Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_Moniker]

Hi, dart.

By reading. On most subjects I can expect educated posters to provide educated explanations for any given position on the relevant forums. But when it comes to evolution, there remains a divide of understanding because of the contempt and arrogance demonstrated by its adherents. I mean just look at what's taking place here. I'm not too proud to admit I don't understand all of it, but you guys are more than happy to point out any "ignorance" or "miseducation" on my part simply because I don't immediately convert to your belief system at the slightest effort by your esteemed missionar, er, I mean scientists. And yes, I knew exactly what I was in for when I started to question evolution here (note, I didn't say I rejected it - I merely questioned some of its premises to show that it is not the most solid of theories). Obviously most people here don't understand much of any of this, including those who accept it for anti-religious purposes.

I hope you're aware that many Christians (and denominations) do not decry the theory of evolution. Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, people make it work -- lots of them! I don't think you're ignorant! I think you've been given some pretty great answers on this thread that perhaps may be confusing for you. I actually have saved a few of them. The Talk Origins website that EAllusion linked to is a pretty good read and may help answer some of your questions. I think, most likely, no one was asking you to convert to a belief system -- they were attempting to explain it to you. It doesn't appear, to me, that you're willfully ignorant of the theory unless you make NO attempt to understand it. Coggins, is one that you can talk to and he repeats the same crap over and over and over again and he makes NO attempt whatsoever to understand what he's discussing.

There are so many great books that explain the theory. I would suggest that if you truly want to take a critical look at the theory the best way to do that is to read the literature and get a good grasp of the theory -- then look at the other side and their arguments. This is not an attempt to convert, merely to understand that the theory is what it is -- not pro-religion, or anti-religion -- it's just science. :)

There is lots I don't know precisely about the theory (and science in general) even though I've read a few books, lots of articles, and websites related to evolution -- I understand it enough where I see the evidence for it and get a general grasp of the theory itself.

So to remedy that would you prefer to sit back, ignore sincere questions, and mock everyone who doesn't agree? What purpose will that serve other than to stroke your already well massaged egos? Why is it so hard to simply admit there are huge holes in the evolution theory as an explanation for all life on earth? Even Wolpert had to admit that, "the origin of life itself, the evolution of the miraculous cell from which all living things evolved, is still poorly understood." He was not referring to creationists on internet forums. He was referring to scientists in the academic community. The fact is, this is also "poorly understood" by those who uphold it. But they believe it to be true anyway. This sounds kinda like how Mormons believe in an eternal regression of gods, even though they cannot explain the soundness of it.

Then you say this and wonder why you may be getting some of the answers you are? What are the holes in evolutionary theory, dart? How can you say what precisely they are when it's obvious (and you admit) that your knowledge of the theory is lacking? That would somehow be akin to me saying, "God raped Mary and had a bastard son that he later murdered" and then attacked Christianity from my lack of understanding.

[_dartagnan]

When humans moved onto the Savanna and began to experience extreme heat, less hair would help them adapt to their environment.

Then why aren't Lions bald? They have to rest most of the day because it is too hot to hunt in their fur coats. They spend most of their day panting in whatever shade they can find. And are gorillas really in need of warmth in African jungles? Why have humans developed hairless skin? Exposure to the sun doesn't seem to explain much. Temperature and survival cannot be the explanation. And if it was really a threat to their survival, it seems highly unlikely that they would have ever left the forrests to begin with.

Why humans have bigger brains: When humans living near the sea began to eat “brain food”, shell fish, clams, frogs, etc. etc., their brains began to grow larger due to DHA and the Omega 3 EFA.

Even assuming the "brain food" gimmick is real, life supposedly originated in the sea to begin with, so our brains should have gradually been reduced in size as life migrated to land and became less reliant on sea food. Intelligence does not necessarily correspond to brain size either or else elephants would be ruling the earth. There is no consistency here. Did humans become human because they moved to the plains or because they moved to the coast?

Why do humans have different color eyes? Darker eyes evolved in those human groups who live closer to the equator because dark eyes are less sensitive to light. The farther away from the equator you get the lighter the eye color. (Same with skin) All about adaptation.

This isn't consistent either. Populations far removed from the equator are mainly dark eyed (Eskimos, Japanese, etc). I live pretty close to the equator, and while it is warmer year around, this doesn't necessarily mean the sun is stronger than it is in say, Wisconsin on a hot summer day.

