Fundies Really, Really Do Not Understand Evolution

[doggie]

Because it is hard to deny how bacteria and some insects chafe since it can be seen and long term can't. But logic can't be associated with religion.

[formergothardite]

Growing up microevolution was treated as evil too, but now many fundies teach it as real. I'm not really sure how they reconcile it. It is annoying to know that they have just glossed over the fact that they used to claim it wasn't real instead of admitting that they were wrong. I understand why they did it that way because admitting they were wrong about microevolution would lead the way to people wondering if they are also wrong about macroevolution.

Hopefully Sunshine can help out with your last question because it seems she doesn't believe in evolution. Do you believe in microevolution Sunshine? If not how do you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria?

[nelliebelle1197]

So, you're going to challenge electricity because you don't understand how it works? The difference between science and religion is that if you applied yourself you could learn the details of how it works, from a catalytic converter, to why your bread rises to the role of myelin in nerve transmission to how pines trees share a common ancestor with us. "faith" in science is only a stopgap if you can't be bothered to learn the field for yourself. Religion has faith as integral to it. No matter how long I spent reading about religion, it's never going to not require faith in untestable things.

Strobel's book is neatly disposed of here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... a-creator/

You're only impressed by those "highly technical" papers because they use long words and short abbreviations that you don't understand. But you don't need to trust me. Go, read a couple of textbooks, do a full literature survey on each field, then go back to the papers. Terrible, aren't they?

Having a phd doesn't make what you're saying not rubbish. Remember the cold fusion guys? phds. Hell, I even know a person with a phd who'd into homeopathy! And, to make it worse, the ICR guys were creationists who went and got phds expressly to seem more authoritative. Only religious people are obsessed with authority. The science world judges you mainly on your data. Yes, lacking a phd makes it harder to be heard, but having a phd, or masters, or a Nobel prize is no guarantee what you're saying isn't crud (exhibit A: Brian Josephson; exhibit B: Kuc Montagnier). A phd is the base level of being able to play the science game. It is like the entry ticket to the nightclub. Getting in doesn't mean you're going to score, or even make friends.

Biology isn't the robust and complex field it is because we take the word of anyone who has a phd, it's robust and complex because we don't accept anything unless we can replicate it ourselves. It's a concept called "critical thinking" (i.e., being skeptical of everything anyone says - disbelief as the first reaction), and when you combine it with the scientific method, it's incredibly powerful. There's a reason why the null hypothesis is the null hypothesis!

BTW your use of the term "evolutionist" is a dead giveaway. If you want to fly under the radar a little better, try "evolutionary theorist" or "biologist".

"Evolutionist" isn't even a thing in the real world. It is a marketing term made up by the small but vocal number of people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis to create an antagonist to the "creationist" protagonist. It is not science but rather dime novel versions of Shakespeare

[crewgirl]

by docmom » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:50 pm

I guess I don't understand why it is somehow OK to believe in "microevolution", by which I think most fundies mean the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and new forms of the flu virus, but not in "macroevolution". Evolution is evolution. Living things change in response to pressures from their environment. Viruses and bacteria replicate much faster than we do and with more mutations, but the concept is exactly the same. Can a fundie or fundie expert tell me why you can believe in one but not the other??

My understanding is that people that believe in "micro-evolution" but not in "macro-evolution' (generally) believe that variation (even pretty extreme variation) can occur within a species, but that variation will not lead to the development of a different species.

[J'ean Skirt]

My understanding is that people that believe in "micro-evolution" but not in "macro-evolution' (generally) believe that variation (even pretty extreme variation) can occur within a species, but that variation will not lead to the development of a different species.

As someone trained in biology, when people start talking about species, my first question is always "how do you define species?"

We, as humans, have categorized and drawn lines around "species" as a way to help us model and understand the world more systematically. But the world doesn't have those same kind of clear lines.

For example what is the speciation here:

• Animal A can interbreed with animal B and produce fertile offspring.
  Animal B can interbreed with animal C and produce fertile offspring.
  Animal A cannot interbreed with animal C and produce fertile offspring.

Are they the same species?

This is not theoretical, there are a couple instances where this happens, but I'm at work and don't have access to my texts to remind myself what A, B and C are. ETA: But Wikipedia discusses and gives links to "The Species Problem" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Speciation in single celled organisms is even more complex. How can you have asexually reproducing species in a system defined by a sexual reproductive abilities? (The answer is you use other methods to define species. But in the last 20 years there has been a lot of changes to bacterial species. Thanks to molecular biology we can now look at the actual DNA of bacteria and put together a more accurate evolutionary tree than we could with those older methods.)

