Evolution - some questions

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My response is usually "If you were born from your parents, why are your parents still alive?"

Personally i like the "If Americans came from European's then why are there still European people?"

seamus wrote: »

There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

It's because of this very well-known image/idea:


When you get a summary of evolution in school or college, or anywhere basically, you get the above image. Which basically shows what is clearly a chimpanzee, morphing into a human being. If this diagram is not accompanied with the "common ancestor" discussion, then the person is immediately going to assume that we came from chimpanzees, which in turn leads to an obvious question: Why did we change and the chimpanzee didn't?

I wouldn't level criticism at the people who ask the question. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm glad that some people look at the image and manage to see a very obvious flaw in it, all on their own. When presented as an visual explanation of evolution, it needs volumes to explain exactly what's being described. But it's typically presented as an description of evolution all in itself.

Yeah, that classic image creates the notion that there aren't countless 'evolutionary dead ends'. Should be a compulsory parallel line ending in a gorilla too.

Galvasean

phutyle wrote: »

Someone asked me that in work during the week. I answered the question, and someone else said "So, do you really believe that we evolved from monkeys?" - as if such a thing was on a par with the really, really mad end of Scientology or something.

Sometimes the very opposite can happen. Around the time of the 'Ida' publication I was out drinking with friends and friends of friends. Someone remarked, "Did you hear they found the missing link". I quickly retorted, "Well, not really". Cue everyone looking awkward because they thought I was about to turn creationist on them.
I went on to explain the taxonomy of Darwinius and it's place in the evolutionary tree in more detail. All was well.

music producer

Yes, what could be more illogical than not marching blindly in lockstep with a man (Dawkins) whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...

music producer

music producer wrote: »

Yes, what could be more illogical than not marching blindly in lockstep with a man (Dawkins) whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...

so's your post

robindch

music producer wrote: »

whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...

I take it you haven't read page one of The Selfish Gene in which Dawkins explains why he chose those precise words, and how so many people misunderstand them because they haven't read or understood the book?

music producer

Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend. I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.

MagicMarker

music producer wrote: »

Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend. I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.

*looks at location*

*adds to ignore list*

music producer

*carries on with duties of the day, crestfallen*

liamw

music producer wrote: »

Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend. I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.

So you know what Dawkin's intended with the title, but you don't accept it?

kowloon

seamus wrote: »

It's because of this very well-known image/idea:

Just because I have a beard and would very much like a spear doesn't make me less evolved. The end guy should be holding a TPS report and a latte. .

I don't have much to add to the original OP except 'Inorganic Amino acids', pretty sure there's no such thing. Open to correction though.

robindch

music producer wrote: »

But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend.

Dawkins used the word "selfish" provocatively and in a very specific way which is basically the central point of his book. He also explains, as above on page one, exactly what it does not mean. And he does it with as much grace as one can when defending himself against people like Mary Midgely who's made something of a career for herself in misrepresenting Dawkins view:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/20/religion-philosophy-hobbes-dawkins-selfishness

music producer wrote: »

Point well taken.

I'm not so sure -- would you not open the book (or ask here) and find out what he does mean and judge him on that?

sponsoredwalk

kowloon wrote: »

I don't have much to add to the original OP except 'Inorganic Amino acids', pretty sure there's no such thing. Open to correction though.

In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book
Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism,
" to describe a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming—in
contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported
fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole." This is
different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of
molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry
of life.
link

"To make a living cell requires matter, as well as free energy. DNA, RNA,
and protein are composed of just six elements: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus."
Page 13

Proteins are biochemical compounds consisting of one or more polypeptides
typically folded into a globular or fibrous form, facilitating a biological
function. A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids
bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino
groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a
protein is defined by the sequence of a gene, which is encoded in the
genetic code.
link

Carbon holds the whole thing together!

Roger Hassenforder

as we know it!


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

Dades

^^ Not mentioned often enough in my book!

Kivaro

Dades wrote: »

^^ Not mentioned often enough in my book!

You've got a book too.

All these books. I've got to write me a book .......

