Evolution

[debrand]

teachthemdiligently.net/blog/posts/

If creationists had no voting power or were a small, silent minority, they could be ignored. But sadly, they do have influence in the United States so I think that they should be called out on their idiocy. I'm not a biologist but some of the writer's statements are pretty easy to disprove.

There I stood staring at the “whale evolution†display in the National Museum of Natural History (a fraudulent title: “nature†cannot do anything.

Of course nature does things. Would she want to stand in the path of a tornado or refuse to believe that a rising flood can do anything to her. Nature does not have a conscious but no one is claiming that it does.

To say something like “natural selection†is a fallacy because ‘nature’ cannot choose) frustrated that what I was looking at actually does not exist.

What?

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.â€

That seems like a fair statement

Basically from goo to you via the zoo.

There is a program from a company called AlphaOmega that gives lectures at churches. I attended one and so have my neighbors. It is called, From Goo to You Via the Zoo

So where is the evidence? Where can we find life from non-life? Transitional fossils? The geological column (the published column doesn’t actually exist anywhere in the world). New species appearing? Beneficial mutations? Increasing complexity in living organisms?

I used to think that the problem was the inability of humans to comprehend long, long time periods. Now I think that in many cases, it is willful stupidity. If she wasn't a Christian, she wouldn't look at the evidence and come up with a talking snake and two fruit trees in the middle of a garden. Besides, we are transitional fossils.

[Chowder Head]

Sigh. There is working actually evidence now of benifical mutations in species. I just understand why some christains absoltly refuse knowledge. O me its like trying to argue with a toddler who swears there shirt is blue not red and stike their fingers in their ears.

[Claddagh]

There I stood staring at the “whale evolution†display in the National Museum of Natural History (a fraudulent title: “nature†cannot do anything.

Technically all of us species must adapt in one form or another. Those species that cannot adapt are often wiped out. All nature has to do is burp and we'll all fall off!

So where is the evidence? Where can we find life from non-life? Transitional fossils? The geological column (the published column doesn’t actually exist anywhere in the world). New species appearing? Beneficial mutations? Increasing complexity in living organisms?

Mutations occur naturally allowing diversity within species. It's only been a few thousand years since the first person with blue eyes appeared. The gene for blue eyes has been linked to a genetic mutation.

This might be a stretch but what about cats with extra toes? Vets and scientists say it could be a beneficial mutation to the animal as it may make them better grapplers.

Considering that there at one time was a bunch of single cell organisms in the ocean long before all of us came along....

This might be more their speed though...

[doggie]

Incest and bacteria and virus's mutate all of the time. but of course that is not evolution as evolution is one large jump to another not small changes over time.

So how did all of the human varieties come around in 5 thousand years if not evolution?

[YPestis]

It's really difficult to explain evolutionary biology to a creationist who've probably never been exposed to real science. They fail to understand the scientific process, what the term "theory" actually means, or the profound implication that evolution as on modern biology. To deny evolution, to advocate for young earth creationism is to deny several branches of science.

It's not the hardcore creationists I fear. They are small in number and will never change their mind. It's that they make enough noise so as to scare the topic off the rest of the population. Most people are pretty ignorant of biology and the scientific process. However, they want to appear impartial and so they are agreeable to the concept of "presenting both sides". However, just as astronomers do not wish to "share" any space with astrologers, biologists do not want to share any time with creationists (and neither does geologists, paleontologists, astronomers....).

[Minerva]

Whining about a discipline's terminology =/= an argument. And that's most of what this blogger does.

a fraudulent title: “nature†cannot do anything.

From Wikipedia: '"Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.' The physical world does a shit ton of things. Just because it's not doing them consciously doesn't mean it's not doing them. Just because a God is (allegedly) behind a natural occurrence doesn't mean nature isn't doing this. For example: when my foot kicks a ball, I am making it do so. But my foot is still kicking a ball.

