I Cannot Embrace Evolution... I Just Can't.

[pandora]

"After reading up on this stuff all day...."

 

Well, I'm sorry to say, an understanding WILL NOT come in what you can read in one day. Like I said, the level of understanding you are seeking takes a few years of chemistry, genetics, and biology to understand the complex mechanisms. Our imaginations are not capable of naturaly imagining things of this scale and it takes an almost expert level knowledge of science in order to really *get* it.

[freeasabird]

You're trying too hard to understand the whole thing, and truly it is overwhelming. In all honestly, I took progressive science classes throughout middle and high schools and still didn't get it. I took a college level biology class and still didn't get it. I had to, at the age of 32, undertake the study for myself and look for my own evidence. Now learning on my own I am frankly blown away that people don't get it. But you really have to immerse yourself into it for an extended period of time.

 

Start smaller. Forgot trying to trace humans back to fish. First just gain an understanding of our shared common descent with other primates. Then you can continue to work back from there. This is a good video that shows the incontrovertible evidence common descent using DNA.

 

 

[TrueFreedom]

Read Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man. Then watch Aaron Ra. There is no disputing this stuff.

[ConureDelSol]

Read Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man. Then watch Aaron Ra. There is no disputing this stuff.

 

Hell, you don't even NEED a reason to watch Aaron Ra. He's Aaron Motherfucking Ra!

 

Honestly, I don't understand everything about Evolution. What I do know is that it makes a whole lot more sense than any creation story ever. That in itself lends it a lot more credibility to me than anything else.

 

I wish I could find a video I saw recently talking about that whole transitional fossils thing. I think it might help you a little.

[TrueFreedom]

Read Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man. Then watch Aaron Ra. There is no disputing this stuff.

 

Hell, you don't even NEED a reason to watch Aaron Ra. He's Aaron Motherfucking Ra!

 

Honestly, I don't understand everything about Evolution. What I do know is that it makes a whole lot more sense than any creation story ever. That in itself lends it a lot more credibility to me than anything else.

 

I wish I could find a video I saw recently talking about that whole transitional fossils thing. I think it might help you a little.

 

AR does a great job of condensing a lot of what we have discovered since Darwin, much of which Darwin predicted. AR is definitely a rock star.

[VacuumFlux]

Another thing to point out is that our understanding of evolution today is after the Modern Synthesis. Darwin didn't know about DNA, and towards the end of his life was leaning towards Lamarkianism (where an animal can gain traits during its lifetime and pass those down to its offspring). It was quite a shock for me to realize just how important the Modern Synthesis was, since I'd grown up with the idea that evolution was all Darwin's thing.

 

Did you study Mendelian genetics in grade school? I did. That was the main focus of teaching kids about DNA. We talked about dominant and recessive traits, and ones that blend. That's an incredibly simplified concept of genetics, like ridiculously simplified. But it's a good intro for kids, and it's easy to understand. Darwin didn't even know that much (there's some debate about whether Darwin ever saw Mendel's research paper, but it certainly wasn't part of the general scientific knowledge at the time). So I'd encourage you to learn more about genetics (and evo-devo is pretty nifty stuff - it's about how the "blueprints" in DNA get translated into a working organism; a lot of evolution makes more sense when you see how it plays out in the embrionic stages).

 

As for Survival of the Fittest, yeah, that's a horribly misused and misleading phrase. For one, fitness isn't absolute; it's fitness for a particular environment. That's why the dinosaurs died off and mammals took over. The environment changed and therefore the dinos became less fit. Another point is that if you define "fitness" as something like aggression, the species will implode as it kills itself off being so aggressive. The entire measure of "fitness" is "does this organism have grandbabies?" Sometimes I think that "survival of the fittest" is just a tautology saying "the ones that survive are the best at surviving".

