Because the Bible itself evolved.

Thanks.

I have seen first hand how selective breeding brings about different breeds of cattle and dogs.

Because I have a Sessions plum tree in my yard. The Sessions plum is unique to Utah and does well in our climate. It was first recognized about 150 years ago as a result of care husbandry by Mother Patty Sessions.

Because I saw first hand Shasta the Liger!

Because my granddaughters have Sickle Cell trait. A type of blood cell that makes people resustant to certain tropical disease.

I don't believe in evolution. Evolution does not require belief since it demonstrates itself on a daily basis.

I don’t “believe” in evolution. I accept it as the best scientific construct that saved my life through the work of skilled physicians and geneticists.

Because an all powerful, all knowing and perfect being (the first god) if one exists, had to be the product of an evolutionary process. A perfect being with such power doesn't come from nothing.

First for a being to be capable of possessing all knowledge and power it must have always been capable of that. You can't grow into capacity, you can only fulfill it. Second, by definition god must exist out of nature because of the law of entropy.

I cannot conceive such a thing and therefor cannot embrace or believe in it. Perhaps it is my finite thinking but EVERYTHING must have a beginning or through natural processes came into being.

Felix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cannot conceive such a thing and therefor cannot
> embrace or believe in it. Perhaps it is my finite
> thinking but EVERYTHING must have a beginning or
> through natural processes came into being.
We are in an endless cycle of recycling. Look at black holes, which, as it turns out, are not really black, since just as mush plasma radiates out of them as matter/energy falls into them.

It's not belief. It's an observable process. Bacteria filmed with timed photography can be observed evolving.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not belief. It's an observable process.
> Bacteria filmed with timed photography can be
> observed evolving.

Yes!!

Evolution is self-evident, regardless of whether the studies begin with examination and analysis of ancient fossils and bones...or whether it is observed, as a process, in real time, as it is occurring, right now.

...even the Mormon church and it's Trinity concept has evolved. From God the Father being just a spirit to having flesh and bones and the Holy Ghost from being just the mind of God and was without form to becoming a personage of spirit!

But their most correct book has devolved! from being the "principal" ancestors to just being "among" the other inhabitants. Perhaps the Jewish ancestors has also evolved overtime that their DNA became that of Siberians! Who knew?! I don't know if man had devolved too from having a potential to become god bcoz it was denied by their profit!

And I don't know if it was all just because of evolution or just creationism of the Mormon church!

Everyone is free to think they came from a monkey. It's a free country(not really).

I'd rather hang out with monkeys rather than with some people I know.

Safe to say, I've spanked quite a few monkeys in my lifetime.

BYU Boner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Safe to say, I've spanked quite a few monkeys in
> my lifetime.

I'm sure you have boner.

Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd rather hang out with monkeys rather than with
> some people I know.

Not me, monkeys seem wild and dangerous.

Except that isn't what natural selection teaches.
We share a common ANCESTOR with monkeys, that's it.

Apes actually.

I'd prefer people "believe" it than not "believe" it.

But all those who think it's an issue of "belief" have missed the point entirely. :)

I also believe in Gravity

You too? I believe in the Sun as well.

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also believe in Gravity


Damn right!!!


Sandra Bullock looked smokin' hot in that spacesuit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2018 02:43AM by quatermass2.

Because like other religions, proponents should be allowed to make their case even though the process relies upon several core elements that elude any scientific consensus regarding their origin with no real hope they ever will be.

And because Noah's Ark is stupid, but blind spontaneous emergence of the profoundly complex information storage, transmission, and duplication systems required for evolution are totally believable.

I love you guys.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because like other religions, proponents should be
> allowed to make their case even though the process
> relies upon several core elements that elude any
> scientific consensus regarding their origin with
> no real hope they ever will be.

Not a religion. It's an observed fact.
Pretending it isn't, and pretending there's "doubt" when there isn't, doesn't make a good case.