Standing upright and running on two legs seems an adaption beneficial for surviving on the open plains. The faster one can run the better hunter he/she will be and the more easily he/she can escape predators.

Have you ever tried to outrun a gorilla? I wouldn't recommend it. If humans went out on the open plains, then why didn't they obtain long distance eye sight? That would have been more beneficial than simply running long distances. And humans cannot run long distances without extensive training anyway. Simply having two legs doesn't automatically mean you can run miles every day.

The upper body strength of a primate who needs to swing from tree to tree is no longer needed.

It doesn't require that much strength to swing, and gorillas don't do as much of it as you might think.

Anything else I can help you with this morning? ;-)

Yea. How did the first sea life morph into birds? I mean at some point the genetics involved had to learn the laws of aerodynamics, right? How was that possible? Did fish start jumping out of the water to catch mosquitos? And then after a billion years, grew wings as the mosquitos were buzzing higher? And then after another billion billion years, developed feathers? And then after another billion billion years, learned to live in trees? And then after another billion billion years, lost their gills, developed lungs, etc?

[_Tarski]

Wow.

Still no direct answers. Just head shaking from Trevor, promises of forthcoming answers from EA, and now beastie's backhanded comment that I'm uneducated. Tarski seems to be answering a question I never asked, which is why are we less likely to change our paradigm and absorb witty analogies that explain why evolution must be true.

WTF?
If that what you got out of it then I can't help you.
The point is that if you properly realize that evolution is a braches of a tree then you no more wonder why apes don't evolute into humans than you would wonder why that branch over there doesn't become this branch. Remember the location of the branch encode the shape. Two different positions just encode the morphology or body plan.


If you were a Great Dane would you ask why those poodles don't evolve into Great Danes? Might those poodles not be asking the same question?

The Dude told you the question was little more than a non sequitur. I patiently tried to show you why. In short your linear view of evolution that pictures all creatures trying to evolve inot humans is just plain wrong and well, silly.

I advise you to try to understand it without the defensive assumption that this is a an atheist conspiracy. It is clouding an otherwise fine intelligence.
No one is saying that evolution just has to be true a priori. We are telling you how to think about it better and that there is lots of evidence but that the evidence has to be thought about like the evidence for there having been an ancient battle in some area or the clues to a crime. The difference is only that the amount of evidence for evolution is huge--especially now that we can read the tales DNA tells.

Read Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God". He is a Christian and a great scientist too.

[_dartagnan]

I hope you're aware that many Christians (and denominations) do not decry the theory of evolution.

And neither do I.

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, people make it work -- lots of them! I don't think you're ignorant! I think you've been given some pretty great answers on this thread that perhaps may be confusing for you.

I'm not confused by any of the answers. I just don't think theya re answering the specific question I have asked. Truth Dancer finally came to the rescue with hypothetical scenarios, but I do not see much consistency in the logic. For example, the explanation that we lost our hair because of the sun, needs to account for the fact that other creatures live in the sun, yet remain hairy.

The Talk Origins website that EAllusion linked to is a pretty good read and may help answer some of your questions.

I just saw that post and I appeciate EA's effort, and will look through the article later today. It is a lot to drink in.

I think, most likely, no one was asking you to convert to a belief system -- they were attempting to explain it to you.

Let's face it. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand much at all about it. The simply choose to believe it. This is why I started these questions. Most proponents do not know how to answer basic questions and concerns regarding the theory. Instead they mock, while waiting for the brainiacs to come in and save the day. I never had a doubt that Tarski and EA could do that.

It doesn't appear, to me, that you're willfully ignorant of the theory unless you make NO attempt to understand it.

What is it that I do not understand? As I have said before, I completely "get" the concepts of NS and adaptation that evolution theory depends upon. And because I get it, I do not see how this explains the origins of life. I understand the idea behind mutations and such, but the origin of life itself is still a mystery that is beyond any explanation. I'm more interested in the origin of life than I am about questions of evolution over billions of years. But I raised the questions about specific ecological pressures just to point out the fact that nobody really knows. Nobody even knows if ecological pressures really made humans evolve into what we are today.

There are so many great books that explain the theory.

