Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(5)
Message 511 of 969 (725483)
04-27-2014 4:43 PM


No scientific controversy exists.
The theory of evolution is a bedrock principle of modern biological science. Science is learning how evolution happens. You'll see some debate there. No scientists debate whether evolution happens. That's established.
No scientific controversy exists. The only controversy is political. In certain pockets of certain societies, some people don't want their kids to learn the science.
Some of these people employ a bait-and-switch tactic in which they kick up a lot of sand--thereby creating political controversy--then talk of 'controversy' among scientists, as if it existed. They hope the public won't catch the difference.
Evolution is science. It is taught in any science class worthy of the name, worldwide.

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 7:23 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 520 by Arriba, posted 05-09-2014 11:11 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 512 of 969 (725494)
04-27-2014 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2014 4:43 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Whooee, was that INSPIRING! A lot of assertive words there, declaring the status quo, but not much in the way of truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2014 4:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Capt Stormfield, posted 04-27-2014 8:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 514 by Coyote, posted 04-27-2014 8:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 516 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 3:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(3)
Message 513 of 969 (725504)
04-27-2014 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Faith
04-27-2014 7:23 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Perhaps you could point out a falsehood in Archer's post and reference your source for thinking it so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 7:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 2:54 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 514 of 969 (725507)
04-27-2014 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Faith
04-27-2014 7:23 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
A lot of assertive words there, declaring the status quo, but not much in the way of truth.
Those statements can be backed up, which is a far cry better than what you usually post.
But, here's your chance to provide some real support for your arguments: show where established scientists dealing with the broad fields which comprise the study of evolution have contested that theory in peer reviewed journals.
And no quote mining, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 7:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(7)
Message 515 of 969 (725531)
04-28-2014 6:55 AM