> And because Noah's Ark is stupid, but blind
> spontaneous emergence of the profoundly complex
> information storage, transmission, and duplication
> systems required for evolution are totally
> believable.

Evolution does not deal with any "spontaneous emergence" of anything. Perhaps you should actually go learn something about it before (falsely) criticizing? Naw, that would dispel irrational belief in magical men in the sky magically making humans, huh?

Here, maybe this will help anyway:

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2018 03:59PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I'm not arguing the observable fact of evolution. What I'm arguing is how you and many like you approach it like a religion.

Science's ability to observe something is not the same as its ability to explain how something came to be. The complex information collection, storage, transmission, and duplication system required for evolution to take place is a mystery. And it's the absolute central mechanism of evolution, not a small ancillary process. Probably DNA is the source, but now there's even question about that. Science has no agreed consensus on how cells collect the required information, sequence the required transmission of the information and then cause elements to build duplicates of cells. We see it, we have no idea how it works.

You trust science will eventually answer all these questions. Trust in the unknown on the basis of your perception of its reliability is kind of a definition of a religion.

I'm not arguing the observable fact of evolution. What I'm arguing is how you and many like you approach it like a religion.

COMMENT: The "observable fact" of evolution includes substantial evidence that it is the result of natural processes. This seems to be what you don't get. Suppose you were hiking in a remote area of a forest and you noticed an isolated tree that appeared to be damaged by fire, while all of the trees around it were normal. You may not know just how this happened, but the evidence would suggest lightening, not a wayward boy scout. Depending upon your level of expertise, and regardless of certainty as to the cause, you could assume that the cause was natural, and not designed. Evolution is much the same. There may be real, and even serious, questions regarding mechanism, or origin, but the fact that it is a natural process is extremely evident by the evidence that is presented by observation. This fact, of itself, removes it from your criticism that evolution has a religious character.
_________________________________________________

Science's ability to observe something is not the same as its ability to explain how something came to be.

COMMENT: In general that is correct. But scientific observations do not generally come in an explanatory vacuum. They come with causal suggestions and constraints, which direct scientists to explanations and further inquiry, even if certainty remains elusive.
___________________________________________________

The complex information collection, storage, transmission, and duplication system required for evolution to take place is a mystery.

COMMENT: Not really. In fact, in basic terms it is quite trivial. Organisms, however complex, change with time. And those changes which are conducive to survival are favored over those that are not. Thus, organisms evolve! The fact that scientists cannot trace the exact mechanisms of every evolutionary story is irrelevant to this basic principle, and most certainly does NOT suggest that some non-biological mechanism must be in play. In fact, scientists clearly know enough about the mechanisms of evolution to establish with extremely high certainty, that evolution is solely a natural process.
_______________________________________________

And it's the absolute central mechanism of evolution, not a small ancillary process.

COMMENT: The "complex information collection, storage, transmission, and duplication," is not the "central mechanism" of evolution, but the details of that mechanism. Note that the central mechanism that I use to get to work every day is a Toyota Highlander. The details of that mechanism are the various components of my car. I can assert, quite confidently that I use my car to get to work, without any understanding of what is under the hood. Similarly, we can see quite clearly that evolution occurs and exists, without having any need to fully understand the details of that process.
_________________________________________________

Probably DNA is the source, but now there's even question about that. Science has no agreed consensus on how cells collect the required information, sequence the required transmission of the information and then cause elements to build duplicates of cells. We see it, we have no idea how it works.

COMMENT: O.K. There are some details about evolution that are still unexplained; i.e. a mystery. So, how does that undermine the general fact of evolution as clearly observed? In my car example, I can see quite clearly that there is an engine under the hood, and note various details. But the fact that I do not understand the complete mechanism does not justify the conclusion that I am mistaken about how I get to work.
___________________________________________

You trust science will eventually answer all these questions. Trust in the unknown on the basis of your perception of its reliability is kind of a definition of a religion.