Galvasean

MagicMarker wrote: »

*looks at location*

*adds to ignore list*

On the contrary, I think it's great that we have someone from lands afar to debate with.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

It's because of this very well-known image/idea:

+1 I can't abide that image and those like it for all sorts of reasons. One biggie is how inaccurate it is, though it being linear it's very nature is inaccuracy. The confusion is brings people another. The other biggie is how as we evolve we get more upright with an almost moral tone attached to that. See the primitives, see them bent over. Problem is they weren't. The chap immediately after the chimp(and there's a huge gap of stuff missing) was as upright as you or me. It's amazing to me that the image of the short brutish shambling bent over "caveman" is still so current. All based on one skeleton of a very arthritic and worn out old man and Victorian moral prejudice and perception of our ancestors. For all the leap forward away from the Judeochristian mindset of us, Sapiens being the "pinnacle", they hung on to that aspect and still do today, though don't see the link as much.

zico10

seamus wrote: »

There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

It's because of this very well-known image/idea:

This seems more like supposition, than a valid reason to me.

Despite its inaccuracies, I think most people's reasons for refuting/questioning evolution, are not arrived at by what they see in this picture.

HUNK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Another nice vid on evolution. Talks about the basics and common misconceptions.

Roger Hassenforder

ironically, and ad for jesus popped up with that vid

HUNK

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

ironically, and ad for jesus popped up with that vid

omg n00b http://adblockplus.org/en/

Roger Hassenforder

i'm mortified
I'll wear sackcloth and smear ashes on my forehead as a token of humilation

Wibbs

And self flagellate while you're at it. Don't forget the whips.

Zombrex

music producer wrote: »

Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend.

Hence why he didn't stop at the title ....

seamus

zico10 wrote: »

Despite its inaccuracies, I think most people's reasons for refuting/questioning evolution, are not arrived at by what they see in this picture.

I was referring to the specific question of "Why are there still monkeys", not to other questions/criticisms of evolution.

The question "Why are there still monkeys" comes from a lack of understanding of evolution rather than someone who has considered the concept in its entirety and come up with some criticisms or refutations. Even if you do not agree with evolution, you would not ask the question "Why are there still monkeys", if you understood it.

Roger Hassenforder

even the RC church is coming around to evolution, although have had to move their goalposts considerably to accomodate the evidence. But their trailblazer Cardinal Schönborn has missed the whole point of evolution, suggesting we have now arrived at pinnacle of the whole process, us.

Galvasean

I don't see how anyone could see us as a 'pinnacle' of evolution. Plenty of room for improvement.

music producer

Dawkins title implies for some who read it purpose, motivation, or some sort of conscious or chosen direction in evolutionary development. We all know this is impossible, as does Dawkins.

Roger Hassenforder

if you think we're glorified coral reefs than the title makes perfect sense.

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

it is always good to seek understanding of such an important scientific theory such as evolution.

it is always good to seek understanding of such an important scientific theory -- but it is is unscientific to express such an important scientific theory in terms of unscientific beliefs - i hope Wick you will find cure soon

Roger Hassenforder

zico10

seamus wrote: »

I was referring to the specific question of "Why are there still monkeys", not to other questions/criticisms of evolution.

The question "Why are there still monkeys" comes from a lack of understanding of evolution rather than someone who has considered the concept in its entirety and come up with some criticisms or refutations. Even if you do not agree with evolution, you would not ask the question "Why are there still monkeys", if you understood it.

Fair enough, but I think a lack of understanding of evolution has little to do with a person asking the question, "Why are there still monkeys?". Whether it be for religious reasons or a belief in the notion that humans are 'better' than monkeys, the type of person who would ask this question, more often than not, has no interest in finding out anything about evolution. Tell them to research the topic and the answer is usually along the lines of a blunt "I don't need to, I know what I believe."

Dades

There are two types of people who don't accept evolution.

(1) Those who simply don't understand it, and/or
(2) Those that don't want to.

That is all.

nozzferrahhtoo

FrankAmazing wrote: »

To those who ridiculed me; it is that arrogance, snide posturing and ''witty'' supreme stance which lends itself to the stereotypical views that people hold of atheists

You will have to forgive some people, they are so used to hearing the questions you asked coming from creationists on this forum… creationists who think they are not questions but actually „knock down“ arguments against evolution… that many of them tend to jump the gun and become aggressive by knee jerk reaction. If people poke a dog 1000 times out of cruelty, then the vet who has to poke him for pure reasons will still get bitten fairly often.