I think I understand the theory quite well. What I wanted is to see how the proponents would explain things in their own words. I was hoping the non-scientists would speak up and match their arrogance with some substantial knolwedge of their own, but I guess some things never change. This is like MADB in a way, when Mormons are asked simple questions about complexities in their theology, and they go silent until someone like DCP or Bokovoy come in to explain things. Most Mormons don't really understand these things at all. But they believe it anyway because that is what they are told from their own authorities. Whether the doctrine is true or not is really beside the point I wanted to make.

Then you say this and wonder why you may be getting some of the answers you are?

Pay close attention to how things played out. I responded this way only after I got contempt from people like Beastie, Schmo and Trevor.

What are the holes in evolutionary theory, dart?

Well, for starters, the fact that nobdoy has produced a consistent ecological factor that would plausibly cause an ape-like creature to evolve into a super intelligent, hairless, upright, meat eating homo sapien. TD provided some of the standard examples, which are really just subset theories in the overall theory itself, but EA has decided that none of it matters since he thinks the evidence is already enough to prove the point. And he will get into some really technical science that will probably fly over the heads of everyone else except for a few.

So we go back to the original statement. Why are people ignorant? For the same reasons most evolution proponents are ignorant. You really have to understand genetics and DNA science to understand the complexities of the arguments, or else you're just placing your faith in scholarly consensus. Most people do the latter.

[_antishock8]

Christian Apologist: Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls***

Critic: That's Bulls***

Christian Apologist: Ad Hominem

[_Trevor]

Seriously, have you read anything about evolution?

I have heard assertions but nothing that sounds remotely plausible. From what I can tell it seems to be mostly a circular argument that takes evolution for granted, and then assumes this must account for the existence of life in all its varieties.

Because my head shaking has been brought forward in service of the position that evolutionists are all confused, I thought I would revisit what I think is an important moment in this thread.

Kevin has been asked whether he has read anything about evolution. He answers "I have heard assumptions...." Which leads me to pose the question once again: have you read anything about evolution?

Why the head shaking? Because I see Kevin, once again, launching into a heated discussion on a topic he knows precious little about, displaying no small amount of ignorance on the subject, and then glorying in what he takes to be the ignorance and incoherence of others.

I shake my head, because I am not an expert in the biological sciences, yet I have read what the experts have to say, and they sound a lot more convincing to me than Kevin's stunned bemusement.

There is a news flash I will share with all of you. The Renaissance Man is extinct. There is no point in any of us pretending to be that person. There is too much knowledge, too many fields of endeavor, too little individual brain capacity, and too limited a human lifespan to expect to be able to hold forth on every topic and make a meaningful contribution.

Unless one of you is an actual expert in the biological sciences, I doubt you know enough to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. I am not surprised by Kevin's shock that anyone can believe a single branch in the evolutionary tree became homo sapiens, while other "apes" did not. All this shows is that he is ignorant on the topic.

As for what the hand of God has to do with any of it. I really don't care. I take Michael Shermer's position. Inserting the hand of God does not help us understand anything about the development of life. Better to spend our time figuring out what we can than to sit back and say, "oh, God did that."

[_truth dancer]

Hey Kevin,

OK, I figured out the problem here.

You are looking at things backwards. :-)

Of course there are all sorts of things that "could" have happened, or that happened differently at different times or in different species, but we have what worked best for our ancestors. Just like every other life form. It is what it is, regardless of how we think things could or should have evolved. Early creatures weren't thinking about how or what is the best way to evolve, they just adapted to whatever circumstances presented themselves. And, of course there is the little factor of sexual selection that also enters in. ;-)

If our ancestors survived better with less hair, it doesn't matter that lions survive better with more hair. If we don't require so much muscle, it goes away; doesn't matter if gorillas survive better with more. If our ancestors thrived on shell fish and clams and their brains grew, it doesn't matter if we think something should have happened differently. We can't look back and see how it could have been or should have been. It is what it is. It could have been totally different. If those little fish hand not come out of the sea we wouldn't be here and a whole other world would exist. If those little worms hadn't evolved to have a spinal cord who knows if any creatures would even have a brain? :-) Probably not.

The other thing is, from my understanding, each little trait doesn't evolve in a vacuum. A life form is constantly evolving and adapting in millions of ways. In other words, our primate ancestors most likely lost hair and muscle as they began to stand upright, and lost some of their facial features. Each single trait doesn't evolve in isolation but is a combination of multiple factors.

OK, how did birds fly?

