Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_dartagnan]

Because my head shaking has been brought forward in service of the position that evolutionists are all confused

Trevor, I never said all evolutionists are confused, did I?

Kevin has been asked whether he has read anything about evolution. He answers "I have heard assumptions...."

No, that is a misrepresentation of what has transpired here, and flat out dishonest and an insult to those who actually comprehend what has taken place. I said I had heard "assertions" and by that I meant assertions related to the question I asked, meaning of course, that I read them, not that I literally heard someone yell them through the hallways. The assertions were similar to the ones offered by TD, so I wasn't surprised to see her list, as it was familiar.

Which leads me to pose the question once again: have you read anything about evolution?

Yes I have. And again, I would note that this is essentially what I predicted would happen. I ask a simple question and the evolution fanatics get defensive by attacking me for "ignorance." None of the novice evolution proponents have even tried to answer the question. I knew precisely what I was getting into here. I knew I would have to wait until either Tarski or EA took time out to explain things. The rest of you are left barking insults, similar to the cartoon illustrated on this thread.

Why the head shaking?

Because you like to pretend you're looking down your nose at others.

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.

Example? The fact that none of the novice proponents have been able to offer an answer is proof of what I say. You want to attribute something t me I have never said or argued: that all evolutionists are idiots who only pretend to know what they're talking about.

The funniest thing about this whole scenario is that nowhere have I once rejected evolution as false.

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.

"Stunned"? You're getting desperate now aren't you Trev?

So you've read you say, but you do not produce an answer just the same as the rest of amateurs here? Hell, even EA hasn't provided an answer, but he does so because he dismisses the question because he thinks the evidence is so overwhelming that the question is pointless. Nobody else here seemed to see that as a reasonable response. Why? Because they are ignorant of the details that make evolution theory compelling.

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.

Again you misunderstand my purposes here, which is something you're used to doing, unfortunately. Again, I knew exactly what I was getting into here. I knew I'd be tarred and feathered and then dragged under the bus. People like to do this because they think it makes them look smarter. But I'm no fool, and I know most of you who accept evolution theory do so blindly. The simple fact that it destroys the Garden of Eden story is enough to attract fans. They don't need to understand it all. They just need to know its usefulness on forums where religion is a common target.

I have not made any argument against evolution whatsoever. I have merely asked basic questions that don't find easy answers. These are questions others would ask if they were not too worried about being gang banged by the mocking hens who think they are somehow intelligent just because they sing the song of scientific consensus. I have thicker skin than most, and frankly do not give a rats ass what you think of my knowledge level.

Having said that, I would bet that my effort on this thread will produce the single most important thread on evolution this forum has ever seen. Why? Because I have gotten EA and Tarski to take time out and explain the science of it all. So whenever you have time to get over yourself, maybe you should thank me. They should dissect their responses to me and make it a sticky in celestial.

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 agree completely. And I would also say that unless you are an actual expert in biological sciences, you are not in any position to really know whether what the scholarly consensus says is true or not. You do not have the tools to make that kind of informed analysis. It is something that is simply accepted by those who are not willing to do the legwork to understand. This includes you and I both.

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

Oh so now I'm "shocked"? More hyperbole to bolster your already exagerrated straw man? Again I understand teh branch analogy. What I am not getting is specific details about how humans became human whereas the "common ancestor" remained the same or became something else.

All this shows is that he is ignorant on the topic

Ah, the true agenda rears its ugly head. It makes things so much easier when you're calling people who present questions, "ignorant." I mean that's sure to make you look smarter and foster education isn't it?

As for what the hand of God has to do with any of it.

Multiple straw men I see. Where did I ever mention the hand of God?

Inserting the hand of God does not help us understand anything about the development of life.

Which is why Christians don't necessarily see evolution as a nemesis to Christian theology. In my view, the hand of God comes in handy when evolution hits its dead end and the question becomes, "How did life go live?" I have mentioned this several times in this thread, and I know it is a subject seperate from evolution, but it is one that has no answer from scientists.

Better to spend our time figuring out what we can than to sit back and say, "oh, God did that."

No wonder you write articles for Price. Everything has to be about bashing religion, even when nobody has said anything about it.

[_silentkid]

I am asking questions here, and I have been met with antagonistic sarcasm.

Why don't all fish look like sharks if they shared a common ancestor?

