Sure. And thats why I mentioned the definition of a theory, certain limitations of this theory, and why a theory in this case is not a law.

Complex systems and large timescales - yes.

Isnt that a caveat of this particular theory?

Well, I did learn something from this thread - MENSA really lowered its standards in the last 20 years. When I was in the Navy, you had to have a 164 IQ to get in, although they made exceptions all the time if you were close or had really good SAT scores, which they took as evidence past their testing.

After that, I'm going to make a really clear point, which is my last word on the subject - that subject being the topic of the thread: why do so many people have trouble believing in evolution.

In stepping in on this thread, I quoted my own intellectual stats because throughout it, those who believe in evolution repeatedly typified those who don't as 'church goers,' 'uneducated' and by other denigrations, and so in not wanting to be lumped into that group (which is NOT typical, by the way), I pre-defined myself. I knew that would set you who do believe off, but so be it. Evolutionists are NOT necessarily the smartest guys in the room, and those who don't believe in it are not a bunch of drooling idiots holding their Bibles upside-down, chanting 'Jesus, save me from science.'

Which brings us to the second reason I qualified myself, because those who are proponents of evolution SO typically describe those who don't as 'hating science,' when in fact I'm more a person of science than most of the rest of you, and don't believe in evolution.

Also, to your credit, you did catch me in saying 'evolution isn't the explanation,' which of course was a mis-statement on my part, which you were right to correct. Evolution COULD be the explanation, but has yet to be proven scientifically, and so no matter how unlikely I believe it to be, it has also not been disproven. Kudos to those who caught this.

As to the thread - I think 41 pages of arguing may, in and of itself, describe the answer to your question more eloquently than any of us ever could.

Those who believe in evolution commonly have a hand full of arguments which they've memorized and to some degree understand. Most of you aren't 'big picture' guys or else you wouldn't hold the positions that you do. 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.

In closing, I can tell you this:

You will not, in your life times, know definitively whether or not we evolved, were put here by God, were transplanted here by an alien species, or even willed ourselves into being. You will not know this because your lives are not long enough to encompass the breadth of the discoveries needed to prove the solution to an adequate point. If we found Homo Connecticus today, this being the 'missing link,' (and I misuse the term, because there is in fact no such thing), and HC could be described as the group of hominids that clearly preceded Homo Sapiens, and your birthday was yesterday, you would not live long enough to see the science to completion.

It is THAT complex and, more importantly, it is that muddled. Keep in mind that, given the discovery of HC:

1. There is no timeline for him to fit into, meaning that all of the others are by definition wrong
2. He would have to, by definition, embody the transition from species to species through a succession of sub-species which, today, we would be unable to classify
3. He would have to be torturously verified AND his proponents would have to tackle an army of anthropologists whose livelihoods depend on NOT finding him because, once that question is answered, then funding for the solution stops, and to hell with that!

As well, look at the answers he would give us. Why the migration to Africa? Why the change of the human skull? Why the continued shedding of hair? Why the diversion which is Neanderthal man, and how did THIS species coincide with THAT species when in fact Sapiens was the ruin of Neanderthal man?

And that last one is big - Homo Connecticus lived in harmony with the Neanderthal - he HAD to, because his time on Earth MUST butt up against Homo Sapiens, which already overlaps Neanderthal. Yet, he is STILL superior in species. You, on discovery of HC, have to totally rewrite that science, and when you do so, you have to explain why peaceful HC was, in fact, quickly and efficiently absorbed by or eradicated by Homo Sapiens. Again - to hell with that! You can't even get Egyptologists to rewrite the Egyptian pottery clock in the clear and obvious existence of the Theran dig!

I put to you - you will not know the answer. Your children may not know. If you're like me (you should be so lucky) you can just look at that one, last little point and say, "Yanno - if nothing else, Sapiens had to have been placed here or somehow COMPLETELY isolated from Neanderthal, and yet evolve past him in the same conditions, and then for no reason come out and mix it up with him."

