can show that these two insects share a common ancestor.
Creationist: Big deal! They’re both just different types of beetle. That’s not real evolution.
E: Okay, I can show that men and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
C: Big deal! They’re both still primates. That’s not real evolution.
E: Okay, I can show that dolphins and cats share a common ancestor.
C: Yeah, but they’re both still mammals. That’s not evolution.
E: Well, I can show that dogs and reptiles have a common ancestor.
C: But they’re both still vertebrates! Hardly what I’d call evolution.
Ad nauseum. You see the fallacy here. Saying that evolution has not occurred because “they’re still horses” is just as absurd as saying that “they’re still primates” or even “they’re still animals.” The fact is, speciation has occurred–horse 1 can no longer interbreed with horse 2, just like mammal 1 can no longer interbreed with mammal 2. It is evolution, even if the two resultant species still are close enough to fit into the same broadly defined human category.
I merely gave a one-liner answer to the OP. Yeah, that took a lot of time out of my day. I didn’t start the topic, know.
:rolleyes: backatya!
But yosemitebabe, isn’t that one of the basic fundamental tenets of a medium such as this message board? To find out what other people think? Sure, you can find a few facts in GQ and ATMB, but the vast majority of this board is all about discovering other people’s thoughts and ideas.
To me, this is similar to being at Fenway Park, and questioning why everyone cares about the Red Sox.
Yeah yeah yeah. I usually steadfastly stay away from the specifics of the evolution/creation debate, because (sigh) everyone frigging cares so much about other people’s beliefs, and it tires me. I have been “pestered” (for lack of a better word) by people who are not satisfied with “finding out” (as you put it) what other people think. They want to hammer away endlessly at them until they change their mind.
I only added my little smart-alecky remark because of the way the title of the OP was phrased. It struck me as this: (emphasis mine)
“What would it take to make you believe in evolution?” And I responded with the first thing that came to mind. (If the question had been “What would it take to make you watch a football game?” my answer would have been, “Roll my coffin up to the TV set.”)
Sorry, these oddball answers often just come to me when I read SDMB subject lines. Sometimes I don’t resist the urge to actually post them! 
While this is not the place to give a detailed explanation of genetic change, I’ll quickly say a few sentences. Cause I’m a molecular geneticist in training, and it was asked.
The information stored in DNA changes by mutation. If this happens in the germ cells (sperm or egg lineages), this genetic change is passed on to the offspring. Hence, we have hereditary disease passed down from parent to child. Most mutation is either neutral (it hits a non-important part of DNA or it changes something in a way which does not change the survival rate of the organism) or bad (decreases fitness by getting rid of something that is beneficial). Occasionally, there is a change for the good. It is very rare, but evidence of this surrounds us. Sickle-cell anemia carriers are more resistant to malaria. Peoples from sunny parts of the world have more melanin in their skin. This drives adaptation and evolution.
Larger scale genomic change is thought to follow this. If one copy of a gene is beneficial, two copies sometimes are better. These copies can change over many generations to serve two different purposes, and become completely independent of each other. Other changes occur with low probability – large chunks of chromosomes reorganize, viruses insert into the genome to hop onto the evolutionary bus. This is thought to drive speciation.
Based on morphology, we can make conclusions about how things are related. Generally, most zoologists, paleontologists, and taxonomists since Linnaeus have done it this way. In the era of large-scale genome sequencing, we can compare how segments of the DNA have changed between different relatives. Mice and humans have huge areas of synteny or conserved chunks of chromosomes containing the same genes in the same orders.
Some proteins are very important for life. The histones, which bind DNA and keep it organized, have changed very little from E. coli to humans. The fruitfly gene eyeless is a master switch of eye development. The human copy of this gene can turn on eye development in Drosophila that have been mutated in this gene. In other cases, padding DNA and other nonimportant regions change relatively quickly. Since mutation rate is held to be relatively constant over an evolutionary time frame (hotly debated by the Bible bunch), it can also imply a time line.
