Republican Acceptance of Evolution Plummets

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Think for myself, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What did they evolve from then?
     
  2. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think man always existed, except he looked much different than he looks today. He was smaller, much hairer, facial features different. What do you think that lone strain first evolved into, a tadpole, then a fish and eventually into a whale? How did it finally become an ape and then a man?
     
  3. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I corrected you because you were wrong, not because I am smug. The Big Bang Theory predicts a curved universe, and Cosmic Inflation Theory predicts a flat universe. So no, they quite clearly are not the same theory. Learn a little humility.
     
  4. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ignorance of something doesn't mean it isn't real.
     
  5. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What I can believe is that after the big bang and the earth was created, that there were several, or many strains of life formed and those strains of life evolved into different species, one being a human.
     
  6. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't mean it is either. It makes a lot more since than thinking one lone strain over billions of years evolved into every living thing on this earth.
     
  7. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One, you weren't correcting me. Two, inflation theory solves problems of the Big Bang theory. It is a part of the theory. I can back up what I say with links, if you wish.
     
  8. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How? Evolution.
     
  9. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Col. Mustard is one of the characters in the classic board game Clue.




    Actually it isn't false. Inflation theory is complementary to the big bang theory and posits a period of extremely rapid expansion in the first femtoseconds of existance, before settling down to more "normal" BB theoretical expansion rates. The inflation explanation addresses three of the most important problems with the BB theory - flatness - (the universe shouldn't be this flat), horizon (uniform cosmic background temperature demonstrates opposite points must have touched at some point) and monopole (the mystery of the missing monopoles).



    No it was an allusion to the knowledge or decided lack thereof in ancient times.
    When explanations are demanded of the ignorant, by the ignorant, the result is usually perpetuation of ignorance. Hence biblical mythology.


    You are not describing the use of information, you are describing the misuse of it.
    Governments have always lied to their people, this is no startling new revelation.

    But I was talking about knowledge and technology informing one's faith and effecting existing religious dogma. I readily understand the innate conservative drive to maintain the status quo, but I do not understand that in this day and age it generally entails rejection of knowledge, a repudiation of science and the regurgitation of a mountain of circular logic/justifications.

    If religion is there to answer the big questions, like who we are, how did we get here, what happens when we die, who made us/earth/universe, why are we here, do I have free will, etc. etc., then it seems rather important that we apply our increasing knowledge, our evolving technology and our maturing social perspectives to these questions of seeming universal import.
     
  10. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why? What makes you think that it is not possible?
    Where did human organism come from then?
     
  11. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you might want to as well.

    Inflation is complementary to the BB. It does not negate it in any way. In fact it helps to explain the three major problems between the BB and observational evidence.
     
  12. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what "the story of Evolution" is, but the actual theory makes no macro/micro distinction. Those two terms were thought up as a way to help teach some concepts of the theory, but were latched onto by those who disagree with it. There is ample evidence for common descent among species, and it has been witnessed a handful of times. So that's why I say the mechanisms for both* are identical, because they are.

    As to punctuated equilibrium, that is one evolutionary model, but there are other competing ideas. The fact remains that life changes and the theory of evolution creates a coherent model from the currently available evidence.

    *"both" even though there really isn't a difference between the two..
     
  13. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How is that possible, considering the very earth itself hasn't "always existed"?
     
  14. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's exactly what evolution says happened. It's not that an ape just turned into a man. It's that the ancestors of humans were once smaller and hairier.

    You also seem to think that evolution is a single line.

    It's more like a tree. Some species gives birth to a member of its own species with a genetic difference. That genetic difference gets isolated from the rest of its species (maybe it allows it to live in another environment or survive better in its own environment) and the genetic differences pile up until they become a completely new species.

    Both species could continue on separately forever. One species didn't turn into the other. They just branched off and became cousins. Chimps for example share an ancestor with humans. One branch went towards them and another went towards us.

    You seem like a smart person. You seem to want to believe science but only if you fully understand it or it makes sense to you.

    You said you believe in the big bang. During the big bang there were no elements heavier than Be. That means no carbon based life forms (all known life on Earth is carbon based) because carbon would have been too heavy. So clearly no humans existed during that time. It's unlikely any life at all existed in that time.

    Clearly at some point life went from not existing in the universe to existing in the universe.

    What makes more sense to you? That a human just popped into existence? Or that a single celled organism did and after billions of years became more and more complex branching into several million different genetic combinations to create every life on earth?

    Nothing as complex as a human just pops into existence. It's far more likely that we are the result of a few billion year building block process.
     
  15. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Clearly you have reading comprehension problems. The Big Bang Theory predicts a curved universe. Cosmic Inflation Theory predicts a flat universe. If I write it in Chinese will it help you to understand?
     
  16. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, that would be Cluedo. I know who he is, which is how I knew he was fictional. What I don't understand is what possible relevance he has to the rest of your post.

