• In total there are 4 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

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
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

Sigh, this thread has again turned into certain people (I'm not going to name names) ignoring wholly what people are saying and resorting to personal attack. I don't know if I want to contribute to this thread any longer.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
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: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

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

Unread post

ant wrote:. . . misrepresenting what I am saying will not help either. it might make you feel better, but it's grossly inaccurate and actually dishonest..
Maybe it's hard to tell what you're saying because you're being so careful not to say anything? What you do is insinuate through foggy language that of late is further obfuscated in pseudo-academese. No one believes that the guy who once mocked the idea that we evolved from fish is now interested in the philosophy of science for purely philosophical reasons. It's the same old wine in a bottle in a brand new bottle (to quote a Loggins and Messina song). You're just being even more evasive about it.

I asked YOU how does the mass of the moon change based on the social context since that is the general gist of what you are saying (as I read between the lines). You can't answer the question because it doesn't. So it's up to you to provide some examples of how cultural bias shapes our scientific pursuit of truth. We already discussed Darwin's attempts to explain racist and sexist attitudes in evolutionary terms, but here in the 21st century, these ideas have been thoroughly discredited. If anything, science is a correcting influence with regards to perceptions that are influenced by emotions and bias. Are you arguing just the opposite? Provide some evidence, please.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

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

Unread post

TheWizard wrote:What I see commonly, and throughout this thread, is the strategy of defending yourself using statements similar to, "Well, if we're not right, then what else is it," knowing or in someway surmising that because there IS no definitive answer, you can then stop defending your solution and go after someone else's. Again - you see it all over this thread. You'll note that I wasn't lured into it.
It is NOT a proof of your argument, neither can it ever be, that someone else's argument isn't correct or definitive. That is, in fact, a particularly weak way to go after your proof, however it's easy and I believe that's why others do it.
Good thing no one has argued that. No wonder ant likes you, you can both create strawman arguments about evolution together.

As a man of science and being really, really, ridiculously smart, you didn't answer the question of how you interpret all the evidence of modern biology. Is your position that everything we know in biology that makes it looks like species evolved is just coincidence? Or do you accept evolution of non-human animals and somehow humans are the exception?
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

http://www.genome.gov/11508982

Is the number of chromosomes in a species fixed? And if there is a chromosome abnormality that occurs, can the animal still mate? Would the abnormality be passed on if it could?


EDITED:

This is what is on the link I provided:
Chromosome abnormalities can be inherited from a parent (such as a translocation) or be "de novo" (new to the individual). This is why chromosome studies are often performed on parents when a child is found to have an abnormality.
Ive mentioned neanderthal and homo sapiens were thought to have interbred.
If neanderthal had a different amount than homo sapien, how could homo sapiens have kept their unique chromosome count?

Is there anything comparable that serves as evidence that homo sapien would not have been adversely affected?
Last edited by ant on Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:40 pm, edited 2 times 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

Great link.

Neanderthals and homo sapiens bred infertility.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... HUQg4vF-a9
The genetic evidence further backs this up. Neanderthal DNA is irregularly spaced through the modern human genome rather than being fully mixed. That implies that interbreeding occurred very rarely. Sankararaman estimates it may have happened just four times.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/b ... o99980.htm
The classical example of interspecies breeding is ofcourse the mule, from a horse and a donkey. Other examples are tigers breeding with lions to produce 'ligers', and sheep with goats. In all of these cases the species are close enough to allow breeding, but the offspring is sterile (I am sure about the mule,not about the others). Other than behavioural difficulties (do they understand each others 'courting' language?) there are important biolgogical restrictions at the DNA level for interspecies breeding. The chromosomes of the sperm and egg cell have to match sufficiently to start deviding. So the two species must be genetically close enough. Beside genes the DNA contains many repeated sequences, that have not meaning as far as we know, and these seem to be involved in determining the genetic match. There is still a lot of research done in this area.
they need to be a very close species (sub species) in order for mating to be possible, BUT, sterility occurs more often than not..
The strict definition of species is NO. But there are noted exceptions. It depends how far separated in evolution the species are. It is believed that all dogs descended from a wolf-like species and dogs and wolves have been known to interbreed. Usually though, even if two different species interbreed and produce offspring, THEIR offspring cannot produce offspring. An example is the mating of a horse and a donkey. The outcome is a mule and mules are sterile. The only way to get more mules is to mate horses and donkeys again. One of the barriers seems to be that different species have different numbers of chromosomes and they would not pair up evenly at meiosis. So for example chimps and humans are very close together in the amount of DNA, but chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.

