Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[shunsui]

Biologists are not attacking the religious, on the contrary, we want to help you see that accepting new ideas does not mean that you have to reject your beliefs, they are separate entities and should remain that way forever.

I don't know, there's at least one Oxford biologist who's on record.

“The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.”

“One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”

“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”


Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


You might have caught him on The Simpson's last Sunday.

[video=youtube;7F1aFvmx8go]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1aFvmx8go[/video]

 

[HeavyHanded]

Biologists are not attacking the religious, on the contrary, we want to help you see that accepting new ideas does not mean that you have to reject your beliefs, they are separate entities and should remain that way forever.

YOU, not "religious whack jobs", are the reason why people are so uncomfortable with the Theory of Evolution. It is because of you that teaching evolution is attacked in so many schools around the world. If people would stop the high and mighty "science" preaching, people would start to see that new discoveries and advancements of scientific theory are nothing to be threatened by.

Outside the US there are very few if any countries where disbelief in evolution reaches such high percentages. Only in a handful of countries is evolution attacked with any success or vigor as a basic element of education. Those with a literal interpretation of the Bible assail evolution on the grounds it could lead to a weakening of belief in their religious communities. Note, these same people do not take issue with other scientific theories or findings as most of them are not a direct challenge to the Biblical account. I have not observed any sort of general distrust of science among the faithful, only evolution. Evolution has been attacked by religious institutions since it was set forth as a scientific theory. Opposition to it in this country has only grown as the evidence for it continues to accumulate. How many that discount evolution do so because the scientific underpinnings are too weak to inspire confidence, as opposed to a conflict with religious belief? Many of the most vocal supporters of evolution are not attacking religion, but their views are an attack against a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is enough, in the US, to trigger a backlash.

Amazingly this is leading not to an attack on scientific progress, but to an attack on public education. In Texas the GOP went so far as to formally oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills as it could erode faith based teaching. They might have a point. Belief in a higher power dwindles to 10% or so among the highest levels of scientific academia.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

 

[GWashington1732]

I don't know, there's at least one Oxford biologist who's on record.

And he's wrong, very wrong to do so. That is not how a scientist should act or speak, I don't care how smart he is, or how popular, or how many degrees from prestigious universities he has, or how good of a public speaker he is, if he can't stop acting that way, he needs to shut up. He's not helping anything.

Outside the US there are very few if any countries where disbelief in evolution reaches such high percentages. Only in a handful of countries is evolution attacked with any success or vigor as a basic element of education. Those with a literal interpretation of the Bible assail evolution on the grounds it could lead to a weakening of belief in their religious communities. Note, these same people do not take issue with other scientific theories or findings as most of them are not a direct challenge to the Biblical account. I have not observed any sort of general distrust of science among the faithful, only evolution. Evolution has been attacked by religious institutions since it was set forth as a scientific theory. Opposition to it in this country has only grown as the evidence for it continues to accumulate. How many that discount evolution do so because the scientific underpinnings are too weak to inspire confidence, as opposed to a conflict with religious belief? Many of the most vocal supporters of evolution are not attacking religion, but their views are an attack against a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is enough, in the US, to trigger a backlash.

Amazingly this is leading not to an attack on scientific progress, but to an attack on public education. In Texas the GOP went so far as to formally oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills as it could erode faith based teaching. They might have a point. Belief in a higher power dwindles to 10% or so among the highest levels of scientific academia.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

What's your point? Because some religious extremists attack evolution, it makes it okay to use evolution as a weapon against all religion? It's not okay, it's still wrong, and it's still not helping anything, you cannot make a case for using evolution as a weapon against religion, just stop. Using evolution as a weapon against religion is still the single most stupid thing you can do if you want people to think objectively about it. People need to stop doing it, no more "But, but but, they started it." I don't care who started it, it needs to stop. We may never convince fanatics to look at evolution objectively, that is an issue, but most of the religious people who are uncomfortable with evolution are so because people keep using it to attack their faith, they're not these extreme fundamentalists. I'll say it again, knock it of, it's not okay, no matter how you justify it, it's still wrong.

Let me try to get it to sink in this time, for everyone. Religion and Evolution do not have a thing to do with one another. Stop mixing them together, doing so is a setback, just stop doing it.