If the science is good, why is there so much sand?
I was responding to the OP. The subject line does pose a question. A question invites a reply.
My statement represents the consensus view of professional scientists and and science educators. Ample evidence of this consensus may be seen on this board, but evidence also exists in public statements issued by professional science bodies. I should hardly need to point these out to any long-term residents of this board, but if a sampler is needed, sample this:
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
The burden of proof is on the writer of the OP and anyone taking the same position. One must demonstrate--not just assume and ask others to assume--the writer's premises. I have no reason to believe before then that a substantial and 'growing number of scientists' are rejecting Darwin's theory of evolution.
It is also a tall order to suggest that evolution is irrelevant to the field of medicine, as the OP author also does. Medicine routinely deals with evolutionary issues: the rapid evolution of microbes, as we've seen, and the many evolutionary compromises that have resulted in the present structure of the human body.
It has been my privilege to count a number of medical professionals from many countries among my friends and colleagues. Some are religious (various world religions), some are not, but I haven't met one yet who didn't see, say, the human skeleton as a set of evolutionary compromises. No one thinks it's a structure designed from Day 1 for bipedal gait.
So, until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm calling BS on the original post. The author is employing a well-worn fundy PR tactic: kick up sand yourself, then ask how if the science is so good there can be sand all over the place.
It's a silly game, really.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 516 of 969 (725572)
04-28-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Faith
04-27-2014 7:23 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Whooee, was that INSPIRING! A lot of assertive words there, declaring the status quo ...
But Faith, this is what the thread is about.
The OP didn't attack evolution by saying that some feature of the fossil record, or the anatomy of aardvarks, or the genome of zebras, or the biogeography of giraffes, or whatever, was a challenge to evolution. Instead he asked "Why is evolution so controversial", and claimed that "a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis".
To point out that evolution is the "status quo" is therefore the only on-topic thing that there is to be said. If he'd made false statements about (for example) the fossil record, then we'd be deluging him with facts about the fossil record. As his false statement was about the scientific consensus, the only on-topic thing to talk about is that.
We don't get to choose what falsehoods creationists come out with, we just answer them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 7:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 517 of 969 (725618)
04-29-2014 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Capt Stormfield
04-27-2014 8:20 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Perhaps you could point out a falsehood in Archer's post and reference your source for thinking it so.
Why not. Here's his post:
The theory of evolution is a bedrock principle of modern biological science.
Well, it's a thoroughly ossified thoroughly accepted not-to-be-questioned principle of modern biological science, assumed and embellished at every turn, but "bedrock" in the sense that it actually contributes any meaningful knowledge of biology? No. All it contributes is more fleshing out of the evolution assumption. It hangs on biology like a parasite getting fatter all the time but biology benefits not a whit.
Source: Intelligent observation.
Science is learning how evolution happens. You'll see some debate there.
I'm not sure how to read this. Science is to be defined as learning how evolution happens, or science is contributing to knowledge about how evolution happens. Either way I have to object. Again, evolution is a parasite on the sciences, the only learning it contributes is an elaboration of the fantasy it embodies.
Source: Cynical me.
No scientists debate whether evolution happens. That's established.
Certainly true there's no debate about this, it's as good as planted in concrete, but "established" of course raises the question "by what means" and the answer is by assumption and habit, certainly not by real evidence.
Source: Creationist wisdom.
No scientific controversy exists.
Not among the True Believers, that's for sure.
The only controversy is political. In certain pockets of certain societies, some people don't want their kids to learn the science.
Evolution is not true science, it's an elaborated endlessly elaboratable mental construct built out of hot air, so it's really best that it not be foisted on children, but actually many people don't mind if they learn the fantasy TOO.
Some of these people employ a bait-and-switch tactic in which they kick up a lot of sand--thereby creating political controversy--then talk of 'controversy' among scientists, as if it existed. They hope the public won't catch the difference.
Ooo what a jaundiced paranoid viewpoint that is. In my experience there ARE creationist scientists who do object scientifically to evolution, and many of them don't get into the political angle of it at all.
Evolution is science.
Evolution is taken for science, unfortunately, terrible flimflam that.
It is taught in any science class worthy of the name, worldwide.
This is true, sad to say.
Source: Honest perspicacious creationist me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Capt Stormfield, posted 04-27-2014 8:20 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by ringo, posted 04-30-2014 11:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 519 by Taq, posted 04-30-2014 1:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 524 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 8:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 518 of 969 (725673)
04-30-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
04-29-2014 2:54 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Faith writes:
... it's a thoroughly ossified thoroughly accepted not-to-be-questioned principle of modern biological science....
It's questioned every day. You just don't understand the answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 2:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 519 of 969 (725676)
04-30-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
04-29-2014 2:54 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Well, it's a thoroughly ossified thoroughly accepted not-to-be-questioned principle of modern biological science, assumed and embellished at every turn, but "bedrock" in the sense that it actually contributes any meaningful knowledge of biology? No. All it contributes is more fleshing out of the evolution assumption. It hangs on biology like a parasite getting fatter all the time but biology benefits not a whit.
Source: Intelligent observation.
Observation of what?
When was the last time you read a peer reviewed article from a scientific journal on the topic of evolution? Did you understand it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 2:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Arriba
Junior Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 22
From: Miraflores, Lima, Peru
Joined: 01-24-2013