That's also a complete non-argument because "Natural History" doesn't imply that nature is doing anything. A very common sense interpretation of the phrase would simply be "history of things that have happened in nature". However, natural history's real definition is "the study of living organisms".

It's also a non-argument because flailing about semantics does not back up a point.

To say something like “natural selection†is a fallacy because ‘nature’ cannot choose

Again, if you're going to moan about semantics, first realize that it won't back up your point one iota, and secondly understand the terms you are critiquing. Things can be selected without a conscious choice being made. My laptop is not conscious, yet many selections are being made to keep it the right temperature, to keep the screen at an ideal level of brightness, etc. Also, the phrase "natural selection" doesn't imply that nature is selecting something, it implies a selection that is natural.

So where is the evidence? Where can we find life from non-life? Transitional fossils? The geological column (the published column doesn’t actually exist anywhere in the world). New species appearing? Beneficial mutations? Increasing complexity in living organisms?

Life from non-life is not part of evolutionary theory. I'm going to repeat that, because apparently it is a difficult thing to grasp. LIFE FROM NON-LIFE IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. Really, though everyone who doesn't believe that the earth appeared with life already on it believes that "life from non-life" happened. Including creationists. Who also have no evidence, I'll add.

Where can we find transitional fossils?

- The London specimen of Archaeopteryx is in London's Natural History Museum.

- The Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin.

- The Haarlem specimen of Archaeopteryx is the Teylers Museum in the Netherlands.

- The Eichstätt specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Jura Museum, in Germany.

- The Solnhofen specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Germany.

- The Munich specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Paläontologisches Museum München in Germany.

- The Daiting specimen of Archaeopteryx is still in Daiting, Suevia, still in its rock bed.

- The Bürgermeister-Müller specimen of Archaeopteryx is also in the Bürgermeister-Müller museum.

- The Thermopolis specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Royal Tyrrell Museum, in Alberta.

- The Maxberg specimen of Archaeopteryx has been missing for years, but was last seen in the possession of the German man who discovered it.

- The eleventh Archaeopteryx specimen is in a private collection.

- Lucy the Australopithecus is in the National Museum of Ethiopia.

- Selam the Australopithecus is presumably in a lab in California.

- I can't find where the Australopithecus "First Family" is being kept, though the pieces are probably separate by now.

- There is a Pakicetus being kept at the Royal Ontario Museum.

- There is a Basilosaurus in the National Museum of Natural History. THIS IDIOT WAS STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT.

- There is an Ambulocetus at the Naturalis Museum in the Netherlands.

- The Tiktaalik fossils are presumably still in a lab in the US.

The term "geological column" is new to me, and I've taken quite a bit of biology at this point, so it might be safe to assume that it's one of those straw men creationists prefer to argue against instead of actual evolutionary concepts. It is pretty much only used by creationist websites, and can refer to either a series of layers of sedimentary rock from each time period or to the geological timeline of the Earth. If the blogger is using it in the former sense...well that doesn't make sense. You can't publish rocks, and the earth's crust is different all over, so there can't be just one. If they're using it in the latter sense, they're simply lying. There's a published geological timeline of the Earth sitting on my nightstand, in my biology textbook. It was in my high school biology textbooks, too. And it's in my encyclopedia. Heck, it's even on Wikipedia.

New species appearing? Speciation has occurred in Galapagos finches in the past 30 years.

Beneficial mutations? There is a mutation that makes humans resistant to HIV, and another that makes them resistant to Malaria. Beneficial mutations are also seen in other species. They are most easily spotted in bacteria and yeasts since they reproduce so quickly.

Increasing complexity in living organisms. We've observed certain species of reptiles slowly transitioning from oviparous to viviparous, which is arguably an increase in complexity. A group of Italian wall lizards, when transported to a new island as an invasive species, has observably evolved to have an extra feature in their digestive system, which is definitely an increase in complexity.