I don't know that they do all share the same ancestor. This is the premise that is taken for granted. I mean according to your paradigm, all life on earth, humans included, evolved from sea life, right? But my question wasn't about appearance.

I apologize if you felt my reply was sarcastic. I was simply trying to make the point that sharks exist, yet they evolved from the same common ancestor as fish. Why haven't sharks evolved into fish since that time? That's essentially the same question you were asking about chimps/humans. No sarcasm intended. And yes, my paradigm is that all life evolved from a single source. I see nothing wrong with a paradigm that is supported by empirical evidence (i.e. the fossil record and genetics). Maybe it's wrong. But creationism/intelligent design is not a viable alternative, for reasons stated in the numerous other threads we've had on this topic.

PS: If you want a good perspective on evolution from believing LDS, PM me and I'll give you the names of BYU professors who accept every tenet of the theory while still maintaining a belief in Mormonism and god. I'm not the best at trying to explain these things online.

[_silentkid]

In my view, the hand of God comes in handy when evolution hits its dead end and the question becomes, "How did life go live?" I have mentioned this several times in this thread, and I know it is a subject seperate from evolution, but it is one that has no answer from scientists.

This is essentially a "God of the gaps" argument. Of course, if something is not yet known or answered by science, you can use God as the explanation. But what happens when science does discover a natural explanation? It removes God from the equation. Scientists like Kenneth Miller, E.O. Wilson, and Stephen Jay Gould have addressed this issue.

[_Tarski]

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.

Once the ancestors of homosapiens ended up in highly social situations where a little bit of things like decpetions and rudimentary language or gesture were possible, then that very sociality was a new aspect of the enviroment for the human creature. Humans have to survive the intelligent scheming of each other--we must navigate the social world. The creates and intelligence arms race. Just a bit of extra intelligence and sociality could get this off the ground. The tool of language in its very basic early form was the begining of a a whole new kind of environment. Humans swim in the ocean of language and ideas. This presents drastically new challenges and evolutionary pressures. Its a whole other level as they say. Like all things of this type, a little movement in that direction for other reasons gets the ball rolling and its a snowball as I said.

[Guest]

I can't help myself -- I like mirror neurons. :)

Dart, there is some scientific inquiry into mirror neurons and some theorize that this drove our leap forward in terms of sociability -- we were able to mimic each other, essentially. Look here:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramacha ... an_p1.html

I'm sorry for linking to an article rather than explaining it, yet, I think it does a better job, than I, of making the connection.

I just ordered this book a few days ago in hopes to better understand theories behind our great leap forward and a possible connection to mirror neurons
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Languag ... 1588112152

~edited since I found a better article~

[_dartagnan]

This is essentially a "God of the gaps" argument. Of course, if something is not yet known or answered by science, you can use God as the explanation.

Well, it isn't just that science hasn't explained it yet.

It is that the science of materialism has essentially hit a brick wall. I don't think it is posible for the current paradigm to ever answer this question because of the boundaries that have been set. Evolution theory explains the variety of life and its development over a course of billions of years, and it might be true. But if we accept this theory as well as the big bang, then the two have to meet at an inevitable point by suggesting that life somehow sprang forth from inorganic matter in a manner that is beyond explanation in the current paradigm. Life doesn't spring forth from nonlife. There has not been a single documented case of this happening anywhere in the world, in recorded history, nor have scientists been able to produce such an experiment in the lab, even when replicating the supposed atmospheric scencarios that are supposed to have been present during the time when life first came about. So how could this have happened after the big bang? The current scientific paradigm will never provide that answer.

Natural selection and adaptation cannot explain how the first life form came about. I am not even sure how it can explain flying creatures since this would presume some ecological condition that would make flying more profitable, and even more interesting is that nonintelligent genes would have somehow learned about aerodynamics and accomplished flight, billions of years before intelligent humans did.

But what happens when science does discover a natural explanation? It removes God from the equation

Sure. But when it cannot provide an explanation, God is a possible alternative.

[_Some Schmo]

Unbelievable.

So, I guess you think that asking a question that has an extremely complex answer being met with links to relevant answers to your specific questions is a copout? Why the hell should anyone do your research for you? And because we don't sit here and write scientific journals on this stuff in order to demonstrate our understanding is evidence that we just accept it blindly?

I find it extremely difficult not to insult you, because you come up with the most nonsensical and shortsighted crap imaginable. Why would anyone in their right mind bother trying to explain anything to you? One would have to assume you actually bring common sense to the table before they exerted that effort, a concept clearly lost on you.