    For the third time, The Big Bang Theory predicts a curved universe, and Cosmic Inflation Theory predicts a flat universe. Given that you will not listen to or acknowledge the fact that you are wrong, you are going onto ignore.

    Goodbye.
     
  17. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh ye of little knowledge.

    Apparently you don't comprehend the word "complementary". As I pointed out earlier, Inflation Theory fits very nicely into the overall big bang theory and addressess the three fundamental problems that existed with it prior to the introduction of Inflation. The flatness of the observed universe, the horizon issue resulting from the background cosmic radiation temp and the mystery of the predicted but missing monopoles.

    Arrogance is can often be easily cured by the acquisition of knowledge.

    I read neither mandarin nor cantonese, so writing down an explanation in chinese of why the inflation theory is not actually consistent with and complementary to the BB will be as worthless as the very notion itself.


    here's a schoolkid explanation for your edification:

    http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/InflationTheory.htm

    Developed in 1980 by particle physicist Alan Guth, inflation theory is today generally considered a widely-accepted component of the big bang theory, even though the central ideas of the big bang theory were well established for years prior to the development of inflation theory.


    While most cosmologists feel that inflation is correct, there are still some seriously suspect assumptions required to make the math work. Hence, it has yet to achieve the same stature as BB.

    If you wish to display an understanding of scientific knowledge around here, I suggest you arm yourself with some before make the attempt.
     
  18. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess its difficult for some to differentiate between a theory like Col. Mustard did it and a scientific Theory like Evolution or the Big Bang. A subtle point, a nuanced point, but a definitive point nonetheless.

    I am fully aware of the issues revolving around the big bang. I am also fully aware of how neatly inflation slides right into the BB theory to resolve these issues. I am also fully aware that the math supporting the theory of Inflation is in part a tad dodgy, relying on some serious wild ass assumptions.

    I love being put on ignore for being right. It says so much about the abilities and inabilities of the ignorer.
     
  19. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is exactly one of its flaws. They are not the same.

    No. Punctuated Equilibrium as a theory specifically was created precisely because there was no physical evidence of mutation from one species to the next.

    That is not true at all. Claiming that is similar to saying that because both cake and guacamole contain salt, they are the same. And...did you say witnessed? Link?

    They are as you said. Ideas. Not facts. Nothing more.
     
  20. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Based on.......?????? When you demand proof but provide none, you just look like an idiot Skippy.
     
  21. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What I can believe is that after the big bang and the earth was created, that there were several, or many strains of life formed and those strains of life evolved into different species, one being a human. Can you tell me why that doesn't make sense? It makes more sense than trying to tell me one strain came down on the back of a comet and evolved after billions of years into every living thing we have today
     
  22. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only difference between the two is time scale. They are the same in all other aspects.

    I was talking about the macro and micro evolution terms.

    Endogenous retroviruses make common descent between humans and chimpanzees as certain as anything can be in the realm of science. We share at least 14 ERVs with chimpanzees. The odds of sharing one ERV with an unrelated species is 1 out of 1,500,000,000. The odds of us sharing 14 with an unrelated species is 1 in 2.9 x 10^128.

    As for speciation, one example is the Grants' observation of Galapagos finches. Another example is the forced evolution of single-celled yeast into multicellular yeast.
     
  23. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, what you think makes sense to you has to be supported by evidence otherwise you could quite obviously be completely wrong. Life has definitely evolved while it has been on Earth, and life is certainly occupying Earth. However, from a purely scientific point of view, this is neither proof that evolution is a natural process, nor that it is strictly indigenous to the Earth.

    Evolution is an incredibly strong scientific theory because its hypothesis can be sustained with evidence. Contradictorily, the central hypothesis of the abiogenesis theory is not supported by any such evidence. Not a scrap. Therefore, it is a dead theory. At least under presently understood conditions.

    As far as I am concerned, it makes abundantly more sense for life to be spored within a galaxy, just as an oak tree spores to reproduce. That way, when it hits a planet with exactly the right conditions it is able to take off. As far as I am concerned, that makes more sense than thinking it is in any way exclusive to Earth.
     
  24. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The evidence is that life didn't exist and then it did. We know that life could not have possibly existed 1 second after the big bang.

    Abiogenesis may or may not have happened on Earth but it did happen.
     
  25. Quantumhead

    Quantumhead New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it isn't. That's a fallacy, because you're picking one cause for life when there are other possibilities for it, and pretending yours is the only one.

    I was talking about life on Earth. I think you have very probably not read my post properly.

    Again, that is fallacy, since you are falsely proposing that abiogenesis is the only means by which life may have initially occurred.

    I'm bored of responding to fallacies created and sustained by people's own religious/anti-religious bigotry. I am only interested in what the evidence says, and what the law of reason says in the absence of evidence.
     

Share This Page