 

And finally, evolution isn't random. Random changes in DNA are sorta like the fuel for evolution, but it's a very inefficient fuel. The guiding force behind evolution is the environment, and whether an organism survives and produces viable offspring. (Ok, there's also a debate about how much of a factor random genetic drift is compared to natural selection, but that's merely a question of how strong those are relative to each other; no one argues that they're not both important.)

 

One of the problems a lot of people have with evolution is the concept of new species. Like the question "who does the first member of a new species mate with?" That's not how it works. A lot of times, a single species get separated geographically (like a river forms) and the two large groups gradually specialize in different things. One really weird example of this is ring species; subspecies A interbreeds with the neighboring subspecies B, B breed with C, C breed with D.... but A and D can no longer produce viable offspring together, and therefore by some definitions, A and D are not members of the same species. But there's no sharp line dividing them; it's a smooth and gradual transition. It's little changes like that that add up over time to made big changes. Nothing in evolution is sudden.

[Guest wester]

Scientific theories evolve multidimensionally, becoming integrated into an expanding explanatory web driven by correlated research programs. Biological theory affects DNA. Chemistry affects Physics, which affects Astronomy, which affects quantum theory. Each is part of the integrated whole. Darwinian evolution displays precisely this characteristic. Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection are fully integrated with

 

genetic theory,

molecular biology,

anthropology,

ecology,

environmental science,

plate tectonic geology

and nanotechnology.

 

When any scientist operating in any of the above fields has run into any issues or problems within their fields, at no time in the history of scientific inquiry has any of them ever found resolution to their problems by positing that Darwinian Evolution is invalid.

 

EO Wilson in his latest book -The Social Conquest of Earth- theorizes that evolution is driven by and dominated by groups or societies rather than survival of the fittest individuals.

[JadedAtheist]

LifeCycle, you either spent too little time reading about evolution or too stupid to understand it. Explaining how so many different mechanisms work together to make evolution work takes more than a couple hours of reading material and far more for a layperson to understand. Your rejection of evolution and your derision of it underscores your ignorance of the subject. Read an idiots guide or something to help you get a grasp of it, knowing how it all works in a big picture sort of way will help you when it comes to reading the nitty gritty details. Until then, I suggest you withhold judgement so you quit appearing as a fool.

[LivingLife]

Never mind LC, evolution embraces you

[Vigile]

After reading up on this stuff all day. I still can't accept it and don't really care to.

 

Because it could all be some crazy-huge act of chance doesn't mean it is. Yes, yes, I get it... If you have forever it could happen, however unlikely it may seem.

 

I'm not buying that.

 

Natural selection and survival of the fittest for a particular environment is not random chance by any sense of the phrase.

[Vigile]

Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form.

 

I believe that.

 

I don't intend to insult you, but you're not qualified to believe or not believe. Your statement above shows that you have almost 0 understanding of the subject. It's like a person who knows nothing about how computers work that says "so, you expect me to believe that my video game makes all these graphics and sounds simply by toggling 0 and 1?"

[Thought2Much]

LifeCycle, just because you either can't or won't accept a thing because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Hell, I don't understand quantum mechanics at all, yet here I am, all of my atoms and their component particles doing their thing while I type on a box that emits light of various wavelengths through electrical and chemical reactions that happen at the quantum level. The atoms in my body don't care if I believe in them or not.

 

Part of the failure in your thinking stems from the fact that you see humans as having some sort of special place in the universe, or that our species couldn't have occurred due to random chance. The reality is that we are here to observe the universe because circumstances within the universe have allowed us to exist to observe it. We are not here as the result of some sort of grand plan, and any number of different circumstances could have led to us either being very different from what we are now, or not existing at all. What if the strong nuclear force in our universe was a bit stronger, or a bit weaker? Would elements and chemistry work the same way? What if a different form of aerobic organism took hold of the earth over a billion years ago? Would what is known as the Cambrian explosion have happened, where multicellular life suddenly seemed to blossom in various forms? What if the Chixiclub impact never happened? Would humans ever have come about? Would we have intelligent, tool-using dinosaurs, instead?