In summary, imagine DNA as a game of “telephone.”
person A : Jack caught a 5 pound fish 2 weeks ago at the Lake.
person B : Jack caught a 10 pound fish 4 weeks ago at the Shore.
person C : Jack caught a 5 pound fish 2 weeks ago at the Shore.
person D : Jack caught a 10 pound fish 2 weeks ago at the Shore.
person E : Jack caught a 10 pound fish 5 weeks ago at the Shore.
If we know person E is last, we can imply an order of
A->C->D->B->E
Now, add branches. Add details gained and lost. Add millions of different outcomes. Instead of knowing all the middle ground, you only know the end points. Instead of one sentence, make it the length of 90 encyclopedias. With a few supercomputers, you can imply relation and estimate time frames and cross reference them with paleontological and morphological evidence. You can demonstrate radiation and the progression of life.
Since I do this every day in the lab, it is kind of a prerequisite for me to accept it fully. I may be preaching to the choir, but I hope this helps someone.
lissener, thanks for the prompt response and the missing “data” (I had in mind an “s” while mistyping).
winoed, alright, let’s go. Thanks for the primer. Now how bout some examples? Do you have ready access to sources that claim/state that, because species a and species b (say humans and gorillas) share ___, they had a common ancestor ___ years ago?
Also, do vastly different species (humans and fish for example) share genetic material suggesting common ancestry?
Also, why does your telephone example imply a specific progress? Why B>E, instead of the other way around. Couldn’t info be increased and/or decreased with some element of randomness? In your example, the size fish and time both increased. I remember read Gould suggesting this type of thinking, desiring direction and progress, is human preference and can lead to error. IIRC, he used the horse as his specific example.
Hoo-hah! This is more fun that working!
Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother responding to a post of this sort, or for that matter, the equally insipid one by andros. But I would like to clarify that when I wrote “actual times”, I meant actual times of the biblical story being written, not “actual times” of creation taking place. Of course this may be evident from the question it was answering, but in this great “battle against ignorance”, who can pay attention to these petty details?
FWIW, IzzyR, I read your “actual times” the same way ricksummon and others did. I assumed you were making a reference to the “young earth” thingy, which is a logical assumption since that is specifically what you are promoting.
And as “insipid” as you dismissively find andros’s point, it’s an important one, and someone who has considered this issue as carefully as you claim to should be willing to address the apparent discrepancy: that you are willing to reject some traditional beliefs based on scientific advances, but not others.
In not addressing it, you leave us to assume your motivation. Some will see it as simple hypocrisy or denial. My assumption is that since the issue touches on your own place in the “natural order,” as a member of the species Homo sapiens (i.e., created in the image of your god rather than descended from a “lower” primate), you’re more reluctant accept the evidence; accepting the shape of the planet or it’s cosmogeography (new word I just made up) is easier to swallow. My assumption will stand, of course, unless you decide to address the issue.
hardcore asked:
To which IzzyR responded:
So in response to that I mentioned other beliefs that people have held based on tradition–slavery, opression of women and Ptolemaic astronomy, implying that simply because it’s tradition doesn’t make it right. And that just because “wiser people” accept something doesn’t make it fact.
Clearly that implication was seen as insipid. Izzy, I suspect that’s largely because you don’t equate a disbelief in evolution with a belief that the sun orbits the Earth. And it seem you become offended when someone compares something you accept as incorrect (the sun revolves around the Earth) with something you know is correct (evolution is false). I understand that–I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. Personally, I do equate the two. I believe that evolution is as much a fact as heliocentrism. But that’s me. YMMV.
It seems to me that once one indiscriminately accepts tradition, science and critical thinking are dead. In my mind, accepting one thing because “it’s tradition” means there is no end ot the things I might accept because of tradition. Once I accept tradition as an authority, it must continue to be an authority. Therefore, if I accept divine creation on the basis of tradition, I might as well accept slavery, spontaneous generation, and a flat Earth. But that’s me. YMMV.
My apologies, Izzy. I should have realized that you were speaking from faith, and not trying to argue logically. Another reading makes me think you may have had this in mind:
“Why do you consider the Biblical account and evolution mutually exclusive?”
