• In total there are 34 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 34 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:
Humans have 46 C's. Our closest relatives have 48.
What is the scientific explanation for why the missing 2 have vanished without a trace.
Or have they? I honestly do not know..
Well, I just posted this yesterday—telltale evidence involving human chromosome 2. The author offers this as the most "powerful evidence of evolution that you can imagine."

This looks pretty direct as evidence goes.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... mosome-two

Plus the first article . . .

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -evolution
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

L wrote:
Direct and indirect evidence, each with its particularities, has been used and referred to as needed.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory:
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
We both can agree what constitutes a scientific theory.
Observation and measurement are vital to a theory.

If circumstantial evidence is included in the weaving of sets of facts to build a complete theory, I am unaware of that being a part of the definition.

More here:
A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
How have we tested hypotheses that are based on circumstantial evidence with, say, the missing two C's?
Or does circumstantial evidence play a vital role here?

I am aware of what follows:
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
You wrote this:
Chromosomes: as many times mentioned by me, and also easily googlable: the evidence is not number of C's. IT is the precise exact fusion observed in the DNA sequence, and its significance in terms of the common ancestry - as I also mentioned many times, and referred to funnier misinterpretations of the evidence of the DNA sequence fused precisely, many jump on chromosome numbers to make inferences about levels of complexity in terms of brain functions / intelligence
How is our theory incomplete without knowledge of the 2 missing C's?
Are we anticipating that the theory in question would not change? Are they not a significant portion of hard evidence (not circumstantial)?
True, the fusion in the sequence is telling us something. Something big. But two missing C's are, uh, inconsequential?

I haven't a clue what you mean by "funnier misinterpretations of the evidence"


L wrote:
Clothing: I stated this, and re-re-re-stated N times, it was first mentioned as an example and specific in e.g. ice age period, to make the point of habitat factors that one species was exposed to and other could protect itself from. I stated than and several times after, this was not a "claim" about any "direct evidence" about hominids across 1.7 millions years... check the sentences word by word, there was and is not such statement in that context. I can't repeat this more, if you keep losing context completely despite the many re-re-stating of both context and the particular "claim". Then I moved on to the larger timeline, the timelines I mentioned and later pointed to the entire story via a handy summary article that saves many pages.
okay - no evidence. it's a claim with no evidence.
thanks for clarifying.


L wrote:
Thefore, again and again, and I am doing this the last time in circles: nobody said that there was (even see the article unless you wish to read much much more) direct evidence on the hygiene issues being THE reason for fur loss, nor for the clothing in the entire timeline talked about.
Okay - no evidence for this as well.
clear


L wrote:
s stated many times, are we comparing like with like? Did chimps, after the forking from our common ancestor, evolve in same ways to end up in similar environmental factors and minor "crutches" that came from others' higher intelligence?
you're right. from what I understand what you are saying here, we are comparing "like" to "unlike" for that is all we have for now.
We both agree I think that we are missing something more "like" us than chimps. But for now, it's "logical" given evidence and circumstantial evidence, that a theory can do without evidence that is based on observation, and is able to be tested to be replicated and confirmed in a controlled setting.
Unfortunately, nature is not a controlled stage in the manner we would like it to be for the purpose of prediction.
Do you agree?


Ps

my definition of "theory" was from here:

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

deleted
Last edited by ant on Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

If this is true..,

http://www.livescience.com/4270-humans- ... rbred.html


why would the human C count not have been altered?