 

[HeavyHanded]

What's your point? Because some religious extremists attack evolution, it makes it okay to use evolution as a weapon against all religion? It's not okay, it's still wrong, and it's still not helping anything, you cannot make a case for using evolution as a weapon against religion, just stop. Using evolution as a weapon against religion is still the single most stupid thing you can do if you want people to think objectively about it. People need to stop doing it, no more "But, but but, they started it." I don't care who started it, it needs to stop. We may never convince fanatics to look at evolution objectively, that is an issue, but most of the religious people who are uncomfortable with evolution are so because people keep using it to attack their faith, they're not these extreme fundamentalists. I'll say it again, knock it of, it's not okay, no matter how you justify it, it's still wrong.

Let me try to get it to sink in this time, for everyone. Religion and Evolution do not have a thing to do with one another. Stop mixing them together, doing so is a setback, just stop doing it.

Again, I'm not seeing any sort of concerted attack on religion by proponents of evolution, far from it. So I'm not sure what you're point is. My point is that merely forwarding evolutionary theory is considered an attack by many people of a religious bent. One need not use evolution to pick apart the entire ball of wax, the application of any sort of critical thinking toward the bible is considered an attack, evolution being at the forefront.

but most of the religious people who are uncomfortable with evolution are so because people keep using it to attack their faith, they're not these extreme fundamentalists

There are plenty of individuals who are capable of reconciling evolution with their religious beliefs. I cannot imagine any of them harbor a literal interpretation of the Bible, not sure what your parameters are for describing an "extreme fundamentalist"? Not everyone that agrees with evolutionary theory needs to be an atheist or agnostic.

Religion and Evolution do not have a thing to do with one another. Stop mixing them together, doing so is a setback, just stop doing it.

I agree, trying to insert Creationism into public classrooms IS a setback. Individuals that hold a literal interpretation of the Bible (OT anyway) are not going to be swayed toward accepting evolution no matter how carefully you tiptoe around their beliefs, no matter how softly you suggest it - the two are diametrically opposed. Accepting one = rejecting the other. They understand this, not sure why you do not. Nearly half of all Americans when polled agree with Creationism and/or young earth Creationism.

Also, I apologize if I'm helping lead this conversation astray. Was simply following the thread...

 

[GWashington1732]

Again, I'm not seeing any sort of concerted attack on religion by proponents of evolution, far from it. So I'm not sure what you're point is. My point is that merely forwarding evolutionary theory is considered an attack by many people of a religious bent. One need not use evolution to pick apart the entire ball of wax, the application of any sort of critical thinking toward the bible is considered an attack, evolution being at the forefront.

If you don't see it, then you need to go back and read the rest of the thread. People who translate the bible literally are a small minority, and would factor slightly into the big picture if your ordinary religious person could see that evolution is not anything to be concerned with. People in this thread, and major spokespeople for evolution have repeatedly used evolution to take cheap shots at people's religions. This needs to stop, there is no justifying it, it's not alright, it's not helping. If nothing else, it gives your extremists, or whatever you want to call them, ammunition to rally support. It's stupid. Religion does not need to be discussed when discussing evolution at all, not on either side, it doesn't even need to be discussed when picking apart creationist arguments even though they are religious arguments, all you need to d is present evidence, don't mention the bible, don't bring their religion into it, don't give them more ammunition by acting like a total boob.

My point, just in case it was missed the first five times:
Do not berate, insult, belittle, or attack religion using evolution, don't even discuss it. That is the worst thing you can do if you actually care about this issue. Evolution has nothing at all to do with religion, if you leave religion out of the discussion, it will make most people more comfortable with it and eventually start to see it as what it is, a scientific achievement. Bringing religion into it is damaging and does nothing but drive wedges between people. Stop.

 

[Nixelplix]

I'm sorry, but I see more religious attacks on evolution than any "evolutionist" attacks on religion. It goes both ways. There are plenty of spiritual and religious people who agree with the findings of evolutionary studies, but the attacks and division mostly come from science deniers. They are the ones forcing the issue.

 

[Codger_64]

Actually, the "issue", if indeed there is one, has been forced on children in public schools for years, often, and progressivly more so, to the exclusion of any alternate view on the topic. And yes, at that level it is being taught as absolute proven fact, accept it and answer the test in that manner or fail.

 

[Nixelplix]

Evolution is a fact. It should be taught in schools. Religion should be taught in churches or at home.

