Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[Homie]

It's 2:15 AM. I'm going to bed. I'm also unsubscribing. I forgot how much I hate these threads, it brings out the worst in people. Which ironically is why I opened this thread in the first place: To understand why people go about this topic with such fervor, and why everybody has a strong opinion on it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, if you you believe dinosaurs became distinct because of evolution, and somebody else believes it was because a supervolcano wiped them out or something else entirely, does it really matter? Does it effect progress? Would the toaster oven not be invented had there not been the ToE?

Okay, let's predict what the next major medical invention will be. And let's predict whether this invention could exist without the inventors understanding any physics discovered in the last 60 years (which put the nails in the coffin of deciding whether we live on an old Earth in an older Universe), any biology discovered in the last 35 years (where we found genetic info being added), etc.

What're you going to do, use civil engineering advances to figure out a medical intervention?

 

[Gogf]

No, for two reasons:
1. You didn't answer the question, you gave me just another unspecific "answer" like the first one.
2. Secondly, in the post where I replied to Eran and stated what I believed, I also stated that I would not respond to posts that I know there will come nothing good of. I recognize those kinds of posts, and I no longer indulge the counter-poster with a heated, low-brow debate.

I told you, I can't make a list of practical applications of evolution. If that's not an acceptable answer to you, then you really have no business debating, because you're not going to accept anything.

How would answering my questions result in a "low-brow" debate, especially one that is any lower-brow than saying "you can't prove evolution because you can't prove the past! ha!"?

You claim to believe in the literal truth of the bible and that "the word of God is forever," yet you choose to ignore some of the morally repugnant parts of the so-called "good book." That very relevant to this discussion, because this is the same book that is the basis for all of your evolution-denying.

 

[warpus]

Relevance? Are you claiming I don't value reason? Last time I checked, reason was not a synonym for science. Although reason is implemented in science doesn't mean you can use the words interchangeably.

Reason is one of the main foundations of science. Science is built on the idea that reason is a good thing.

Reason is one of the reasons (ha) why I value the scientific method so much, which was your question, I think. It is based on reason, and I value reason. Thus, I value the scientific method, by extension.

There are at least 5 pages of this discussion that I missed.

I don't view this as a pissing contest.. that doesn't teach anyone anything. This isn't supposed to be faith vs science.

All I'm saying is that reason is something to be valued highly. It is very useful when it comes to understanding the world around us.

Faith is important too, but it's important for other things. It's important for spirituality.. for your mental health.. for definition of you as a person. For internal knowledge.

In any case, it is my opinion that if you're going to attack science - and you want to be taken seriously.. you have to use science.

Science is reason and its main purpose is to figure out how the world works.. so if you're going to challenge the 'how', it only makes sense to use science. Attempting to fight science with faith is like trying to put on your socks with ice cream. They are just two completely different things designed (or evolved, or created by God, or whatever you believe, in religion's case) for completely different purposes.

If there is a spiritual dilemma, say.. maybe some sort of inner ethnical question that requires meditation, prayer, or some sort of self-reflection.. you're not going to use calculus to solve a problem like that. That's the wrong tool for that job.

I wouldn't defend The Theory of Evolution at all if it was being attacked with a valid scientific theory... a falsifiable theory. I would sit and watch to see what happens and what we figure out. I would be excited!

But if somebody starts putting on their socks using ice cream, I just get upset.. that's just a waste of perfectly good ice cream.

 

[Perfection]

Again, if you you believe dinosaurs became distinct because of evolution, and somebody else believes it was because a supervolcano wiped them out or something else entirely, does it really matter? Does it effect progress? Would the toaster oven not be invented had there not been the ToE?

ToE matters. It provides a very important perspective on biological systems. While this is a soft help it certainly is a significant one and an important one.

And I'd also say that increasing human knowledge itself is progress.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For Homie

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

You are welcome.

 

[Stapel]

Give me a break. What makes these scientists more than human? They're not! The piltdown-man isn't the only example of reputable scientists hoaxing to prove evolution. Not that that's their real motive, their real motive is gaining respect and recognition for making great finds, and their human nature leads them to cheat to achieve it.
I'm not saying scientists are less trustable than regular folk, but they aren't more trustable either. It annoys me that people seem to elevate "Science" to the point of worship, when really it is nothing else than people trying to figure out nature.

I was trying to point out that evolution scientists do not seek to debunk religion (they usually don't care). A scientist will NOT see the evo-crea-debate. As I expaliend, they have nothing to do with eachother.

I seriously question your assumption that scientists' real motive is to gain respect. Some do, others don't...
The biggest incentive for a scientist is curiousity. Human nature makes us wanting to know how stuff works!
And so far, the only scientific theory we have, is evolution. We might not able to prove it 100%, but all the evidence we have points that way.

 

[El_Machinae]

More importantly, it gives the opportunity to predict.

Would we have been able to know to look for additional centromeres in the human chromosome if we didn't suspect a common descent from apes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwuOpZUDJIA

It's as necessary as a Theory of Gravity. I mean, before we sent landers to Mars, we expected there to be rocks on the ground and were hoping for evidence of river beds. Why? Because we already expected that gravity would pull things towards the centre of Mars. Because we had a Theory of Gravity.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

We have a Theory of Gravity?

 

[Atlas14]

Again, if you you believe dinosaurs became distinct because of evolution, and somebody else believes it was because a supervolcano wiped them out or something else entirely, does it really matter? Does it effect progress? Would the toaster oven not be invented had there not been the ToE?

Evolution merely implies change over time. Period.