COMMENT: It is not just blind trust. It is the nature of what scientists observe, and what *is* known by such observations. When I see the burned out tree, it may be a mystery just how it happened, but what I can see tells me quite a bit, particularly if I were an expert in forestry. Just because I lack some information about the mechanism, does not mean I have to declare it all a mystery, and assume that any rational hypothesis on my part is just dabbling in religion.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not arguing the observable fact of evolution.
> What I'm arguing is how you and many like you
> approach it like a religion.

I don't approach anything like a religion.
It appears that your intellectual toolbox only contains a religion hammer, so you use religion on everything.
I'd look into getting a bigger toolbox if I were you :)

> You trust science will eventually answer all these
> questions. Trust in the unknown on the basis of
> your perception of its reliability is kind of a
> definition of a religion.

I don't "trust" science. The scientific method can be demonstrated to "work" to provide results that can be replicated by anyone. That gives it great credibility as a way to determine fact from non-fact. It's the best method we have for doing so. But I'd toss it in a heartbeat if we came up with a better way -- 'cause I don't care about ideology or "trust," I care about what's a fact and what isn't.

Also, I make no predictions of any kind what science will or won't be able to "answer." In fact, I've repeatedly said that there are lots of questions we may very well NEVER be able to answer. Honestly admitting "I don't know" is part of science. It's not part of religion, where "I don't know" is replaced with made-up nonsense with no basis in fact just to have an "answer." Neither science nor I work like that.

Here are some terms and definitions found in the dictionary that may help with understanding the difference between science and religion and relieve the confusion and explain why atheists object to being referred to as having a religion:

EVOLUTION is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. [This concerns observation only, belief would be a hindrance.]

SCIENCE, which studies evolution, is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. [No belief required or wanted.]

RELIGION.the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. [This is the opposite of the above. 100% belief is its composition. No scientific study required nor wanted. Most likely would be a hindrance as well as critical observation is not much of a friend to religion.]

***Comments in parenthesis are mine. Hope this helps.

I don't "believe" in evolution by natural selection. Currently it explains all the data and is perfectly falsifiable (should new data come to light that does such).

I accept the fact of evolution "hereditary traits passed from one generation to the succeeding generations.

The problem with those who are limited in thier understanding of Biology is that they have not learned that "Evolution" is both fact and Thoery. Facts need no belief. Theories rise and fall based on facts, and testing.

Using the term "belief" in either context is empty of meaning and useless.

HH =)

I don't have an issue using the word "belief" in this context, or any other context dealing with scientifically proven facts. Indeed, per Merriam Webster, one of the definitions of "belief" is:

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence -belief in the validity of scientific statements.

I believe that we sometimes try to make language more precise than it really is, and pretend that every word means the same thing to everyone. Considering context is important too.

So, yes, I have a belief in evolution based on the examination of supporting evidence.

Yes, but...that's the 3rd definition given at Merriam-Webster, whereas the first 2 (more commonly used) omit entirely an reference to evidence, and only rely on "conviction" or "faith" or "trust" or "opinion."

Those two, which are more common usages of "belief," are the ones being pooh-poohed here. :)

"More commonly used" may or may not be true, but more importantly, it's irrelevant. I very commonly hear "belief" used in line with definition number 3.

My point is that if someone says "I believe in such and such" and you subsequently "pooh-pooh" their statement because you want to put context aside and ignore usages of the word you don't like, the mistake in communication might be yours.

I have "commonly" heard that knowledge is but a subset of belief, which spans from 100% non-belief to belief with certainty, aka knowledge.

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "More commonly used" may or may not be true, but
> more importantly, it's irrelevant. I very commonly
> hear "belief" used in line with definition number
> 3.

It is true -- that's how MW lists the definitions, in order from most common usage to least common.

I disagree it's irrelevant, as well. I don't know what context your "commonly hear" comes from, what region, how big a sample, etc. So what you "commonly hear" might be irrelevant :)

> My point is that if someone says "I believe in
> such and such" and you subsequently "pooh-pooh"
> their statement because you want to put context
> aside and ignore usages of the word you don't
> like, the mistake in communication might be
> yours.