We do not know the C count of neanderthals

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-genet ... romosome-2

Thanks
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:
lehelvandor wrote:On point (4): If looking specifically at the so-called common ancestor and "us", the so-to-speak tangible / observable bridge is the uncanningly precise fusion of chromosome 2, to be rigorous (in passing, may be called the 24->23 fusion but that is referring to the shrinking in the number, not the actual ordinal). But of course that, in another dimension, brings us to what was the intelligence level of this ancestor where things have gone on 2 different paths.
On clothing and hair especially (of course no evidence in my pocket about what point in time they started wearing things, if they needed to, so oversimplified the environmental/habitat factor to just an extreme chilly season in ice age so less things to type):
Bodmer & Pagel in England said something interesting, losing or diminishing body hair helped with eliminating deadly diseases spread by parasites, and this presented advantage in natural selection.
Then in terms of timing, the body lice (clothing helps it big time) was shown to be a very recent beast (~40000-50000 years ago), genetic sequencing demonstrating its evolution from the head lice that is much more ancient.
So the timing of when we started wearing clothes could be around that time, especially considering that humans left Africa around that time - so clothing could be a biggie in helping them to venture out...
Coupled with this, ~1.2 million years ago the specific gene that controls skin colour had its last big mutation that made its variant for dark skin colour dominate completely. In Africa, this was crucial for survival, other and could mean that we had fur loss before that, so we probably enjoyed nudism for a very long time (more than 1million years - yikes :) ).
Let's imagine that my questions are strictly for presentation for laymen.
Say, these laymen are part of a jury, and that it's important we break down what is in question for the purpose of clarity for the non specialist.

Scientific jargon, or any jargon for that matter, related to highly specialized fields is often not translatable to the layman unless technical terms are clarified and reduced to a language that adds meaning (visual meaning is best) to what said term(s) attempt to convey.

Chris introduced a great idea - perhaps we should one day agree on a book that explains evolution well enough for everyone to participate. So, I think what I'm suggesting above is reasonable.

I don't know if you're a scientist. I'm certainly not.
I've always found it natural to break things down to simplest terms to arrive at an understanding that is satisfactory and suitable, until more information is available.

Having said that, here once again are my reasons for participation in this thread:


1) at what point does theory begin to lose its scientific meaning because of assumptive auxiliary hypotheses (evolution as it specifically relates homo sapien)

2) how many hypotheses are there in the theory we are ranting on about

3) What is the amount of evidence missing and what are the assumptive hypotheses currently in place filling our evidence gaps.

4) How much narrative explanation (as opposed to empirical explanation) is there that is currently in place to get from simple life to complex "intelligent" life.




If you wish to add your personal philosophy and suspicions, that is up to you. However, they are irrelevant to what I am attempting here. You can either choose to believe that, or not. That will be entirely your prerogative.
It will also be an opinion that I am not interested in here.

If you wish to advance your opinions about motive instead of engaging the questions, much like Johnson is, then simply do not answer them. Ignore the questions and leave them open.

There are a lot of open questions in relation to this discussion, whether you are comfortable with that fact or not.
That is for you to deal with psychologically as best you can.

I will ask more questions based on your response above.

Thanks

Ps

I will not be responding to what someone opinion is about what I have said here.

Thanks again.
Not once did you address me calling you out for your insult to my intelligence. You glassed right over it in order to go into this, the first of your latest posts. Will you not even attempt to redeem yourself and apologize?
Last edited by Movie Nerd on Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:If this is true..,

http://www.livescience.com/4270-humans- ... rbred.html


why would the human C count not have been altered?


We do not know the C count of neanderthals

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-genet ... romosome-2

Thanks
related to the above, I found this:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-genet ... inbreeding