“Because I believe in the primacy of the Bible as authority, and I believe that the biblical account precludes evolution.”
Is that about right, or am I misinterpreting again?
Insipid, feh.
Um, no, that’s, for all intents and purposes, the entire scientific community. Evolution has reached the grand old status of scientific orthodoxy, and long ago outgrew any substantive debate. It’s still subject to superstitious denial, but it’s a solidly established part of the foundation of modern scientific knowledge.
Denialists are basically just playing a game with themselves; they’re not engaged in any kind of debate with–or even really acknowledged by–modern science.
andros,
There is no one body of knowledge, be it science or tradition, which must be either completely true or completely untrue. Every issue is separate, and should be debated on its own merits. In this case, the question (to me) is the relative strength of science regarding evolution, and tradition regarding the veracity and interpretation of the Bible. It is foolish to suggest that anyone who would feel that in one instance science has not disproven tradition must also claim that in every case it is so. I would agree with your statement that “once one indiscriminately accepts tradition, science and critical thinking are dead”. But it does not follow that one must indiscriminately accept science either.
(The glib tone of your post did not give the impression of someone looking to make an actual point.)
Absolutely. That doesn’t explain why the Biblical account and evolution are mutually exclusive. In fact, it seem to me to say quite the opposite–the two ARE reconcilable.
You feel science is weaker than tradition in this case. Why not in others?
Well, it’s not science’s goal to “disprove” anything. The goal of science is to learn. If that means revising prior beliefs based on new evidence, so be it. I’m not sure how to explain my point, but I’ll give this a go:
There is evidence for the theory of evolution.
There is also evidence for the theory of heliocentrism.
If I decide that the evidence in favor of evolution is insufficient to accept evolution as fact, then I must perforce look closely at that evidence, its type, and how it was gathered. If that evidence is not enough, can I be sure that the evidence for heliocentrism is enough? After all, there is just as strong a tradition that the sun orbits the Earth as that God made everything.
One does not blindly accept scientific results. That’s the whole point ot the scientific method–constant reevaluation in the light of new evidence. And IMO, anyone who chooses to equate the process of science with tradition and opinion does not understand science at all.
And the glib insult in return did not give me the impression that you were at all interested in addressing (or understanding) my point.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by andros *
**
You can rarely be sure of anything. You go with the best available evidence. In one field you may feel that you have contrarian evidence which causes you to reject what science has to offer. In another, not.
I think in general that science goes with the best that they can come up with, using scientific principles. An admirable method. But it means that not all conclusions will be equally valid. In one field there may be a greater body of evidence, in another, less. One field may be more testable than another. It is a mistake to look at every thing as all “science”, and equally valid.
You know, IzzyR, I’ve noticed something. This is at least the second time that you have declared that creation vs. evolution isn’t a big issue for you and that you don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to study the subject enough to come to an educated opinion on the issue. This is also at least the second time that such a declaration preceded your long involvement in a thread devoted to debating evolution. This time around you even declared that the OP was irrelevant to you, because of your lack of interest in evolution. Well…
if the OP is irrelevant to you, why are you still here?
Don’t you think that this is an indication that you do, in fact, have a strong interest in evolution, and the energy to pursue that interest? And don’t you think it’s a little strange that on a topic which you haven’t studied much, you choose to believe that all the people who have studied about a million times more than you have are all wrong? I mean, do you take this position often? “I don’t know much about Riemann geometry, but I just don’t buy this proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem”?
Could you take a moment to contemplate how silly you are making yourself and your beliefs look? I mean, we have people on this list with higher degrees in fields relevant to evolution, and you, who are self-admittedly quite ignorant of the subject, are (somewhat acrimoniously) telling them that you know better than they do.
And while we’re at it, what about protein homology? Last time we went through this, you stated that the protein homology evidence looked pretty good to you. So why are you now declaring that the evidence is weak? If the evidence from protein homology is so weak, how do you explain it in a non-evolutionary framework?
-Ben