It's not putting context aside -- it's defining context, and clarifying.

> I have "commonly" heard that knowledge is but a
> subset of belief, which spans from 100% non-belief
> to belief with certainty, aka knowledge.

Again, I don't know what your "commonly heard" context is. Mine may be different. That's why we rely on definitions for words -- they can be referred to as the standard.
Here's MW's definition for knowledge:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge

In a conversation where a word with multiple meanings is used, I use the context of the conversation to determine which meaning to apply, not "most commonly used", don't you? To me, this makes usage frequency irrelevant.

And when it comes to evolution especially, I far more commonly hear "I believe in evolution" rather than "I accept evolution as a fact."

It's my opinion, that the more appropriate response is then "how strongly do you believe, and why?", rather than "Pooh-poohing" the statement by saying something like "belief is good, but knowing would be better."

The latter response unjustifiably dismisses the possibility of definition number 3, and might assign a specific meaning to a word that lacks the inherent precision to justify such an assumption.

Your perceptions and opinions may differ :)

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a conversation where a word with multiple
> meanings is used, I use the context of the
> conversation to determine which meaning to apply,
> not "most commonly used", don't you? To me, this
> makes usage frequency irrelevant.
>
> And when it comes to evolution especially, I far
> more commonly hear "I believe in evolution" rather
> than "I accept evolution as a fact."

Have you considered that what you most often hear comes from people who haven't bothered to learn anything about evolution (or the theory that describes how it works), and so are indeed going on "belief" by definitions 1 or 2?

> It's my opinion, that the more appropriate
> response is then "how strongly do you believe, and
> why?", rather than "Pooh-poohing" the statement by
> saying something like "belief is good, but knowing
> would be better."

How about asking "Why do you believe? Have you educated yourself on the facts regarding evolution, or are you going entirely on belief?" That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to ask -- and knowing is better (as in a more reliable way of determining fact) than believing.

> The latter response unjustifiably dismisses the
> possibility of definition number 3, and might
> assign a specific meaning to a word that lacks the
> inherent precision to justify such an assumption.
>
> Your perceptions and opinions may differ :)

Your assumption, IMHO, assigns a specific meaning to a word that is by far the least-common usage of the word -- lacking inherent precision. :)

The word "belief" is loaded. It's usage is unfortunate. I think it tends to associate the idea that evolution is "just a theory", which is also ironic because in science a theory is a pretty well established, almost fact, VS hypothesis.... from which a theory is derived.
I hate it when people call evolution a "belief".... 8-(

This discussion about "evolution" and various definitions is missing a crucial distinction, which is evident from your comments here.

The distinction is between the definition of "evolution" and the definition of "theory of evolution."

We can take D&D's definition of evolution as follows:

"EVOLUTION is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

Given this definition, evolution is an observational and biological fact. We can just see that this happens. There can be no reasonable dispute. One disagrees with it to his or her scientific peril. It is like the earth being round rather than flat.

"Theory of evolution" however, by definition goes much further. First, it is supposed to provide a level of explanation for the observed evolutionary facts as noted in the definition of evolution; including a proposed mechanism for such evolutionary processes. The "explanation" component is precisely what makes it a "theory." So, the question is "What is the theory of evolution?" Here, one is likely to propose either classical Darwinism, or modern Darwinism. In both cases, the "theoretical explanation" of evolution encompasses the concepts of (1) mutation; (2) replication; (3) natural selection; (4) adaptation; and (5) survival. Modern Darwinism merely substitutes the "gene" as the unit of selection, which basically means that evolution is fundamentally based upon changes in the genetics of a population, rather than changes in observable traits. (although, of course, they often correlate.)

O.K. Given the above definition of "theory of evolution," we can note that given a 21st Century view of evolutionary process, this theory is at best incomplete, and at worst false. We can argue this point later, if you want. But the point is that one can rationally argue against the "theory of evolution," as described above, while not being able to rationally argue against the fact of evolution!