[lipstickgoalie]

Incest and bacteria and virus's mutate all of the time. but of course that is not evolution as evolution is one large jump to another not small changes over time.

So how did all of the human varieties come around in 5 thousand years if not evolution?

Please tell me you meant INSECTS and not INCEST. I am not sure I want to understand the evolution of incest.

[Burris]

OMG, but this seriously reminds me of the, "The Stupid - It Buuuurns!" series I did on Hallee the Homemaker and her "educated" husband who pontificates about the evils of said biological fact on her blog once a week.

His arguments were so bad that...well, it's easier just to see them for yourself:

IT BUUUUUUURN - Part I

It still BUUUUUUUURNS - Part II

How can someone this stupid still be able to post on the internet - Part III

[debrand]

OMG, but this seriously reminds me of the, "The Stupid - It Buuuurns!" series I did on Hallee the Homemaker and her "educated" husband who pontificates about the evils of said biological fact on her blog once a week.

His arguments were so bad that...well, it's easier just to see them for yourself:

IT BUUUUUUURN - Part I

It still BUUUUUUUURNS - Part II

How can someone this stupid still be able to post on the internet - Part III

For those titles alone, I love you Burris

[m_mdon]

As a high school teacher (although not a science teacher, math was always my downfall!), people make this make my blood BOIL! I had two students recently loudly declare in class that evolution wasn't possible, and the world was created in 7 days, just like the Bible said. I stood there in silence.

What I never understood about creationists was that when looking at the facts, evolution just makes sense. And it's going on before our eyes. I read an article not too long ago about female African Elephants who were more likely to choose their mates that had a rare genetic mutation in which they didn't grow tusks. And since all poachers want are the tusks (as they contain ivory), if their babies were born without tusks, they would be more likely to make it to adulthood.

telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322455/Why-elephants-are-not-so-long-in-the-tusk.html

[Vex]

I'm majoring in paeleoanthropology, the study of ancient human beings. Human Evolution is a huge part of my courseload.

I don't understand how people can deny the fossil record. We have a very clear idea of how and when humans (and other animals, plants, the land and the oceans) have evolved. I've seen fundies claim archaeologists are all involved in a fossil-making conspiracy, but so far nobody has taught me how to fake evidence in any of my archaeology classes ):

I do not understand how you can say there is DEFINITELY a God, there's proof ('miracles' and the bible) but then say in the same breath that evolution doesn't exist, there's no proof.

[Megan]

This is one of the most stupid-proof explanations of evolution I have seen, which I would love to see forwarded on to creationists, who all seem to think we evolved from monkeys~

http://i.imgur.com/ubZNn.jpg

[Vex]

That is wonderful.

Should be a mandatory handout given to all children when they turn 5 along with the multiplication tables, alphabet and occam's razor.

[formergothardite]

Creationism was something that was so hard for me to drop. All I had read growing up was creation science and "proof" that evolution was a lie. I didn't even understand what evolution was, it was just some big evil thing made up by Satan to try and destroy Christians.

[debrand]

Creationism was something that was so hard for me to drop. All I had read growing up was creation science and "proof" that evolution was a lie. I didn't even understand what evolution was, it was just some big evil thing made up by Satan to try and destroy Christians.

What helped you finally drop creationism? I think that logic, applied over a long period of time, does ultimately reach people.

[formergothardite]

Losing my faith in god went a long way in helping me stop believing he made the world in 7 days. :lol: But going to a regular college and being exposed over and over to real science things just made more sense. We can even see fleas evolving to become resistant to pet flea medications(that was one thing I remember thinking about) and so if fleas can do that, then can't other things? Once I opened my mind to the idea that what I had been taught could be wrong, it was easier to see the truth. If someone is not willing to do that, then no amount of logic will help.