Which I do NOT offer as a solution, merely as a logical supposition, fully supported by evolutionary science.

That's all I have to say on it. I didn't mean to insult you guys by saying I'm smarter than you, it was simply unavoidable not to rankle you by upsetting your paradigm that those who believe in evolution are somehow better educated than those who don't.

Eloquent however it is very different from "never". And I may make again the thought experiment: I mentioned two ancient greek gentlemen, and imagine how each would have reasoned about the theories of their day. There is a, as mentioned, very fundamental logical problem in saying about something complex, not 'figured out' in our or our kids' lifetime that it is merely a belief - and apply induction in a way that it renders it null in light of consistently mounting evidence.

Again if I turn it around, we could apply the same tendentious 'logic' that leaves out a few obvious things to a number of other 'mere theories' and we end up with the best comedy material since the Marx brothers' one-liners. Clearly, the Eudoxas -> Aristarchos example did not work, despite all the vast intelligence and objectivity (and logical thinking) flaunted by some... to me at least it is ironic how latter so fails in grasping the obvious in the former.

The crux of it, when (again) rendering a particular theory essentially logically equivalent to the alternatives (God, aliens etc etc), is the available evidence and how progressively uncovered facts fit or not a theory. The alternatives, as Dexter and others eloquently put, are fundamentally different in this respect, to use a polite word. Even without scientific evidence, using just the medieval gentleman Occam...
Therefore, leaving "belief" aside, and the way that "caveat" was used as a term + the recurrent pattern of "why" used in relation to the objective "what", it returns to rigorous reasoning (and the absence of it).

It was several times mentioned, there is a difference between "believing" in logical deduction and applying it... Of course, as it was stated a while back, this is not about evidence for some but it is about belief... and the difference between belief and logic reasoning based on evidence is lost on many...

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,"

Have you been reading the same thread? Apart from one parallel topic as discussed with MovieNerd, you may have seen vast amounts of scientific facts and, where these failed on the superior understanding of some, thought experiments and links+references to help the *THINKING* process of some...

I again find it superbly ironic that the very tone and logical failings used to attack the contrarian (evolution) point are the very things discussed in that parallel topic...

... and just adding, apologise the fragmentation, something neat I picked out:

TheWizard wrote:"Those who believe in evolution commonly have a hand full of arguments which they've memorized and to some degree understand"

If we take this as true, it leads to the absurdity of nullifying all the objective evidence and the scientific reasoning in all the papers around the evidence... If you actually, for once, looked at the *scientific* discourse, then you will find that "belief" does not enter the equation. If something is postulated, or if something is a mere hypothesis, then it is announced and invited to be challenged by evidence and counter-evidence. It is the nature of scientific method. Therefore with all the eloquence to the contrary, and despite this very thread with its many references and reasoning, I find it quite tendentious and non-objective.

Also, never in this thread was stated by anyone that proof is in the nonsensical nature of the alternatives. The fact that, again despite your so lengthily stated "big picture" grasp and objectivity (?), you lift out a sideline discussion on the methodologies (i.e. the presence and absence of one, in the two diametrically opposite cases), shows that unfortunately it is not objective, nor it is "big picture"... It is using the very thought pattern that you criticise...

I and some have invited others to do a few thought experiments, deliberately provocatively... so far all of these have been ignored and empty rhetoric was used instead of stating the outcome one arrives at by doing those thought experiments.
At least to me, the subjective non-scientific illogical and narrow-minded person, it says everything - and it also proves that this thread is going round in circles due to some big picture objective methodical thinking

... and on a totally parallel note about carbon dating and Thera eruption, because as I stated above, I find it hilarious how objective reasoning is claimed whilst operating with soundbites (after all, "most of us" are supposed to merely understand what we talk about to "some degree"...):

Since this is brought in, may I again ask (and will not state facts as they don't work here): what can distort the radiocarbon clock? based on objective reasoning, which of those factors are likely to be at play in the mentioned timeline? What is the amount of distortion that the clock should be changed by, if one does recalibrate it? And once recalibrated, what paradoxes are born in relation to Egypt's history and surrounding areas' history? how does dendrochronology get affected and more or less affected compared to the factors that affect radiocarbon dating? --> therefore the rhetoric question is: why do you think the clock was not recalibrated?