Message 520 of 969 (726490)
05-09-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2014 4:43 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
You're certainly right that evolution is an established part of biology. However, its definition of evolution is merely that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
It is entirely possible to believe the above without accepting the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. One states that variations in an organism never go past a certain limit whereas the other one states that they do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2014 4:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2014 11:33 AM Arriba has not replied
 Message 522 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2014 11:42 AM Arriba has not replied
 Message 523 by ringo, posted 05-09-2014 1:11 PM Arriba has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 521 of 969 (726499)
05-09-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by Arriba
05-09-2014 11:11 AM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
It is entirely possible to believe the above without accepting the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. One states that variations in an organism never go past a certain limit whereas the other one states that they do.
Curiously genetics was unknown by either Darwin or Mendel, and Mendel had some results from his experiments that did not fit into his neat boxes -- new mutations.
Science has advance in the intervening years, and we now have evidence of mutations occurring, mutations causing new variations in breeding populations, and no apparent barrier to evolution occurring.
You're certainly right that evolution is an established part of biology. However, its definition of evolution is merely that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation.
Another, slightly more complete version, is
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Now this is the process of how evolution occurs and it has been observed and documented, but this is not the Theory of Evolution ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Arriba, posted 05-09-2014 11:11 AM Arriba has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 522 of 969 (726504)
05-09-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by Arriba
05-09-2014 11:11 AM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
It is entirely possible to believe the above without accepting the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. One states that variations in an organism never go past a certain limit ...
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Arriba, posted 05-09-2014 11:11 AM Arriba has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(4)
Message 523 of 969 (726516)
05-09-2014 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Arriba
05-09-2014 11:11 AM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
Arriba writes:
One states that variations in an organism never go past a certain limit whereas the other one states that they do.
If you can point to the barrier that prevents variations from going past a certain limit, please do so. Otherwise saying that, "You can't get there from here," is a pretty weak argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Arriba, posted 05-09-2014 11:11 AM Arriba has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(1)
Message 524 of 969 (726659)
05-10-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
04-29-2014 2:54 PM


Re: No scientific controversy exists.
On evolutionary theory as a bedrock feature of modern science:
Faith writes:
Certainly true there's no debate about this, it's as good as planted in concrete
Then we agree: the OP's talk of a 'controversy' is a load of BS.
Cheers.

Archer O
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 04-29-2014 2:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 525 of 969 (737713)
09-28-2014 6:24 PM


What if God used evolution to create man?
CHAPTER SIX
PRE﷓HISTORY
... Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)
I. THE "CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION"
CONTROVERSY, OR: "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING"
...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi﷓scientific manner. 128
In dealing with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and foibles of the "pro-evolution" argument and show where objectivity ended and human error began.
... The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
... Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (Rom. 1:19-20)
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
We see here the detailing of the forming of man as he now is. (Although the account here is pre﷓Fall, the present constituency of man is as given here; the Fall changed the nature of man, not his parts.) The account here indicates that the formation of man was not an instant supernatural thing but, as in the six-day account, was also accomplished through a process. Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.
What does the scientific record say?
The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.
In the beginning "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Rocks at the surface began to weather and dissolve, producing dilute solutions of silica which trickled away and percolated down through porous beds, finally gathering into supersaturated solutions that, from time to time, crystallized out as clay. The synthesis of clay is very slow and still poorly understood, but the end product is very different from the feathery silicates such as asbestos and the three﷓dimensional﷓framework silicates like feldspar that make up most of the solid material of the earth's crust. Clays are extraordinary, layered, crystal structures which have, built into them, what amounts almost to an innate tendency to evolve.149 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)
Let me point out the following facts:
1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.
2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.
3. If a creature does not have a spiritual existence, then, in God's eyes (Him being eternal) that creature is not really living, as its life can only be a temporal one. Today man's soul is immortal, but only because he has a spirit.
What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:...
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls﷓ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). The less developed an animal's brain is, the more instinctual is its behavior. Only man has a will that is free and can choose according to neither of these. God would give man a spiritual existence only if man is responsible for his actions, and man could not be held responsible for his actions unless he has a free will.
Does the scientific evidence verify this hypothesis?
Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ﷓have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
... yet it is not improbable that there is a certain amount of interference between the development of free intelligence and of instinct . . . 157
The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, and the greater the level of intelligence the less the influence of instinct (emotion). This is why the mind is the leading part of the soul, a further verification of Scripture by science.
The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well﷓marked social instincts, the parental and fillial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. 158
If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre﷓Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem? And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21﷓23)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.
amessageforthehumanrace.org

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by GDR, posted 09-28-2014 7:46 PM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 527 by Larni, posted 09-29-2014 6:43 AM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 528 by nwr, posted 09-29-2014 8:59 AM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 531 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2014 4:11 PM PaulGL has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024