Although I am not faulting you for this, so do not take it the wrong way… it probably did not help that you chose to ask your questions in the religion section and the atheism forum. Maybe you might consider posting them in the Biology forum for example?

Again do not get me wrong, I am not saying you are not welcome here. I just think you might find asking biology questions in a biology forum more enlightening. The forum as you said SEEMS less active but I have not seen many questions there go unanswered when people do ask them. Theists may have made evolution the battle ground of choice against atheism, but evolution is not an atheist subject per se.

However out of necessity, or just pure interest, many of us here do have a strong knowledge on the subject. Do you feel your questions have been answered or would you like to ask new ones, or go deeper into any of the ones thus far answered? Just say the word and I will try, but I do not want to spend time answering anything you feel has been answered sufficiently already.

Sarky wrote: »

The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude

The thing is, if you are going to form an impression of someone it might be worth getting the facts right first Dawkins for example never said the thing you just quoted. Dawkins was actually quoting someone else, in a conversation with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it was done jokingly.

Strangely most of the things people call Dawkins rude about tend to be things he never actually said. In this case the quote was from an editor from New Scientist.

Link here for evidence. If anything it is a good study of ensuring one has ones facts right before coming to a conclusion, especially when the conclusion is on someones character from second hand reports.

music producer wrote: »

But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend.

There is good reason why people say "Never judge a book by its cover". Not only can you not read too much into a title... especially given the author had to write an entire book to explain it.... but often the title of a book, and the cover, are not in the control of the author but the publishing company. For example(s) Dawkins TV show "The root of all evil" was not named by him but the production company and the sub title of Christopher Hitchens book "God is not great" which was "How religion poisons everything" was not actually his choice either but the publisher.

A third good reason is that if you read only the title of the book, come on to a forum of knowledgeable people like this one, and start harping on as if you know what you are talking about... you will quickly have your ass placed on a plate and served up to you and have yourself left looking silly.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

it is always good to seek understanding of such an important scientific theory -- but it is is unscientific to express such an important scientific theory in terms of unscientific beliefs - i hope Wick you will find cure soon

Clearly your sin consumes you and blinds you dead one. I can only help you if you are prepared to seek truth and forgiveness.

zico10

Dades wrote: »

There are two types of people who don't accept evolution.

(1) Those who simply don't understand it, and/or
(2) Those that don't want to.

That is all.

Not understanding something doesn't equate to not accepting it. I don't understood Einstein's theory of relativity, it doesn't mean I don't accept it.

zico10

zico10 wrote: »

Not understanding something doesn't equate to not accepting it. I don't understood Einstein's theory of relativity, it doesn't mean I don't accept it.

that's not what he was saying at all

Zombrex

zico10 wrote: »

Not understanding something doesn't equate to not accepting it. I don't understood Einstein's theory of relativity, it doesn't mean I don't accept it.

It doesn't, but not accepting something can be due to not understanding it, which is what Dades actually said.

music producer

Dades wrote: »

There are two types of people who don't accept evolution.

(1) Those who simply don't understand it, and/or
(2) Those that don't want to.

That is all.

I believe I understand what you're saying. There is only one possible viewpoint on this matter - yours.

MagicMarker

music producer wrote: »

I believe I understand what you're saying. There is only one possible viewpoint on this matter - yours.

There are loads of other viewpoints, but they'd be wrong.

Is this your way of telling us you don't accept evolution?

zico10

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't, but not accepting something can be due to not understanding it, which is what Dades actually said.

Looking at his post again I see that. Apologies, should have read it more carefully first time round.

mikhail

music producer wrote: »

I believe I understand what you're saying. There is only one possible viewpoint on this matter - yours.

HUNK

dead one wrote: »

it is always good to seek understanding of such an important scientific theory -- but it is is unscientific to express such an important scientific theory in terms of unscientific beliefs - i hope Wick you will find cure soon

music producer wrote: »

I believe I understand what you're saying. There is only one possible viewpoint on this matter - yours.

*sigh

music producer

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are loads of other viewpoints, but they'd be wrong.

Is this your way of telling us you don't accept evolution?

I haven't landed yet. I'm definitely a believer in the Supreme Being, but I would distance myself from many who would generally be on my side of the fence.