The toaster would not have been invented if the eukaryotic cell never changed to incorporate different organelles into its matrix that allow it to function on a different level than bacterial cells. If the eukaryotic cell never changed to produce specialized membranes to protect itself from outside chemicals, you would not have your toaster oven invented. If the eukaryotic cell never changed to produce different proteins for itself, you would not have your toaster oven here today. If cells never changed to be able to specialize, or differentiate, then you would not have your toaster oven here today. If eukaryotic DNA produced the same complementary strands of RNA, and then the RNA produced the same amino acids every friggin time, you would not have your toaster oven invented. If fish never changed to be able to live in both salt and freshwater, you probably would not have your toaster oven here today. If plants never changed to adapt to the changing earth's climate and be able to produce food from the available chemcials and sources of energy, you would not have your toaster oven. If populations never changed in size, composition, age, strength, and geographical locations, you would not have your toaster oven here today. If the earliest life forms were not able to change in order to synthesize, digest, and use organic chemicals according to the availability of carbon in specific molecules, you would not have your toaster oven.

Knowing this matters, because the availability of chemicals in our environment is always changing, the populations of humans, plants, other animals are always changing.

Scientists being able to track the progress or change in the population of the endagered, possibly extinct Mexican wolf relies on evolutionary biology. Many researchers believe the species has diverged and interbreeded with the local fox/coyote populations, and thus they technically did not go "extinct" but changed to their environment, the population of Mexican wolves evolved.

Homie, please take the time to read this, as I see you seem to have intentionally skipped over my earlier posts for whatever reason.

 

[frob2900]

We have a Theory of Gravity?

The gravitational force of attraction Fg between two pointlike particles is:

Fg=G m1 m2/r^2

where m1 and m2 are the masses of two point particles, r is the distance between them and G is a universal constant.

The rule for actual bodies which are spread out in space needs a sum/integral definition, but it turns out that in the special case of spheres the rule above holds.

 

[El_Machinae]

We have a Theory of Gravity?

It's a little on the weak side right now. I can summarise it with "Mass sucks".

It's still valuable, given the enormous number of predictions that "mass sucks" allows us.

Just like: "we have a common ancestor" allows some really useful predictions.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I knew we have a Law of Gravity, that seemed to me to be what frob was citing.

Oh well, physics is not my thing.

 

[frob2900]

I knew we have a Law of Gravity, that seemed to me to be what frob was citing.

Oh well, physics is not my thing.

The Theory of Gravity is that the Law of Gravity is valid

(Of course, theres another Law of General Relativistic Gravity with even bigger formulas that applies for extremely strong gravitational fields, and the Theory of General Relativity is that the Law of General Relativistic Gravity holds!)

 

[Smidlee]

The toaster would not have been invented if the eukaryotic cell never changed to incorporate different organelles into its matrix that allow it to function on a different level than bacterial cells. If the eukaryotic cell never changed to produce specialized membranes to protect itself from outside chemicals, you would not have your toaster oven invented. If the eukaryotic cell never changed to produce different proteins for itself, you would not have your toaster oven here today. If cells never changed to be able to specialize, or differentiate, then you would not have your toaster oven here today. If eukaryotic DNA produced the same complementary strands of RNA, and then the RNA produced the same amino acids every friggin time, you would not have your toaster oven invented. If fish never changed to be able to live in both salt and freshwater, you probably would not have your toaster oven here today. If plants never changed to adapt to the changing earth's climate and be able to produce food from the available chemcials and sources of energy, you would not have your toaster oven. If populations never changed in size, composition, age, strength, and geographical locations, you would not have your toaster oven here today. If the earliest life forms were not able to change in order to synthesize, digest, and use organic chemicals according to the availability of carbon in specific molecules, you would not have your toaster oven.

These are all speculation. It assumes the eukaryotic cells or bacteria can pick itself up by it's own shoe strings. Even though Denton isn't a creationist (far from it) even he admits this sounds ridiculous. As he put it, if aliens came to Earth and we told them how thing just evolved on their own (Darwinism) they will laugh at mankind. (Denton still have faith that someday scientist will find the answers.)
You can say which make more sense, that if it wasn't for intelligence (information ,information) we wouldn't have toasters ,etc.

 

[Atlas14]

These are all speculation. It assumes the eukaryotic cells or bacteria can pick itself up by it's own shoe strings. Even though Denton isn't a creationist (far from it) even he admits this sounds ridiculous. As he put it, if aliens can to Earth and we told them that thing just evolved on their own (Darwinism) they will laugh at mankind. (Denton still have faith that someday scientist will find the answers.)

The evolutionary assertion that organisms changed, and got progressively more complex, isn't mere speculation.

 

[Gogf]

We have a Theory of Gravity?

It's known as "general relativity."

 

[Smidlee]

The evolutionary assertion that things changed, and got progressively more complex, isn't mere speculation.

Information , information isn't just hocus pocus. Yes it just speculation. Of course a very complex computer program loaded with information the start with can roll dice to improve variables.

 

[Atlas14]

Information , information isn't just hocus pocus. Yes it just speculation. Of course a very complex computer program loaded with information the start with can roll dice to improve variables.

Would you like to point out how it is speculation, and what a better theory would be?

 

[Smidlee]

Would you like to point out how it is speculation, and what a better theory would be?

As one scientist I remember reading said "it's the best we got" is one of the weakest defense for any scientific theory. Evolution is by definition of science the only option as how it define today totally reject that which would disprove it.
Thus is unfalsifiable by definition. It like playing a game of Monopoly where by the rules you are the only one to start out with money.

Science is very useful to determine a lot of things but not everything as it has limits.