The only thing you're actually adding to the topic of this thread is the demonstration that ignorance of evolution is willful in many cases. And anyone lurking here that actually finds anything you say holds water (a scenario I find unlikely, but there are a lot of stupid people out there, so it's possible) is a victim of your ignorance. I suppose I should at least thank you for helping out my hypothesis.

[_Moniker]

Natural selection and adaptation cannot explain how the first life form came about.

Yet, that doesn't mean that natural selection and evolution does not occur. Evolution is the change of organisms over time -- not the origins of life.

[_Trevor]

Trevor, I never said all evolutionists are confused, did I?

Perhaps I should have added the word "here", since these were the evolutionists you were addressing. I thought you would be able to pick up on that.

No, that is a misrepresentation of what has transpired here, and flat out dishonest and an insult to those who actually comprehend what has taken place. I said I had heard "assertions" and by that I meant assertions related to the question I asked, meaning of course, that I read them, not that I literally heard someone yell them through the hallways. The assertions were similar to the ones offered by TD, so I wasn't surprised to see her list, as it was familiar.

I simply said that you answered a question about what you had read by talking about the things you had heard.

Yes I have. And again, I would note that this is essentially what I predicted would happen. I ask a simple question and the evolution fanatics get defensive by attacking me for "ignorance." None of the novice evolution proponents have even tried to answer the question. I knew precisely what I was getting into here. I knew I would have to wait until either Tarski or EA took time out to explain things. The rest of you are left barking insults, similar to the cartoon illustrated on this thread.

You make it sound like what you have been reading is not about evolution per se, but about debating with people who take an evolutionist perspective. Sort of like the "research" you had done on the historical Jesus question, which seemed centered on one apologetic book.

Because you like to pretend you're looking down your nose at others.

Sigh. How we have become such enemies that the first thing you reach for is this! I shake my head because I see you doing the same dance with every topic now. I am not looking down my nose at you. I am shaking my head ruefully because you seem to be stuck in an unfortunate phase. My perception, but it was not simply me being arrogant. I retain some good feelings about our past association.

The funniest thing about this whole scenario is that nowhere have I once rejected evolution as false.

No. The funniest thing is that we take the limitations of discussion boards as the limitations of the people we are supposedly discussing things with. And I include myself here, along with my responses to you. I am not going to take it personally, or at least I will try not to.

"Stunned"? You're getting desperate now aren't you Trev?

And here we have a prime example of misunderstanding. You may not have been stunned. I contend that I was not desperate.

So you've read you say, but you do not produce an answer just the same as the rest of amateurs here? Hell, even EA hasn't provided an answer, but he does so because he dismisses the question because he thinks the evidence is so overwhelming that the question is pointless. Nobody else here seemed to see that as a reasonable response. Why? Because they are ignorant of the details that make evolution theory compelling.

Do you want a cookie or a beanie button? O, Socrates, please point out how we think we know when we actually don't. I promise I won't pass you the hemlock.

Again you misunderstand my purposes here, which is something you're used to doing, unfortunately. Again, I knew exactly what I was getting into here. I knew I'd be tarred and feathered and then dragged under the bus. People like to do this because they think it makes them look smarter. But I'm no fool, and I know most of you who accept evolution theory do so blindly. The simple fact that it destroys the Garden of Eden story is enough to attract fans. They don't need to understand it all. They just need to know its usefulness on forums where religion is a common target.

Ah, aren't we all full of misunderstandings. And when I say you have misunderstood me, does that mean I won this round, at least, until you say I misunderstood you again?

I think you know why you were tarred, feathered, and dragged under the bus. Because that is the precise nature of the beast here. So congratulations to you. You have tested and reaffirmed the limits of discourse on this board. I have no doubt that in reality this tells us little about people "accepting evolution so blindly." And it is clear that just like they drag out the old evolution saw, you clearly have your own schtick, which is to excite a situation in which you can point these things out. And the dance continues...

I have thicker skin than most, and frankly do not give a rats ass what you think of my knowledge level.

Good for you, Kevin. Since no one's knowledge level is at issue here, then others can feel satisfied not to answer your questions. We can all simply ask each other devastating questions all day, and ponder the significance of the profound aporia.