 

[Nixelplix]

Undeniable evidence for evolution, explained by the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/197367/evolution/49850/Molecular-biology

"The field of molecular biology provides the most detailed and convincing evidence available for biological evolution. In its unveiling of the nature of DNA and the workings of organisms at the level of enzymes and other protein molecules, it has shown that these molecules hold information about an organism’s ancestry. This has made it possible to reconstruct evolutionary events that were previously unknown and to confirm and adjust the view of events already known. The precision with which these events can be reconstructed is one reason the evidence from molecular biology is so compelling. Another reason is that molecular evolution has shown all living organisms, from bacteria to humans, to be related by descent from common ancestors.

A remarkable uniformity exists in the molecular components of organisms—in the nature of the components as well as in the ways in which they are assembled and used. In all bacteria, plants, animals, and humans, the DNA comprises a different sequence of the same four component nucleotides, and all the various proteins are synthesized from different combinations and sequences of the same 20 amino acids, although several hundred other amino acids do exist. The genetic code by which the information contained in the DNA of the cell nucleus is passed on to proteins is virtually everywhere the same. Similar metabolic pathways—sequences of biochemical reactions (see metabolism)—are used by the most diverse organisms to produce energy and to make up the cell components.

This unity reveals the genetic continuity and common ancestry of all organisms. There is no other rational way to account for their molecular uniformity when numerous alternative structures are equally likely. The genetic code serves as an example. Each particular sequence of three nucleotides in the nuclear DNA acts as a pattern for the production of exactly the same amino acid in all organisms. This is no more necessary than it is for a language to use a particular combination of letters to represent a particular object. If it is found that certain sequences of letters—planet, tree, woman—are used with identical meanings in a number of different books, one can be sure that the languages used in those books are of common origin.

Genes and proteins are long molecules that contain information in the sequence of their components in much the same way as sentences of the English language contain information in the sequence of their letters and words. The sequences that make up the genes are passed on from parents to offspring and are identical except for occasional changes introduced by mutations. As an illustration, one may assume that two books are being compared. Both books are 200 pages long and contain the same number of chapters. Closer examination reveals that the two books are identical page for page and word for word, except that an occasional word—say, one in 100—is different. The two books cannot have been written independently; either one has been copied from the other, or both have been copied, directly or indirectly, from the same original book. Similarly, if each component nucleotide of DNA is represented by one letter, the complete sequence of nucleotides in the DNA of a higher organism would require several hundred books of hundreds of pages, with several thousand letters on each page. When the “pages” (or sequences of nucleotides) in these “books” (organisms) are examined one by one, the correspondence in the “letters” (nucleotides) gives unmistakable evidence of common origin.

The two arguments presented above are based on different grounds, although both attest to evolution. Using the alphabet analogy, the first argument says that languages that use the same dictionary—the same genetic code and the same 20 amino acids—cannot be of independent origin. The second argument, concerning similarity in the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA (and thus the sequence of amino acids in the proteins), says that books with very similar texts cannot be of independent origin.

The evidence of evolution revealed by molecular biology goes even farther. The degree of similarity in the sequence of nucleotides or of amino acids can be precisely quantified. For example, in humans and chimpanzees, the protein molecule called cytochrome c, which serves a vital function in respiration within cells, consists of the same 104 amino acids in exactly the same order. It differs, however, from the cytochrome c of rhesus monkeys by 1 amino acid, from that of horses by 11 additional amino acids, and from that of tuna by 21 additional amino acids. The degree of similarity reflects the recency of common ancestry. Thus, the inferences from comparative anatomy and other disciplines concerning evolutionary history can be tested in molecular studies of DNA and proteins by examining their sequences of nucleotides and amino acids. (See below DNA and protein as informational macromolecules.)

The authority of this kind of test is overwhelming; each of the thousands of genes and thousands of proteins contained in an organism provides an independent test of that organism’s evolutionary history. Not all possible tests have been performed, but many hundreds have been done, and not one has given evidence contrary to evolution. There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms."

 

[Nixelplix]

A summary of the evidence human chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosomes 2p & 2q gives us:

http://cwgk.blogspot.com/2009/04/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about.html

"I'm sure you've heard that humans and chimpanzees have the vast majority of our DNA in common. You're also probably not convinced by this argument ("I don't understand...so what if two organisms share the same genes? How does this prove that they came from the same lineage?"). But for now, forget about how very similar we are in our genetic sequence and let's focus on our chromosomes.