Bird ancestors were sort of like flying squirrel dinosaurs. They were feathered and first learned to glide. :-)

Also this all didn't happen over billions and billions of years... Mammals only started taking over the world (smile) after the extinction of the dinosaur 65 million years ago. We separated from our closest primate ancestors only about 7 million years ago (If I recall correctly).

Here is an idea for you... why not visit the Smithsonian Natural History Museum? It pretty much has the answers to every possible question on evolution anyone could have. I'm going there today and if you have any specific questions I will make sure and see what I can discover! :-)

~dancer~

[Guest]

When humans moved onto the Savanna and began to experience extreme heat, less hair would help them adapt to their environment.

Then why aren't Lions bald? They have to rest most of the day because it is too hot to hunt in their fur coats. They spend most of their day panting in whatever shade they can find.

Adaptation does not give what the species needs for optimum survival. A species can NOT will itself to adapt. If a lion is hot it can't will itself to lose hair. Lions are prospering in their environment and therefore those with the amount of fur that you see on them are passing on the genes that make them furry. If there was a massive heat wave (theorizing) where many died out and a few that were LESS furry survived the less furry lions would pass on these genes to the off-spring. The beetle analogy I talked about earlier needs to be thought about with all species to truly understand how adaptation on this larger scale you talk about. Humans didn't adapt the way they did in large scales because they just needed to -- those that were MORE successful at hunting, gathering, procreating passed on their genes in higher numbers than those that were less skilled in the environment. There could be mutations and these mutations may be beneficial in certain environments -- if they are beneficial they are passed on. If they're not beneficial they may STILL be passed on. If they are a detriment to survival it's likely the genes will die out of the population.

Our ancestors didn't move to certain environments and their bodies just all of a sudden became precisely what they needed for that environment. The environment worked to weed out those not capable of surviving, essentially. The environment itself played a part on which genes were passed on.

And are gorillas really in need of warmth in African jungles? Why have humans developed hairless skin? Exposure to the sun doesn't seem to explain much. Temperature and survival cannot be the explanation. And if it was really a threat to their survival, it seems highly unlikely that they would have ever left the forrests to begin with.

You're assuming here that evolution, adaptation, works necessarily perfectly and gives to the species what they need. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter what gorillas NEED -- it matters if they ARE surviving (they are) and are passing on these genes. Those that are more skilled at surviving pass on these genes. Look at bugs, dart -- when they become resistant to certain pesticides are the bugs sitting off in a corner saying "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can be resistant to this pesticide?" No. Same with bacteria -- the bacteria doesn't WILL itself to be resistant to antibiotics. The few that survive will reproduce and the second generation will have the genes that allowed the first generation to survive.

TD, I'm sooo jealous! I love the Smithsonian museums!

[_Some Schmo]

Did you even read my posts to you, darte?

I'd like you to quote the passage where I mocked you in this thread.

This is yet another fine example of why you are completely useless to talk to. (Yes, I'm mocking you here, but for the first time in this thread). You are an fine example of willful ignorance in action.

[_Moniker]

I hope you're aware that many Christians (and denominations) do not decry the theory of evolution.

And neither do I.

Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, people make it work -- lots of them! I don't think you're ignorant! I think you've been given some pretty great answers on this thread that perhaps may be confusing for you.

I'm not confused by any of the answers. I just don't think theya re answering the specific question I have asked. Truth Dancer finally came to the rescue with hypothetical scenarios, but I do not see much consistency in the logic. For example, the explanation that we lost our hair because of the sun, needs to account for the fact that other creatures live in the sun, yet remain hairy.

Well, we didn't lose hair because we were hot and we just up and decided to be less hairy.

This article may be helpful:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6913934.stm


If adaptation gave all species precisely what they needed for OPTIMUM survival we would all be perfectly adapted to all the environments -- we're NOT perfect! Far from it. We're enough of what we are to SURVIVE. Those in all environments that have enough of whatever they have to SURVIVE pass on their genes. I'm grossly simplifying...

So we go back to the original statement. Why are people ignorant? For the same reasons most evolution proponents are ignorant. You really have to understand genetics and DNA science to understand the complexities of the arguments, or else you're just placing your faith in scholarly consensus. Most people do the latter.

I don't understand the complexities of the theory, really. Yet, I can look at fossils, go to museums, read literature from scientific journals, follow discoveries, etc... and I connect the dots.

This website might be helpful, as well. There are some wonderful videos here!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

This is one I showed to Hammer and even he, apparently, couldn't grasp!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php