To your post, then, "the theory of evolution" is very much "just a theory," whereas evolution itself is a fact.

This is also confirmed by the fact that it is unarguably true that the best scientific theories are "quantitative," and thus deductible, i.e. they are describable by mathematical equations, like Newton's equations of motion, Einstein's field equations of General Relativity, the equations of String Theory, or the equations of Quantum Field Theory. On the other hand, the "theory of evolution" is, and always has been, a "qualitative" theory, based solely on concepts, and devoid of mathematical precision. For some, this, of itself, would disqualify it as a genuine scientific theory.

Theories change as our knowledge of facts change.

Next.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2018 02:52AM by steve benson.

I generally agree with what you write here, Henry, except for a couple of related points.

First, scientific theories are approximations that must be continually refined. Rational people don't "believe" in theories; they accept them tentatively, until refinements lead to better theories. Anyone who "believes" in the theory of evolution does not understand the nature of scientific process.

Second, you are wrong to differentiate so starkly between what you call quantitative and qualitative scientific theories. Theories are a mixture of both characteristics. Newton's theories were approximations, good until Einstein devised a system that was a somewhat closer fit to reality. Moreover, Einstein never claimed that his "theories" were final or correct. He spent the rest of his life trying to improve them--and in some cases was confident that his theories would be overturned.

The allusion is of course to quantum mechanics, though quantum field theories would work as well. These are best guesses, acceptable to the extent that they explain phenomena better than competing theories. They may at this point be less refined than special and general relativity, but Einstein would have disputed that since he thought that relativity and quantum mechanics must be subsumed in a universal Grand Unifying Theory.

The notion that the theory of evolution is inferior (because qualitative) to physical theories (because quantitative) is wide of the mark. What matters isn't quantifiability so much as consonance with observed reality. The theory of evolution may have problems and areas of uncertainty, but are they more extensive than those in quantum field theory? Probably not. Is it accurate to say that evolution is not in practice verified, or falsified, by quantitative data (DNA, fossils, biochemistry, computer models) in much the same manner as physical theories? No, it is not.

Scientific theories are process, not definition. They are approximations. Evolutionary theory is a work in progress just like QM theories and, frankly, relativity.

"First, scientific theories are approximations that must be continually refined."

COMMENT: Agree. But, to what degree a given theory is a reliable, and verifiable "approximation" to reality is far better assessed when the theory is well-defined and quantifiable. Moreover, it is much easier to "refine" a quantifiable theory than one that is merely conceptual.
_____________________________________________

"Rational people don't "believe" in theories; they accept them tentatively, until refinements lead to better theories. Anyone who "believes" in the theory of evolution does not understand the nature of scientific process."

COMMENT: "Belief" is a psychological term that merely points to someone's psychological attitude in relation to some proposition. The statement, "Rational people don't believe in theories" is ludicrous. People, including scientists, have psychological attitudes towards propositions, including theories, which includes belief in some and disbelief in others. This has nothing to do with certainty; either psychological certainty or logical certainty.
_________________________________________

"Second, you are wrong to differentiate so starkly between what you call quantitative and qualitative scientific theories. Theories are a mixture of both characteristics. Newton's theories were approximations, good until Einstein devised a system that was a somewhat closer fit to reality. Moreover, Einstein never claimed that his "theories" were final or correct. He spent the rest of his life trying to improve them--and in some cases was confident that his theories would be overturned."

COMMMENT: I can agree that all theories have a conceptual element to them. However, mathematical theories are by definition more rigorous. That means that they are deductive and well-defined, at least ideally. When they are not, physicists judge them to be defective or incomplete to that extent, and work (mathematical) is then done in an attempt to sharpen them. A theory that is solely qualitative, or conceptual, is not as rigorous, not as well-defined, and often suffers accordingly, however intuitively appealing it may be.
The "theory of evolution" is a classic example of this. There are no equations of Darwinism, and people are all over the map as to how it should be interpreted, and what its application is in various contexts. On the other hand, although there are disagreements as to the metaphysical implications of general relativity, the equations which define the theory provide a clear and rigid framework from which to test its correlation with reality.