I was intrigued some years ago reading Gerald Schroeder's "The Science Of God." He is, broadly speaking, a theistic evolutionist, believing God built into the fabric of the universe the information that led to the development of life.

Perhaps the atheism & agnosticism forum prefers believers go elsewhere? I'm rather new here. Candidly, I do find it laughable when someone attempts to close the door on alternate viewpoints by simply stating they are right, and that is the end of the matter, which is what led to my gently sarcastic remark.

robindch

music producer wrote: »

There is only one possible viewpoint on this matter - yours.

No. Dades is basically pointing out that people who reject evolution do so for one of two reasons -- either (a) intellectually (because they don't understand it and that's fair enough, one does need to put in the time needed to understand this from reliable sources) or (b) emotionally (because they think it's a slur against the respect they feel they're due, it conflicts with some religious story they read somewhere or some other specious reason).

music producer wrote: »

I'm rather new here. Candidly, I do find it laughable when someone attempts to close the door on alternate viewpoints by simply stating they are right, and that is the end of the matter, which is what led to my gently sarcastic remark.

Dades did not say that evolution was right. He did make a statement about why people reject it.

MagicMarker

music producer wrote: »

I haven't landed yet. I'm definitely a believer in the Supreme Being, but I would distance myself from many who would generally be on my side of the fence.

I was intrigued some years ago reading Gerald Schroeder's "The Science Of God." He is, broadly speaking, a theistic evolutionist, believing God built into the fabric of the universe the information that led to the development of life.

Perhaps the atheism & agnosticism forum prefers believers go elsewhere? I'm rather new here. Candidly, I do find it laughable when someone attempts to close the door on alternate viewpoints by simply stating they are right, and that is the end of the matter, which is what led to my gently sarcastic remark.

Everyone is welcome in the A&A forum, but if you're going to argue that the sky is purple then people will just highlight how wrong you are.

music producer

HUNK wrote: »

*sigh

I like it. Perhaps a minor disclaimer - "science" has been wrong on occasion in the past, and continues to evolve, change, rethink and occasionally change "it's" mind.

An example even a music producer understands: the sub-atomic landscape looks nothing like the microcosmic rotating mini-solar systems I grew up learning about. Rather puzzling that it took so long for education in the sciences to catch up with reality on that one.

nozzferrahhtoo

music producer wrote: »

An example even a music producer understands: the sub-atomic landscape looks nothing like the microcosmic rotating mini-solar systems I grew up learning about. Rather puzzling that it took so long for education in the sciences to catch up with reality on that one.

I can clear up that "puzzle" for you easily. What you grew up learning about is not an "error" but how we have chosen to educate our children. We do not tell them the full whole truth at that age, its massively complicated and they could likely not handle it.

The way we teach the atomic structure, and many other subjects right across the curriculum is, in essence, a form of "structured lying". We teach at the lowest level a very simplistic view of the atom, which is what you refer to. When you you go deeper into it during the Higher Level Leaving Cert courses you find out this is not 100% true and you learn another more complicated model.

In college you learn another even more complicated model again. And so on as you specialse more and more and you find out that the atom is not a solar system of evenly spaced orbiting particles, but more of a mesh cloud of probability of a particle being in that cloud, in a position, at any given time.

I am not saying science has not made and corrected errors. It would not be science if it did not. Science is a self correcting methodology. However the "error" you describe is not an error, but a teaching methodology that was designed that way for very specific teaching reasons.

music producer

MagicMarker wrote: »

Everyone is welcome in the A&A forum, but if you're going to argue that the sky is purple then people will just highlight how wrong you are.

The colour of the sky is an excellent metaphor, since the sky isn't really blue anyway.

robindch

music producer wrote: »

the sub-atomic landscape looks nothing like the microcosmic rotating mini-solar systems I grew up learning about. Rather puzzling that it took so long for education in the sciences to catch up with reality on that one.

There is so much wrong with those two sentences, I really don't know where to start (though nozzferrahhtoo's made a good stab at it).

music producer wrote: »

"science" has been wrong on occasion in the past, and continues to evolve, change, rethink and occasionally change "it's" mind.

That's a bit like saying that you don't trust road maps or dictionaries because they're updated all the time.