Having said that, I would bet that my effort on this thread will produce the single most important thread on evolution this forum has ever seen. Why? Because I have gotten EA and Tarski to take time out and explain the science of it all. So whenever you have time to get over yourself, maybe you should thank me. They should dissect their responses to me and make it a sticky in celestial.

Next you'll want free meals for life in the prytaneum.

I agree completely. And I would also say that unless you are an actual expert in biological sciences, you are not in any position to really know whether what the scholarly consensus says is true or not. You do not have the tools to make that kind of informed analysis. It is something that is simply accepted by those who are not willing to do the legwork to understand. This includes you and I both.

And, in our complex world it is perfectly reasonable to rely on experts in this way. That is why people are likely to trust Dawkins over Trevor or Kevin. Big surprise.

Ah, the true agenda rears its ugly head. It makes things so much easier when you're calling people who present questions, "ignorant." mean that's sure to make you look smarter and foster education isn't it?

So the pot has called the kettle black. Hilarious.

Multiple straw men I see. Where did I ever mention the hand of God?

Gee, I'm sorry. I must have mistaken you for the Kevin Graham who insists on being the resident champion of theism. My bad.

Which is why Christians don't necessarily see evolution as a nemesis to Christian theology. In my view, the hand of God comes in handy when evolution hits its dead end and the question becomes, "How did life go live?" I have mentioned this several times in this thread, and I know it is a subject seperate from evolution, but it is one that has no answer from scientists.

And yet you are perfectly willing to take up the topic. Straw man?

No wonder you write articles for Price. Everything has to be about bashing religion, even when nobody has said anything about it.

The layers of misunderstanding here are numerous. The very last thing I intended to do by bringing up Shermer was to bash religion. In fact, I would say that Shermer, of all of the currently prominent atheists, tries best to dialogue respectfully with religionists on the evolution issue. His argument to Christians on evolution is simply that the God hypothesis does nothing to promote scientific knowledge, whereas scientific method does. It is a practical point, really. No hating involved in making it.

Price is likewise not simply about religion bashing. He has a critical pose in the radical tradition, and still he enjoys going to church, albeit as a non-believer. Arguing against the historical Jesus, for example, is not simple religion bashing. It can be undertaken for the simple joy of exploring an interesting hypothesis.

[_silentkid]

Evolution theory explains the variety of life and its development over a course of billions of years, and it might be true. But if we accept this theory as well as the big bang, then the two have to meet at an inevitable point by suggesting that life somehow sprang forth from inorganic matter in a manner that is beyond explanation in the current paradigm. Life doesn't spring forth from nonlife. There has not been a single documented case of this happening anywhere in the world, in recorded history, nor have scientists been able to produce such an experiment in the lab, even when replicating the supposed atmospheric scencarios that are supposed to have been present during the time when life first came about. So how could this have happened after the big bang? The current scientific paradigm will never provide that answer.

I wasn't addressing this issue. I was responding to to your ape/human evolution comment. The "spark of life" issue is something I'm not qualified to talk about as I haven't researched it much. I'm confident that there is a natural explanation and that as technology continues to improve, we will gain more insight. I'm still not willing to fill that gap with god because I'm not sure that it helps us understand it any better than if we filled it with ectoplasm.

I am not even sure how it can explain flying creatures since this would presume some ecological condition that would make flying more profitable, and even more interesting is that nonintelligent genes would have somehow learned about aerodynamics and accomplished flight, billions of years before intelligent humans did.

I'm not sure I understand the statement I bolded. Genes don't "learn" anything. Random mutations in genes can cause a change in phenotype, beneficial or detrimental. If the change leads to a phenotype that is beneficial and a niche can be exploited, that change stands a better chance of being passed on through reproduction then one that is detrimental. Again, you're prescribing an intelligent direction to natural selection, a means to an end. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Birds fly, bats fly, and insects fly, using wings that are completely different in structure. This is called convergent evolution...analagous structures develop independent of common ancestry. That indicates a selective pressure for flight. The mutation has to be present and natural selection has to act on that mutation. Note that not all birds fly, not all insects fly, and very few mammals do. Let's go back to the fish/shark example. Sharks essentially have wings...their pectoral fins help them acheive neutral bouyancy in water by providing lift when they swim. They fly underwater.

But what happens when science does discover a natural explanation? It removes God from the equation.

Sure. But when it cannot provide an explanation, God is a possible alternative.

Yes, God is a possible alternative. But there are a lot of other possible alternatives as well.