If you need a refresher, remember that the number of chromosomes a species has tends to stay the same from generation to generation. A fruit fly has four autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes; it's offspring will all have the same number. What about us humans? We have 23 pairs of chromosomes; 46 chromosomes in total. If you took a karyotype - that's a display of all the chromosomes in a cell - of an ape (I know you're skeptical of humans being primates, but lets call 'em primates for now) you'll notice something different from human chromosomes: there's two extra! Apes have 48 chromosomes.

You might wonder how this proves we evolved from an ancestral primate. You might even suspect that it is evidence against such a claim, since an ancestral primate would have had 48 chromosomes, and that number would have likely stayed constant down the generations, while in us, it's different. Well, this information alone does not prove much. But let's take a look at what the genome sequence shows us.

The sequence of the human genome showed an interesting fact about our Chromosome 2. The area around the very centre of chromosome 2 (known as a centromere) looked an awful lot like telomeric DNA. Telomeres are the regions at the very ends of chromosomes; what were they doing in the centre of chromosome 2? Furthermore, each arm of Chromosome 2 had what appeared to be their own centromeres. Chromosome 2 was looking to be quite an oddity. No other human chromosome displayed these characteristics.

Once the chimpanzee genome was sequenced, things got even more interesting. One of the chimpanzee's chromosomes was pretty much identical to the top half of the human Chromosome 2. Another chimpanzee chromosome was nearly identical to the bottom half of Chromosome 2. On top of this, the banding pattern of these two chromosomes (as well as the same chromosomes in many other species of primates) was a complete match to the banding pattern of Chromosome 2.

Coincidence? Not likely. What this is, is evidence of a chromosomal fusion. An ancestral primate, ancestor to humans, chimpanzees and apes, had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Eventually, this lineage diverged: apes and chimps went one way and we humans evolved along a separate path. But something interesting happened in the lineage that was to become humans: the two extra chromosomes from that ancestor fused together end to end to become human Chromosome 2. This is why our Chromosome 2 has what appears to be telomeres in its centre, and what appears to be two extra centromeres, one on each arm.

The only way to explain Chromosome 2's odd characteristics and similarity to other primates is with a chromosomal fusion. And the only way this could be possible is if we were descended from a common primate ancestor."

 

[Codger_64]

My house and Al GOre's mansion in Nashville have many common building materials in them. It is not a foregone conclusion that his house evolved from mine though mine predates his by half a century. We do evidently share DNA with some fossil remains of other species. If I am correct, we also share some buliding materials with some plants, bacteria and even pigs.

It really is of no real need to convince me or anyone that evolution is the only answer, especially to the total exclusion of all religious explanations. There is no irrefutable proof of one species becoming another. There are tantilizing theories and much speculation. The best we can observe is changes within a few species. Like man becoming taller since the 1600's. Like lizards and moths changing dominant colors.

 

[Modifier]

A summary of the evidence human chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosomes 2p & 2q gives us:

http://cwgk.blogspot.com/2009/04/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about.html

"I'm sure you've heard that humans and chimpanzees have the vast majority of our DNA in common. You're also probably not convinced by this argument ("I don't understand...so what if two organisms share the same genes? How does this prove that they came from the same lineage?"). But for now, forget about how very similar we are in our genetic sequence and let's focus on our chromosomes.

If you need a refresher, remember that the number of chromosomes a species has tends to stay the same from generation to generation. A fruit fly has four autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes; it's offspring will all have the same number. What about us humans? We have 23 pairs of chromosomes; 46 chromosomes in total. If you took a karyotype - that's a display of all the chromosomes in a cell - of an ape (I know you're skeptical of humans being primates, but lets call 'em primates for now) you'll notice something different from human chromosomes: there's two extra! Apes have 48 chromosomes.

You might wonder how this proves we evolved from an ancestral primate. You might even suspect that it is evidence against such a claim, since an ancestral primate would have had 48 chromosomes, and that number would have likely stayed constant down the generations, while in us, it's different. Well, this information alone does not prove much. But let's take a look at what the genome sequence shows us.

The sequence of the human genome showed an interesting fact about our Chromosome 2. The area around the very centre of chromosome 2 (known as a centromere) looked an awful lot like telomeric DNA. Telomeres are the regions at the very ends of chromosomes; what were they doing in the centre of chromosome 2? Furthermore, each arm of Chromosome 2 had what appeared to be their own centromeres. Chromosome 2 was looking to be quite an oddity. No other human chromosome displayed these characteristics.