Then there's the classic example of how human categorization doesn't quite fit with the actual complexity of the animal kingdom: the platypus.

For me, though, the creation story can't be true for a number of reasons, all of which are present in the bible. One is the mutually contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Another is that the only animals mentioned are visible animals. If the bible was the literal word of god, then he would have mentioned some of the smaller-than-visible organisms. It didn't, so it's clearly the product of human observation written in a time when we didn't have optic technology. And, well, none of my religious leaders could ever really explain to me why incest was OK.

[August]

Growing up microevolution was treated as evil too, but now many fundies teach it as real. I'm not really sure how they reconcile it. It is annoying to know that they have just glossed over the fact that they used to claim it wasn't real instead of admitting that they were wrong. I understand why they did it that way because admitting they were wrong about microevolution would lead the way to people wondering if they are also wrong about macroevolution.

Hopefully Sunshine can help out with your last question because it seems she doesn't believe in evolution. Do you believe in microevolution Sunshine? If not how do you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria?

Thank you! I was sure that creationists railed against natural selection sometime around 1991/2, but I couldn't find evidence online.

Peppered moths are a great example if natural selection, and we used them a lot when creationists claimed the only possible selection was artificial (breeding). But there was no speciation, and now that we won that argument and they've accepted half of evolutionary theory and only claim that evolution can't result in speciation they're not evidence for that.

Based on theory of evolution exist, shouldn't we see new versions of human appear. Or, even the transition of one specie to human by now.

We have a huge amount of evidence of the rich human family tree. Humans changed into all sorts of different versions of human, we're just the kind that won.

[formergothardite]

Thank you! I was sure that creationists railed against natural selection sometime around 1991/2, but I couldn't find evidence online.

Peppered moths are a great example if natural selection, and we used them a lot when creationists claimed the only possible selection was artificial (breeding). But there was no speciation, and now that we won that argument and they've accepted half of evolutionary theory and only claim that evolution can't result in speciation they're not evidence for that.

We have a huge amount of evidence of the rich human family tree. Humans changed into all sorts of different versions of human, we're just the kind that won.

In the early 80's I remember being taught that every form of evolution was fake. Any changes that we saw in plants or animals was an adaption designed by God. They were not evolving or really changing, they were just looking or acting different because God inspired them to do so. I can't really remember the details because it was so long ago but it didn't make a lot of sense then and sure doesn't now. It seems that around the late 90's early 2000's is when I first started noticing that Creationists were acting like none of that had ever been taught and that microevolution was real.

College biology was such a struggle for me because I had not even the faintest grasp of what evolution was or even what real science was like. Bob Jones science curriculum was heavy on God and light on actual science.

[August]

I wonder where I'd find paper copies of the AIG magazines from back then to scan in.

[formergothardite]

I have no idea but it would be interesting to see how their teachings have changed. I think my parents tossed most of their religious stuff from the 80's. These sorts of things end up at my local thrift stores a lot because churches will clean out old rooms and donate all the stuff so I will keep an eye out.

[Conuly]

It seems that around the late 90's early 2000's is when I first started noticing that Creationists were acting like none of that had ever been taught and that microevolution was real.

It's like their arguments are changing through time, adapting to new conditions, with weaker arguments perishing and stronger, more believable ones surviving and propagating!

[formergothardite]

It's like their arguments are changing through time, adapting to new conditions, with weaker arguments perishing and stronger, more believable ones surviving and propagating!

LOL Just remember God never changes just our understanding of God changes. :roll:

The question Sunshine asked was always taught as the question to stump up evolutionists. That they wouldn't be able to answer. I think Sunshine, since she hangs out here, was curious for an answer and hopefully this thread has helped her understand evolution better but reading it reminded me of all the times I heard evolution mocked and how no one could answer those sorts of questions. "Humans aren't evolving." "Nothing else is turning into a human." "Shouldn't we be able to see things evolve?!" :angry-banghead:

[J'ean Skirt]

Sorry for the thread mini-hijacking but she sent me a question about something I said in this thread.

Crewgirl: I got your PM but can't PM you back 'cause you're blocking PMs.

[August]

Sorry for the thread mini-hijacking but she sent me a question about something I said in this thread.

Crewgirl: I got your PM but can't PM you back 'cause you're blocking PMs.

either incest or speciation, both of which are fun topics.

[myhobby]

I really think this will help clear up all this debate. I know it helped me. :)

upworthy.com/why-a-man-with-a-jar-of-peanut-butter-thinks-he-destroyed-science?c=ufb1

[August]

That was easy. I would have thought they'd be harder to convince, but it seems not! Three more converts for science, then!