 

Sure, when you start to calculate the odds of us coming out of the process of evolution, the numbers get sort of ridiculous, but the same kinds of calculations can lead to anyone feeling like they have a special place in the universe. If you start to calculate how unlikely it is that you as an individual could come into existence and be typing posts on the internet, you could start thinking like this: What were the odds of your mother would ovulating at the time that you were conceived? What were the odds that the embryo that formed would be viable, and not spontaneously aborted by your mother? What were the odds that you would be born in a culture that had the socioeconomic factors that would enable you to survive your childhood without starving, learn to read, and go on to use a computer? And so on.

 

However, it sounds like you've already made up your mind, and you've decided to shut the door on learning about any of this, so I'm probably just wasting a bunch of keystrokes here.

[LifeCycle]

"After reading up on this stuff all day. I still can't accept it and don't really care to." (That's why you can't grasp it)

 

Then it's all about ego. Being "special"... being the center of the damn universe and all this wonder, everything, is all about YOU. You don't care about it because that would mean that you are just a speck in the universe, cog in the wheel that is the universe, and not very friggin' special at all... and you can't face that.

 

That's what religion is (unless you have another hypothesis for evolution) it's to feel like the universe revolves around you—it was all put here for you, and you are god's "special child".

 

The arrogance is phenomenal. This kind of arrogance is what fuels bigotry, callousness and the raping of the earth... because people think the universe was made for them. "Screw all the other life forms.. it's all about me." Narcissistic.

 

No, I do not accept the idea that his is all mere coincidence. But since I am the center of the universe as you proclaim. I demand you bow before me.

 

I'd like to add that in your emotion-driven monologue of false accusations was nothing more than that, really.

[LifeCycle]

Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form.

 

I believe that.

 

I don't intend to insult you, but you're not qualified to believe or not believe. Your statement above shows that you have almost 0 understanding of the subject. It's like a person who knows nothing about how computers work that says "so, you expect me to believe that my video game makes all these graphics and sounds simply by toggling 0 and 1?"

 

Yes, it's coincidence theory, ultimately, that's what it is.

[raoul]

Who said it was coincidence?

 

If you wonder whether there wasn't a designer at work, sure there was... nature and its laws. And lots of time to try out possibilities.

 

As for your flight example, there's not really a problem with it once you get the how-to of evolution. One is tempted to think as soon as something assumes a new function, it must lose its old one. Not so. Imagine beasties that jump. Easy, no? Now imagine some of them develop something like little wing skins between their extremities. They aren't so large that the critters can't run or climb or (whatever) anymore, but they do mean that the animals can jump further. Enter natural selection, and enough time, and you get... you know

 

I know it can be confusing, I've been there too. I just (probably) had the advantage that no one tried to force some "therefore gawd!!!!" agenda on me.

 

Even with laws, coincidence still exists. If I drop a ball from atop a tower, it will fall due to gravity. It's coincidence that it landed on some dude and knocked him the fuck out.

So it was YOU who tossed that freaking ball at me! You XXXX&&&&&& you!!! ROFL

[raoul]

I just don't see it... All these variables coming together to get us to where we are today. Fully-functional beings with the balance of nature and all it's spectacular features to coax us along. I don't understand how intermediate creatures can evolve. Flight for example... How does that even work? How does a creature have an arm that later turns into a wing - thrive while it's in the intermediate state? How is half of an arm and half of the makings of a wing even useful? How can a creature survive this state to later achieve it's later greatness? They would be sitting ducks.

 

I just don't see how imperfect creatures can thrive and flourish when they are not fully functional - especially with creatures that require the use of other creatures in their final state, to survive. I think there's a mention of symbiotic relationships and evolution... But that idea baffles me. Whales and plankton for example... It all seems a little too perfect to be coincidence... And it is in this subject that my agnosticism really becomes magnified. I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. It seems awfully and magnificently unlikely to me.

 

Anyone else in this place of confusion?