Finally, it is far easier to assess the relationship between theory and observed reality in quantifiable theories. That is because observed reality itself is quantifiable. As a simple example, is vision better understood scientifically by comparing what we see, e.g. red, with an object, e.g. a cloud; or by comparing the frequency of light as reflected from the physical (quantifiable) properties of the cloud that reflects such light. Which is more rigorous? Which is more scientific?
_____________________________________________

"The allusion is of course to quantum mechanics, though quantum field theories would work as well. These are best guesses, acceptable to the extent that they explain phenomena better than competing theories. They may at this point be less refined than special and general relativity, but Einstein would have disputed that since he thought that relativity and quantum mechanics must be subsumed in a universal Grand Unifying Theory."

COMMENT: I am not arguing that quantifiable theories are necessarily the last word. They still may or may not reflect reality when tested by experiment. My point is that with such theories, we know what we are talking about. There are, generally speaking, no conceptual issues that need further defining. For example, we laypersons can talk all day about the concept of space-time. By in physics it is a definite quantifiable concept that does not require conceptual haggling.
____________________________________________

"The notion that the theory of evolution is inferior (because qualitative) to physical theories (because quantitative) is wide of the mark. What matters isn't quantifiability so much as consonance with observed reality."

COMMENT: Well, it may still be true, as any theory may be, if one can define it sufficiently to assign it a truth value. So, ultimately, you are right; what matters is truth. But, defining a theory of evolution sufficiently so as to assign it a truth value is problematic, as we have seen over decades of discussing Darwin's theory. How do "mutations" occur? How do physical traits relate to genetic traits? What role does epi-genetics play? What is fitness? What triggers "natural selection?" When is an environmental factor relevant to evolutionary processes? What about group selection? All of these questions, and the endless controversy they generate emphasize the fact that the "theory of evolution" is poorly defined, and suffers from much conceptual confusion and a lack of scientific rigor.
_________________________________________

"The theory of evolution may have problems and areas of uncertainty, but are they more extensive than those in quantum field theory? Probably not."

COMMENT: Well, the problems are different. But, when a QFT is proposed, what it postulates is not controversial; it is all mathematics. What is controversial is whether it is true or not. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, does not get to the question of truth, because we cannot agree on what the theory even says, other than in a general way.
____________________________________________

"Is it accurate to say that evolution is not in practice verified, or falsified, by quantitative data (DNA, fossils, biochemistry, computer models) in much the same manner as physical theories? No, it is not."

COMMENT: First, as I noted above, evolution is verified, including quantitatively. But, the "theory of evolution," whatever that may be, is not well enough defined to verify or falsify it; and most certainly not mathematically. Again, there are no equations that define Darwinism, or the Modern Synthesis. We can use mathematics to investigate the fine points of evolution, i.e. how certain biochemical processes work to change genetic expression, etc. But, that does not create a "theory." It does not present any laws which explains how evolution works, other than the cause and effect relationships of biochemistry (reductionism).
____________________________________________

"Scientific theories are process, not definition. They are approximations. Evolutionary theory is a work in progress just like QM theories and, frankly, relativity."

COMMENT: O.K. But it is far easier to move forward in theoretical science, including theoretical biology, when you have a well-defined theoretical starting point. What is the well-defined theoretical starting point for evolutionary theory? It cannot be Darwinism, because we are still haggling over the concepts involved, and what they mean, and how they relate to each other. How can we get to natural laws without some rigorous mathematical underpinning?

Personally, I am quite suspicious that there is any "theory of evolution." Evolution just happens as a result of biochemistry, coupled with living organisms interacting with the environment. This now includes complex human interactions under a broad range of motivations. Maybe the explanation of evolution simply does not rise to the level of a theory.

Thanks for the clarification to this non scientist!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2018 02:49AM by steve benson.