[debrand]

This is one of the most stupid-proof explanations of evolution I have seen, which I would love to see forwarded on to creationists, who all seem to think we evolved from monkeys~

http://i.imgur.com/ubZNn.jpg

I am technically challenged. Is there a way to post this on facebook? A lot of my family believes in evolution

[VooDooChild]

Whining about a discipline's terminology =/= an argument. And that's most of what this blogger does.

From Wikipedia: '"Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.' The physical world does a shit ton of things. Just because it's not doing them consciously doesn't mean it's not doing them. Just because a God is (allegedly) behind a natural occurrence doesn't mean nature isn't doing this. For example: when my foot kicks a ball, I am making it do so. But my foot is still kicking a ball.

That's also a complete non-argument because "Natural History" doesn't imply that nature is doing anything. A very common sense interpretation of the phrase would simply be "history of things that have happened in nature". However, natural history's real definition is "the study of living organisms".

It's also a non-argument because flailing about semantics does not back up a point.

Again, if you're going to moan about semantics, first realize that it won't back up your point one iota, and secondly understand the terms you are critiquing. Things can be selected without a conscious choice being made. My laptop is not conscious, yet many selections are being made to keep it the right temperature, to keep the screen at an ideal level of brightness, etc. Also, the phrase "natural selection" doesn't imply that nature is selecting something, it implies a selection that is natural.

Life from non-life is not part of evolutionary theory. I'm going to repeat that, because apparently it is a difficult thing to grasp. LIFE FROM NON-LIFE IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. Really, though everyone who doesn't believe that the earth appeared with life already on it believes that "life from non-life" happened. Including creationists. Who also have no evidence, I'll add.

Where can we find transitional fossils?

- The London specimen of Archaeopteryx is in London's Natural History Museum.

- The Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin.

- The Haarlem specimen of Archaeopteryx is the Teylers Museum in the Netherlands.

- The Eichstätt specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Jura Museum, in Germany.

- The Solnhofen specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Germany.

- The Munich specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Paläontologisches Museum München in Germany.

- The Daiting specimen of Archaeopteryx is still in Daiting, Suevia, still in its rock bed.

- The Bürgermeister-Müller specimen of Archaeopteryx is also in the Bürgermeister-Müller museum.

- The Thermopolis specimen of Archaeopteryx is in the Royal Tyrrell Museum, in Alberta.

- The Maxberg specimen of Archaeopteryx has been missing for years, but was last seen in the possession of the German man who discovered it.

- The eleventh Archaeopteryx specimen is in a private collection.

- Lucy the Australopithecus is in the National Museum of Ethiopia.

- Selam the Australopithecus is presumably in a lab in California.

- I can't find where the Australopithecus "First Family" is being kept, though the pieces are probably separate by now.

- There is a Pakicetus being kept at the Royal Ontario Museum.

- There is a Basilosaurus in the National Museum of Natural History. THIS IDIOT WAS STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT.

- There is an Ambulocetus at the Naturalis Museum in the Netherlands.

- The Tiktaalik fossils are presumably still in a lab in the US.

The term "geological column" is new to me, and I've taken quite a bit of biology at this point, so it might be safe to assume that it's one of those straw men creationists prefer to argue against instead of actual evolutionary concepts. It is pretty much only used by creationist websites, and can refer to either a series of layers of sedimentary rock from each time period or to the geological timeline of the Earth. If the blogger is using it in the former sense...well that doesn't make sense. You can't publish rocks, and the earth's crust is different all over, so there can't be just one. If they're using it in the latter sense, they're simply lying. There's a published geological timeline of the Earth sitting on my nightstand, in my biology textbook. It was in my high school biology textbooks, too. And it's in my encyclopedia. Heck, it's even on Wikipedia.

New species appearing? Speciation has occurred in Galapagos finches in the past 30 years.

Beneficial mutations? There is a mutation that makes humans resistant to HIV, and another that makes them resistant to Malaria. Beneficial mutations are also seen in other species. They are most easily spotted in bacteria and yeasts since they reproduce so quickly.