So... again as a non-methodical illogical non-objective soundbite-quoting not quite understanding "believer" in scientific methodology and evidence, can I invite some not to use empty demagogy?

TheWizard wrote: to tackle an army of anthropologists whose livelihoods depend on NOT finding him because, once that question is answered, then funding for the solution stops, and to hell with that! … unavoidable not to rankle you by upsetting your paradigm that those who believe in evolution are somehow better educated than those who don't.

TheWizard, I just wanted to pick out a few of the most outrageous statements from your post. As with your apparent false conspiracy theory regarding climate change, you here imply that the science of evolution is a corrupt conspiracy. You seem to think that science has no interest in truth, objectivity or sound method, but merely aims to steal money from the innocent taxpayer and foist a vast delusion upon a gullible public.

Why scientists would want to embark on such an unethical and fantastic voyage of misinformation is not immediately apparent, especially when evolution provides a compelling predictive explanation for all life. The DNA continuity between humans and the rest of terrestrial life is so abundantly clear and simple that anyone who claims to see a vast academic conspiracy to conceal the alien invasion will not be taken seriously.

All biological science is grounded in the causal material logic of evolution. The central evolutionary principle of cumulative adaptation is a necessary condition of experience. It may be fun to pretend this basic truth of evolution of life on earth is a Big Lie, but really, as with your absurd climate denial, the ethics of such a stratagem of sowing confusion are entirely negative.

ant wrote:Sure. And thats why I mentioned the definition of a theory, certain limitations of this theory, and why a theory in this case is not a law.

No, theory is not law, but like laws in our country, they can be changed and/or amended given new information. Nothing is absolutely certain in science. But that's part of the beauty of it.

Movie Nerd wrote:

ant wrote:Sure. And thats why I mentioned the definition of a theory, certain limitations of this theory, and why a theory in this case is not a law.

No, theory is not law, but like laws in our country, they can be changed and/or amended given new information. Nothing is absolutely certain in science. But that's part of the beauty of it.

Thanks for adding to my point.


Are you having trouble understanding that nobody here is saying that a theory is "just a theory"?
I honestly don't know because it seems as if one minute you are having trouble and the next minute you simply want to mischaracterize what I've said by pointing out the "beauty of science" and its provisional nature.

You aren't learning me anything new by pointing that out to me.

Thanks

TheWizard wrote:I'm more a person of science than most of the rest of you, and don't believe in evolution.

WIth the self-awareness of a toad it seems. You know, TheWizard, my dad would whip the tar out of your dad.

TheWizard wrote:You will not, in your life times, know definitively whether or not we evolved, were put here by God, were transplanted here by an alien species, or even willed ourselves into being.

Is "definitively" a cover word for "certainly"? If you're referring to epistemic justification, we are justified when we say we know we evolved.

Going back to the original question that started this all - why do so many have trouble believing in evolution

Separating the person who introduced the question, the question on its own seemed nonsensical to me.

I provided a link that indicated the world's major religions actually DO NOT have trouble "believing" in evolution.

This entire post is obviously directed at a certain segment of religion that WIZARD correctly pointed out is actually a minority.
More broadly, I believe it is meant to create caricatures of "religious" people in general as "uneducated church-goers."

There is a tendency for people to want to pigeon-hole other people to compare them to themselves as inferior in some way.
It's as if believing in evolution is an automatic membership to a club of rationality. It is not. Nor does the belief in scientism provide said membership.