and they are different species
This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species," says Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who was not involved in any of the studies.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... HUQg4vF-a9


The neanderthal genome project's findings regarding the similarity between homo sapien and neanderthal genes is highly inconclusive. Not only is there serious doubt that the two bred with any regularity, the dna structure of neanderthal does not indicate clearly that it was a close enough species to even allow for offspring of any kind between the two.
A 2007 review of the data by Wall and Kim[23] reanalyses the data obtained from the published papers of Noonan et al.[13] and Green et al.,[12] and it holds that the results are inconsistent with each other. The review proposes serious problems with the data quality in one of the studies, possibly due to modern human DNA contaminants and/or a high rate of sequencing errors...,

While Noonan et al. were unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, they proclaim little likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project


The link between homo sapien and neanderthal remains inconclusive. There is no imaginable way as of yet to begin to explain why fusion took place in homo sapiens.
It "just happened"
A segment of the evolution of homo sapien can not be explained empirically and confirmed by testing.

"I feign no hypotheses" - Isaac Newton
User avatar
lehelvandor
Freshman
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
9
Location: Cambridge, UK
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Contact:

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

Unread post

ant wrote:There is no imaginable way as of yet to begin to explain why fusion took place in homo sapiens.
The "why" is a bit of c'est la vie, we know empirically it is a far from rare phenomenon.
Indeed, as further fusion just happened currently in a Chinese chap. Now he "just" has to find a woman with 22 pairs, otherwise becomes a probability game whether his offsprings inherit the missing/extra bits that result in miscarriage. It would be quite a task for match.com :)

Just to add, why vs. it just happens- translocations are actually occurring a lot, 0.1% of births. Then there is Down syndrome, too, of course the key is when the translocation doesn't lose information - when it does, then major trouble. In that sense, the long time ago occurred fusion is not a unique, nor special occurrence.

And adding a bit more, another fragmented day in the office... in what specific meaning we use "link" between Neanderthals and homo sapiens? In terms of their interbreeding and what may or may not have happened - or in terms of the two branches of evolution, with the common ancestor vs. the subsequent lineages? as the latter goes to empirical evidence, whilst former goes to hypothetical games where the N. project tried to get a better understanding.

Sidenote: there are 2010 and 2013, then 2014 results of analyses that add, after 2007 hiccup of having about 11% contamination, further findings compared to what 2007 could have concluded. Would not leave those out, if one is having a discussion on the full currently best understood picture.
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

geo wrote:
ant wrote:. . . misrepresenting what I am saying will not help either. it might make you feel better, but it's grossly inaccurate and actually dishonest..
Maybe it's hard to tell what you're saying because you're being so careful not to say anything? What you do is insinuate through foggy language that of late is further obfuscated in pseudo-academese. No one believes that the guy who once mocked the idea that we evolved from fish is now interested in the philosophy of science for purely philosophical reasons. It's the same old wine in a bottle in a brand new bottle (to quote a Loggins and Messina song). You're just being even more evasive about it.

I asked YOU how does the mass of the moon change based on the social context since that is the general gist of what you are saying (as I read between the lines). You can't answer the question because it doesn't. So it's up to you to provide some examples of how cultural bias shapes our scientific pursuit of truth. We already discussed Darwin's attempts to explain racist and sexist attitudes in evolutionary terms, but here in the 21st century, these ideas have been thoroughly discredited. If anything, science is a correcting influence with regards to perceptions that are influenced by emotions and bias. Are you arguing just the opposite? Provide some evidence, please.
I've lost the will to listen to and answer what Ant is saying. He's gotten too much into the use of circular posts, if you know what I mean.

What was this about the moon changing mass? I'm afraid I didn't catch the post where this was said. I would sat that one way that cultural bias shapes our scientific pursuit in modern times is the fact that so many fundamentalist Christians are blocking serious pursuit of studying ways of combating climate change becase a.) they deny it exists and that we're to blame for it, and b.) they claim that the rapture will come and take them soon anyway, so why bother being a good steward of the earth like the Bible says?

Of course, in a few years these will be discredited, just like the racism and sexism in Darwin's time. But I don't know if today's fundamentalists will get that, considering how their at least several decades behind the times.