Nope because of a very simple fact regarding chance - if you have enough time, you can see things happening that may not have been possible with a lesser amount of time along with the odds of it occuring. So, regarding evolution (and I'm NO expert on it), billions of years of development can cause an imperfect thing to become more perfect. If not, it disappears while other beings exist. That's the very simple way of putting it.

[Ravenstar]

It's frustrating when the evidence is so overwhelming... and I found your statement that "you don't care to" insulting to me and those who so generously offered to help you understand. Emotion-driven monologue? Probably... self-imposed ignorance is a pet peeve of mine.

 

However, in science if you think an Hypothesis or Theory is wrong you must posit an alternative that works as well, or better than those already in place. I'm not seeing this from people who refute evolution. You have not once stated what you do believe, only what you don't.

 

I do see a lot of emotional reaction based on.. what? I suggest it is an ego defense, because it isn't rational and diametrically opposes reason, logic and so much evidence that evolution isn't even a question in the science community anymore... the only arguments left in evolution are details, small details and the expansion of the theory as new evidence comes in and is verified.

 

I'm no scientist.. far from it. I do however seek truth. If you have an alternate theory... I'm all ears.

 

If you can be honest about why you have a hard time accepting the facts... in other words, if you can be honest enough with yourself to examine your biases and search out WHY evolution bothers you so much you may come closer to the truth. Rejecting what is an obvious fact is not based in reality, therefore there's something else going on.

 

I don't have the same level of patience that a lot of people here do. I know that. I admit it. (they astound me with their patience) I also don't know what is going on in your head, or why. I'll concede that point. I make conclusions based on evidence though.. and the evidence leads me to believe that something else than a misunderstanding of evolution is going on here. My conclusions are that you have an emotional dislike of evolution... why? I don't know, only you can know that.

 

So.. for the benefit of the doubt that you may actually be open to learning about evolution here are two places for information that you can go to, when you care to.

 

The first one is long BUT it explains evolution in laymans terms... anyone can understand it.

 

 

The second one contains all the evidence quoted in the first one.. for verification.

 

www.talkorigins.org

[mymistake]

Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form.

 

I believe that.

 

I don't intend to insult you, but you're not qualified to believe or not believe. Your statement above shows that you have almost 0 understanding of the subject. It's like a person who knows nothing about how computers work that says "so, you expect me to believe that my video game makes all these graphics and sounds simply by toggling 0 and 1?"

 

Yes, it's coincidence theory, ultimately, that's what it is.

 

You don't get to decide what evolution actually is or isn't. You only have control of your opinion of it. If you refuse to be educated and remain stuck with an opinion that is totally different from reality that is willful ignorance.

 

Is it a coincidence which team wins the Superbowl? Is it a coincidence which athletes take the gold at the Olympics? Natural selection isn't a coincidence either.

[Vigile]

Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form.

 

I believe that.

 

I don't intend to insult you, but you're not qualified to believe or not believe. Your statement above shows that you have almost 0 understanding of the subject. It's like a person who knows nothing about how computers work that says "so, you expect me to believe that my video game makes all these graphics and sounds simply by toggling 0 and 1?"

 

Yes, it's coincidence theory, ultimately, that's what it is.

 

You say this with authority, yet it stands directly opposed to the position of every single evolutionary scientist on the planet.

 

I don't understand your position. Are you claiming you have enough background on this subject to take a strong position either way? If so, that's rather arrogant is it not considering by your own admission you've only spent a few days studying a subject that takes years to scratch the surface on?

[oddbird1963]

If your mind isn't already made up, and I fear it might be, you could start by taking a look at this: http://news.national...hday-evolution/

 

There ARE transitional fossils.

 

Thanks, Florduh! That is one kick-ass link!

[LifeCycle]

It's frustrating when the evidence is so overwhelming... and I found your statement that "you don't care to" insulting to me and those who so generously offered to help you understand. Emotion-driven monologue? Probably... self-imposed ignorance is a pet peeve of mine.