Myhobby, I don't know you, but I like your style.

[debrand]

I think that evolution confuses some people because they can't comprehend how the very long time periods and gradual changes involved in it.

I have a question. A young friend asked me if evolution is true why aren't there any missing links. I told him that we are a living missing link to whatever comes next for humans. Was I correct? My daughters also showed him the Futurama skit about evolution

RxrxnPG05SU

[fullmetalheart]

I'm a Christian, and I fully believe that evolution and creation can coexist. It's fully possible to believe in a divine Creator, as well as scientific theory. I don't understand why fundies can't accept that maybe God used evolution as a tool.

[Hane]

I'm a Christian, and I fully believe that evolution and creation can coexist. It's fully possible to believe in a divine Creator, as well as scientific theory. I don't understand why fundies can't accept that maybe God used evolution as a tool.

That's what I was taught in Catholic religious ed. I was amused, several years ago, when super-conservative columnist Cal Thomas accused the Pope of "selling out to liberals" by endorsing evolution.

[Swamptribe]

I cut my internet teeth arguing creation/evolution with creationists. The one thing I learned is that there really is no point in arguing with the more rabid among them. They really don't care about such things as proper science, facts or evidence. They will ignore any information you provide them and instead repeat the same ole mantras You can dismember their arguments piece by piece, using detailed information. Providing them with references to the peer reviewed literature only to have them then cry about conspiracies against 'real godly scientists'.

They have too much of their faith invested in the idea of a young earth to let anyone challenge their ideas.

[myhobby]

That was easy. I would have thought they'd be harder to convince, but it seems not! Three more converts for science, then!

Myhobby, I don't know you, but I like your style.

Thanks! I usually keep my questions, comments, and smart remarks to myself, since it seems to get me into trouble IRL. I just couldn't resist sharing this one, though.

[wild little fox]

I am a good example of being undereducated and believing what others told me. I was taught the bible is fact. I believed they found evidence of Noah's Ark in the 70's. I didn't doubt a thing, and when it came to old earth v new earth I was on the fence.

One time I was watching ebil PBS. They were drilling out ice cores from Greenland. Suddenly there was absolute proof right in front of me of old earth. A few years later I found evidence online that some humans have Neanderthal DNA. I saw proof of human migration through DNA mapping. I read, in a doctor's office an article about an island in the pacific where an ancient humanoid's DNA is found in modern humans, but only the peoples of that island. I wish I could find that article!

I no longer believe in the bible. The church no longer had a hold on how I think.

That's what they fear. That even their undereducated will figure it out.

[doggie]

I cut my internet teeth arguing creation/evolution with creationists.

They have too much of their faith invested in the idea of a young earth to let anyone challenge their ideas.

sad but so true.

[wild little fox]

I'm a Christian, and I fully believe that evolution and creation can coexist. It's fully possible to believe in a divine Creator, as well as scientific theory. I don't understand why fundies can't accept that maybe God used evolution as a tool.

Exactly. If there is a Creator then they are the ultimate scientist. Evolution would be the tool.

[Swamptribe]

I am a good example of being undereducated and believing what others told me. I was taught the bible is fact. I believed they found evidence of Noah's Ark in the 70's. I didn't doubt a thing, and when it came to old earth v new earth I was on the fence.

One time I was watching ebil PBS. They were drilling out ice cores from Greenland. Suddenly there was absolute proof right in front of me of old earth. A few years later I found evidence online that some humans have Neanderthal DNA. I saw proof of human migration through DNA mapping. I read, in a doctor's office an article about an island in the pacific where an ancient humanoid's DNA is found in modern humans, but only the peoples of that island. I wish I could find that article!

I no longer believe in the bible. The church no longer had a hold on how I think.

That's what they fear. That even their undereducated will figure it out.

And that folks, is the crux of the problem. Accepting scientific evolution as fact does not have to challenge ones belief in Christianity or the Bible. UNLESS, that person insists on a particular and rather narrow interpretation of biblical scripture. I have always been amused by the oxymoron "literal interpretation' of the bible.

[August]

I think that evolution confuses some people because they can't comprehend how the very long time periods and gradual changes involved in it.

I have a question. A young friend asked me if evolution is true why aren't there any missing links. I told him that we are a living missing link to whatever comes next for humans. Was I correct? My daughters also showed him the Futurama skit about evolution

RxrxnPG05SU

It's true, but there are also lots and lots and lots of transitional forms/missing links. Archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, Lucy, pikaia. Talkorigins has a great table of hominin fossils and creationist disagreeing on whether they're ape or human. Which is the very definition of a transitional form.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html