The Scopes Trial is over people. Call it a day.
Last edited by Movie Nerd on Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:20 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

The "why" is a bit of c'est la vie, we know empirically it is a far from rare phenomenon.
Indeed, as further fusion just happened currently in a Chinese chap. Now he "just" has to find a woman with 22 pairs, otherwise becomes a probability game whether his offsprings inherit the missing/extra bits that result in miscarriage. It would be quite a task for match.com
Is this chinese chap a neanderthal?

The hypothetical games are what's called the assumptions of the theory. those to terms, by definition (theory as in scientific theory, are antithetical to one another.

Neanderthals and humans are different species. Was it determined that neanderthal's genetic makeup is capable of this type of fusion?
I'm not clear on that. Or are you saying this "chinese chap" proves it is?
I may be misunderstanding you, so clarify if you feel like it.

As to why it happened in humans, it's likely related to environmental forces that caused a need for further adaptation.
Would you agree with that statement?

Thanks, L.
User avatar
lehelvandor
Freshman
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:09 pm
9
Location: Cambridge, UK
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Contact:

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

Unread post

Hi,
ant wrote:Is this chinese chap a neanderthal?
I am afraid I don't get the question? i.e. the logic flow was
a) fusion of Cs happened (lineages split, common ancestor ----> 1. "us", 2. something else that had gone --> 2a) denisovan, 2b) neanderthal) as per genetic evidence;
b) fusion was not one-off rare event, it happens all the time incl. current day (therefore "why" is answered by "it just happens, even in statistically notable quantities),
c) contemporary translocation that is the same type i.e. (further) fusion that doesn't lose information, hence the individual is, in all practical respects, "normal" is (at least) in a Chinese chap.

So not sure how (clearly rhetoric) question on whather the chap in (c) is a N. has any logical significance? of course answer is NO, but it has nothing to do with what led to mentioning him.
As some stated, he could start his own lineage, in purely genetic terms, and unless he finds similar mate, some of his offsprings will miscarry.
ant wrote:Neanderthals and humans are different species. Was it determined that neanderthal's genetic makeup is capable of this type of fusion?
Yes they are. And they have come about in the above described way on the lineages enumerated there (numerically coding the tree branches). But why are we asking whether their genome was capable of fusion? Fusion that led to the two main different lineages has happened prior to N., N. is on one lineage. He may have had further fusions, as we have seen it on our lineage.
ant wrote:I'm not clear on that. Or are you saying this "chinese chap" proves it is?
I may be misunderstanding you, so clarify if you feel like it.
It's OK, I just mean the above logic flow - we came from 1. existence of fusion, 2. where it happened in timeline to produce the different lineages, 3. is it unique one-off and utterly special or not, 4. as latter is no, example of a case on our own lineage, together with translocations that occur in births with the observed statistical level.
As mentioned the Chinese chap just shows that the very thing one looks at can happen, in our present, among those interesting births, in a way that takes further the reduction of Cs with same non-destructive pattern (i.e. does not lose vital genetic info).
ant wrote:As to why it happened in humans, it's likely related to environmental forces that caused a need for further adaptation.
In terms of "why" I would again just say it "just" did, it is just a translocation. However then we discussed how inter-breeding may have happened or not - as a fact, we do have N. bits of genes in our genome, which means there had to be some inter-breeding between branch (2b) to branch (1), otherwise it would be a double paradox: the genetic evidence showing the above "coded" lineages (1), (2a)(2b) would not not make any sense whatsoever, also (2b) snippets of genes turning up in our genome (in small %) would have had to "parachute" in by magic instead of biological process (inheritance).
It is another topic that the particular bits of genes that have come from "over there" do certain things - some nasty (certain types of diabetes, cheers) and some somewhat funny in our current time (addiction to nicotine).

But then on top of the entire purely genetic story laid down by mindboggling sequences of proteins, then yes we have a number of environmental factors *interacting*. At least I mentioned, not sure if linked papers, but for example certain mutations of just one gene present on our lineage produces proteins that defined the skin colour. Considering the environmental factors, when they looked in remains from Africa vs. elsewhere, could even see how in one area that gene would have wiped out the unlucky ones, hence it was very strongly limited in its variation under mutations - whilst elsewhere it was "allowed" by environmental factors to vary much more, because the variations did survive in their carriers.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”