Once the chimpanzee genome was sequenced, things got even more interesting. One of the chimpanzee's chromosomes was pretty much identical to the top half of the human Chromosome 2. Another chimpanzee chromosome was nearly identical to the bottom half of Chromosome 2. On top of this, the banding pattern of these two chromosomes (as well as the same chromosomes in many other species of primates) was a complete match to the banding pattern of Chromosome 2.

Coincidence? Not likely. What this is, is evidence of a chromosomal fusion. An ancestral primate, ancestor to humans, chimpanzees and apes, had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Eventually, this lineage diverged: apes and chimps went one way and we humans evolved along a separate path. But something interesting happened in the lineage that was to become humans: the two extra chromosomes from that ancestor fused together end to end to become human Chromosome 2. This is why our Chromosome 2 has what appears to be telomeres in its centre, and what appears to be two extra centromeres, one on each arm.

The only way to explain Chromosome 2's odd characteristics and similarity to other primates is with a chromosomal fusion. And the only way this could be possible is if we were descended from a common primate ancestor."

What you need to know about chromosome 2 fusion model :
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/chromosome-2-fusion-model.html

 

[Nixelplix]

Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology. It is a solid core running through all modern research from molecular biology to genomics to ecology. Where once biology was a disjointed group of subjects whose main role seemed to be just to classify life into neat categories, it is now at the forefront of scientific research. Indeed, the study of heredity - genetics - is said to be leading mankind into a biotechnological golden age with ever-more potent pharmaceuticals, cleaner fuels and improved crops.
.
It is a fact. There has not been any part of science more corroborated as true than evolution. There is no evidence for any religious explanation.

Here is a fossil of a whale ancestor. I wonder what those rear legs are doing there?

At all levels evolution has been physically observed. Everything from new bio-synthetic pathways and speciation to variations of features in a population due to natural selection.

Even in the short time humans have been here we have changed, through selection, wolves into dogs and teosinte in to corn and we have caused the emergence of pesticide resistant insects and even the formation of a bacteria which eats nylon, something which has only existed for 50 years. Even the humble banana which ray comfort claimed was the "atheists nightmare" only exists because we cultivated it. Humans invented the banana through selection.

 

[Nixelplix]

What you need to know about chromosome 2 fusion model :
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/chromosome-2-fusion-model.html

That is from a evolution denier's website, and not a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Modifier]

That is from a evolution denier's website, and not a peer-reviewed journal.

It's my own blog, If you have a point, Go ahead.

 

[Modifier]

That is from a evolution denier's website, and not a peer-reviewed journal.

It's my own blog, If you have a point, Go ahead.

 

[Modifier]

Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology. It is a solid core running through all modern research from molecular biology to genomics to ecology. Where once biology was a disjointed group of subjects whose main role seemed to be just to classify life into neat categories, it is now at the forefront of scientific research. Indeed, the study of heredity - genetics - is said to be leading mankind into a biotechnological golden age with ever-more potent pharmaceuticals, cleaner fuels and improved crops.
.
It is a fact. There has not been any part of science more corroborated as true than evolution. There is no evidence for any religious explanation.

Here is a fossil of a whale ancestor. I wonder what those rear legs are doing there?

At all levels evolution has been physically observed. Everything from new bio-synthetic pathways and speciation to variations of features in a population due to natural selection.

Even in the short time humans have been here we have changed, through selection, wolves into dogs and teosinte in to corn and we have caused the emergence of pesticide resistant insects and even the formation of a bacteria which eats nylon, something which has only existed for 50 years. Even the humble banana which ray comfort claimed was the "atheists nightmare" only exists because we cultivated it. Humans invented the banana through selection.

Do you know the name of this creature ?

 

[Nixelplix]

Do you know the name of this creature ?

Dorudon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Al-Hitan

 

[liamstrain]

My house and Al GOre's mansion in Nashville have many common building materials in them. It is not a foregone conclusion that his house evolved from mine though mine predates his by half a century. We do evidently share DNA with some fossil remains of other species. If I am correct, we also share some buliding materials with some plants, bacteria and even pigs.

Houses do not breed.

And yes, we do share DNA with many other species - because all species are interconnected.

Teach science in a science class. Teach religion in a religion class. Don't mix up the two.

 

[Modifier]

Dorudon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Al-Hitan

The name of this creature is "Basilosaurus" (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/a-terrific-popular-article-on-the-evolution-of-whales/basilosaurus-entire/)

Why It can't be ancestor of whales:
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740269-notes-on-evolution-of-whales/?p=1270706