Out of curiosity I looked at the gallop poll questions that drew the conclusion 42% believe in creationtionists view of human origins.
Here was one of the questions that got my attention. I do not know if it was the first question asked of the participants ( random sample size 1,028. population of the US - approx 317 million):

How familiar would you say you are with each of the following explanations about the origin and
development of life on earth -- very familiar, somewhat familiar, not too familiar, or not at all familiar?

What struck me about this was that 42 said they were very familiar, 37 somewhat, and 13 "not too familar"
The question is actually two separate questions - a question about a theory of origins, and a question about a theory of the development of life on earth.

I'm highly skeptical that large a number who claim familiarity are indeed familiar with the aBiogenesis hypothesis.
Origin hypotheses and development theory have been conflated in the question.
There's a gross and popular misconception that evolution by natural selection is an explanation for the origin of life.
It is not such an explanation. The theory of evolution has been massaged with various facts countless times now, whereas a hypothesis like aBio has NOT.


If you introduce the subject to participants by conflating the two you are bound to skew the responses of people who quite likely do NOT know the difference:

evolution is responsible for the origin of life ----> God created the heavens and the earth -----> I do not believe evolution created life -----> I do not believe in evolution.


And again, given the fact that the big picture shows the vast majority of world religions do not have a conflict with evolution, this question really has zero value to it.


What I think might have been a good starting point here was to ask what evolution is NOT:
I found this course outline from Indiana U - what evolution is NOT/IS:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.not.html

What I have place in bold is my emphasis (yes, we all can find something we like about it):

Biological Evolution...
1. is NOT a theory...(it is a FACT; it has been observed directly, and its extension to all life is supported by more evidence than there is for the spherical shape of the planets, and there is no evidence against it.)

2. is NOT something one should believe in...(it's based on science, not faith).

3. Is NOT concerned with the origin of life... (it deals only with the origin of species).

4. Is NOT just concerned with the origin of humans...(no more than any other species).

5. was NOT discovered or first explained by Charles Darwin... (there were others)

6. is NOT the same thing as natural selection...(which is the how of evolution, the real "Theory of Evolution ...by Natural Selection", also deeply confirmed).

7. is NOT something that happened only in the past... (it's still going on).

8. is NOT something that happens to individuals...(it happens to populations).

9. is NOT an accidental or random process...(there are built-in limited options and selective aspects; even mutations are influenced by environmental factors). Its complex patterns are just as natural as the randomly generated and diverse patterns of snowflakes and crystals.

10. does NOT have any evidence against it... (all observations support it).

11. was NOT contrived to undermine religion...(rather, our awareness of it grew as we tried to make sense of many observations of life ithat were not consistent with traditional explanations.

12. does NOT deny the existence of God...(It is neutral; God is neither required nor eliminated; for all we know, evolution could be part of God's creation, or it might not, but science cannot determine that).

13. does NOT conflict with any religion...(It can't, since it is only another way of trying to make sense of the natural world, based on scientific observation and critical analysis. Most religions have no problem with evolution, and those that do typically base their objections on an inaccurate view of science and evolution)

What does it actually mean to "believe" in a set of facts?

A theory is not to be believed in. it is a set of neutral facts, and that's it. The added emotion and personal identification with those facts is entirely irrelevant to the facts themselves.
And yet certain people ride such a high horse when they distribute condemnation on those that dont believe in a theory.
That to me is utter nonsense.

Lastly, and not to single anyone out here on the forum, I think there's a real problem how some people go about promoting evolution and science itself. The game here is one that is loved by nearly everyone and at all times throughout human history - the "good guys vs the bad guys"

People want to identify as the good guy in a fight. We want winners and losers. We want to champion the "right cause"
Promoting evolution as a belief that only rational good-guys hold, in comparison to those that dont (they are the villains) is nasty disingenuous propaganda and antithetical to a rational, diverse community.