Increasing complexity in living organisms. We've observed certain species of reptiles slowly transitioning from oviparous to viviparous, which is arguably an increase in complexity. A group of Italian wall lizards, when transported to a new island as an invasive species, has observably evolved to have an extra feature in their digestive system, which is definitely an increase in complexity.

:clap: :clap:

ETA: Hot Damn!! I'm the sin in the camp!

[August]

I don't understand how their kids are supposed to grow up to take over the world if they don't give them a basic education? Sure, in the new theocracy they can have a captive herd of atheists doing the drug development for them, but how will they know the scientists aren't working on a vaccine for religion unless they can understand the science?

[kaetrin]

For what it's worth (probably not much), I grew up being taught literal six-day creationism, and had really no science education whatsoever (thank you, Wisdom Booklets for high school!). It also took me a long time to drop the idea, but what did it for me was actually becoming an ancient historian and studying a lot about the rhetoric of ancient texts (especially historical texts). I still know fuck-all about science, but once I grasped that Genesis was not even meant to be what modern people think of as either science- OR history-writing, I became perfectly happy for it to be a poetic description of how the writer conceived humanity's relationship to God, and to leave the question of origins and the development of species etc. to the scientists.

(And I think it's a post-Enlightenment-biased disservice to the text to read it the way fundies read it, but that's a rant for another day.)

[mg78]

On one hand I can understand that people not interested in science have trouble understanding basic evolutionary concepts. These are difficult to grasp and while studying biology (and I have been studying biology for many years, it is a continuos endevours)) it took me a couple of year to understand the basics of the mechanism and to deal with the many unanswered question, knowing that maybe one day we will know more about them. And actually, I have seen quite a few advances in this subject. On the other, as fellow posters have talked about, there is enough evidence that evolution is real. And, there is a point were the argument gets ridiculous: "natural selection" is just name. It could have been call blabla selection or any other adjective selection.

The next issue

[formergothardite]

For what it's worth (probably not much), I grew up being taught literal six-day creationism, and had really no science education whatsoever (thank you, Wisdom Booklets for high school!). It also took me a long time to drop the idea, but what did it for me was actually becoming an ancient historian and studying a lot about the rhetoric of ancient texts (especially historical texts). I still know fuck-all about science, but once I grasped that Genesis was not even meant to be what modern people think of as either science- OR history-writing, I became perfectly happy for it to be a poetic description of how the writer conceived humanity's relationship to God, and to leave the question of origins and the development of species etc. to the scientists.

(And I think it's a post-Enlightenment-biased disservice to the text to read it the way fundies read it, but that's a rant for another day.)

Wisdom Booklet's version of science isn't really that helpful to anyone outside IBLP. :lol:

[debrand]

I am technically challenged. Is there a way to post this on facebook? A lot of my family believes in evolution

Doh. I meant a lot of my family believe in a literal seven days creation from the bible. The link seems like it would be easy for them to understand

[Phoebe]

That is wonderful.

Should be a mandatory handout given to all children when they turn 5 along with the multiplication tables, alphabet and occam's razor.

One of the fundies I worked with once tried to give me a long, drawn-out and entirely improbable explanation for why something (I don't remember what, it's been several years) was the way it was. I looked at her and just said, "Occam's Razor." She tilted her head, went silent for a few seconds, and said, "I don't get it. What does shaving have to do with anything?" :lol:

[Fargood]

Evolution is one of the subjects that I just can't with the fundies. In many ways, the former fundies on this board are in a better position to debate with the fundies on the subject.

I come from a long line of educators and I just don't have the patience to argue with anyone who can't grasp scientific evidence. I remember being five or six years old and my Dad explaining evolution to me. It made sense to me then and continues to make sense to me now.

And yet, the fundies want me to believe that it's all a big scientific conspiracy? Trust me, the scientists aren't that organized.