if neanderthal man had a different C count, who's genes would dominate in the cross breeding?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Movie Nerd wrote:
ant wrote:
lehelvandor wrote:On point (4): If looking specifically at the so-called common ancestor and "us", the so-to-speak tangible / observable bridge is the uncanningly precise fusion of chromosome 2, to be rigorous (in passing, may be called the 24->23 fusion but that is referring to the shrinking in the number, not the actual ordinal). But of course that, in another dimension, brings us to what was the intelligence level of this ancestor where things have gone on 2 different paths.
On clothing and hair especially (of course no evidence in my pocket about what point in time they started wearing things, if they needed to, so oversimplified the environmental/habitat factor to just an extreme chilly season in ice age so less things to type):
Bodmer & Pagel in England said something interesting, losing or diminishing body hair helped with eliminating deadly diseases spread by parasites, and this presented advantage in natural selection.
Then in terms of timing, the body lice (clothing helps it big time) was shown to be a very recent beast (~40000-50000 years ago), genetic sequencing demonstrating its evolution from the head lice that is much more ancient.
So the timing of when we started wearing clothes could be around that time, especially considering that humans left Africa around that time - so clothing could be a biggie in helping them to venture out...
Coupled with this, ~1.2 million years ago the specific gene that controls skin colour had its last big mutation that made its variant for dark skin colour dominate completely. In Africa, this was crucial for survival, other and could mean that we had fur loss before that, so we probably enjoyed nudism for a very long time (more than 1million years - yikes :) ).
Not once did you address me calling you out for your insult to my intelligence. You glassed right over it in order to go into this, the first of your latest posts. Will you not even attempt to redeem yourself and apologize?

Let's imagine that my questions are strictly for presentation for laymen.
Say, these laymen are part of a jury, and that it's important we break down what is in question for the purpose of clarity for the non specialist.

Scientific jargon, or any jargon for that matter, related to highly specialized fields is often not translatable to the layman unless technical terms are clarified and reduced to a language that adds meaning (visual meaning is best) to what said term(s) attempt to convey.

Chris introduced a great idea - perhaps we should one day agree on a book that explains evolution well enough for everyone to participate. So, I think what I'm suggesting above is reasonable.

I don't know if you're a scientist. I'm certainly not.
I've always found it natural to break things down to simplest terms to arrive at an understanding that is satisfactory and suitable, until more information is available.

Having said that, here once again are my reasons for participation in this thread:


1) at what point does theory begin to lose its scientific meaning because of assumptive auxiliary hypotheses (evolution as it specifically relates homo sapien)

2) how many hypotheses are there in the theory we are ranting on about

3) What is the amount of evidence missing and what are the assumptive hypotheses currently in place filling our evidence gaps.

4) How much narrative explanation (as opposed to empirical explanation) is there that is currently in place to get from simple life to complex "intelligent" life.




If you wish to add your personal philosophy and suspicions, that is up to you. However, they are irrelevant to what I am attempting here. You can either choose to believe that, or not. That will be entirely your prerogative.
It will also be an opinion that I am not interested in here.

If you wish to advance your opinions about motive instead of engaging the questions, much like Johnson is, then simply do not answer them. Ignore the questions and leave them open.

There are a lot of open questions in relation to this discussion, whether you are comfortable with that fact or not.
That is for you to deal with psychologically as best you can.

I will ask more questions based on your response above.

Thanks

Ps

I will not be responding to what someone opinion is about what I have said here.

Thanks again.

what is this reposted quote add to the discussion???

to me it is nonsense from you
an attempt at distraction from the conversation currently in progress.
troll -like.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Movie Nerd, there isn't any text you've written. All that is in your last post are some quotes from other posts.
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote: what is this reposted quote add to the discussion???

to me it is nonsense from you
an attempt at distraction from the conversation currently in progress.
troll -like.

I accidentally posted the comment with my words in the quote. My mistake, and I edited it once I found it. Once again, you missed the point. I still demand an apology for you insluting my intelligence earlier by calling one of my posts 'simpleton bullshit." Others have even called you out for your attack.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:Movie Nerd, there isn't any text you've written. All that is in your last post are some quotes from other posts.
Somehow my text got in the middle of the quote. Once I saw this, I edited it.

I will say that Ant continued attacking me personally on the same post, though, and called me a troll. Between calling my contributions to the thread unecessary and simpleton bullshit, and now to call me a troll, is reall making me want to leave the forum. I really have a problem with his continued attacks, without once apologizing.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”