 

I didn't care to find out that I had wasted decades on a faith that stole from me and distracted me from the truth either. But the evidence of the deceit was overwhelming. I'm simply being completely honest here and for that the personal attacks abound. It's unfortunate. And as a note, we're all responsible for own "self-imposed ignorance." We only have so much time in this world and what we find interesting is where we place our priorities... Those subjects we have no interest in become subjects of "self-imposed ignorance."

 

However, in science if you think an Hypothesis or Theory is wrong you must posit an alternative that works as well, or better than those already in place. I'm not seeing this from people who refute evolution. You have not once stated what you do believe, only what you don't.

 

I realize that, but I think the alternative of "chance" is pretty obvious, don't you? It's a matter of what or who at that point.

 

I do see a lot of emotional reaction based on.. what? I suggest it is an ego defense, because it isn't rational and diametrically opposes reason, logic and so much evidence that evolution isn't even a question in the science community anymore... the only arguments left in evolution are details, small details and the expansion of the theory as new evidence comes in and is verified.

 

In the bigger picture, Evolution sums all of this up as chance mixed with coincidence. Given a span of time, anything is possible and becomes more plausible. The complexities of our universe, our planet, our environment and the balance of nature... the systems and micro-systems within our own bodies... All summed up to chance. I thought we were to be rational here... To me, it's irrational.

 

 

I'm no scientist.. far from it. I do however seek truth. If you have an alternate theory... I'm all ears.

 

I have questions and skepticism. That's all.

 

 

If you can be honest about why you have a hard time accepting the facts... in other words, if you can be honest enough with yourself to examine your biases and search out WHY evolution bothers you so much you may come closer to the truth. Rejecting what is an obvious fact is not based in reality, therefore there's something else going on.

 

The numbers game... A cosmic roll of the dice and this being the product of it... I don't accept it.

 

 

I don't have the same level of patience that a lot of people here do. I know that. I admit it. (they astound me with their patience) I also don't know what is going on in your head, or why. I'll concede that point. I make conclusions based on evidence though.. and the evidence leads me to believe that something else than a misunderstanding of evolution is going on here. My conclusions are that you have an emotional dislike of evolution... why? I don't know, only you can know that.

 

I don't know what's going on in my own head. I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Maybe the Holographic Universe is real?

 

 

So.. for the benefit of the doubt that you may actually be open to learning about evolution here are two places for information that you can go to, when you care to.

 

The first one is long BUT it explains evolution in laymans terms... anyone can understand it.

 

 

The second one contains all the evidence quoted in the first one.. for verification.

 

www.talkorigins.org

 

Thank You.

[Vigile]

LC, this isn't directly related to evolution, but is the ionic bonding, which creates the sodium (salt) molecule pure chance or is it a natural and expected occurrence which conforms to physical law given the right environment?

 

 

If you can grasp this concept, I think will help you move past this idea that evolution occurs based on pure chance as evolution too is driven by environmental factors and various laws of nature that require no intelligent guidance.

 

Also, keep in mind that ToE is wholly separate from abiogenesis. ToE does not posit the beginning of life, it merely observes how life, once existing, transitions over time. Abiogenesis is as yet an undeveloped theory.

[mymistake]

The numbers game... A cosmic roll of the dice and this being the product of it... I don't accept it.

 

Why?

[Ouroboros]

The numbers game... A cosmic roll of the dice and this being the product of it... I don't accept it.

I think I understand what you're thinking.

 

Some scientists are suggesting that the bonding of molecules to produce proteins and such might be a natural effect of chemistry, i.e. biochemistry is a natural occurrence and not just pure chance. Put it this way, the Universe has the potential and "drive" to always produce life. We don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it means that life is naturally forming as a result of physical laws, a natural cause and effect, more powerful and beyond than we thought before. That would explain abiogenesis, the beginning of life, and almost put it at a spiritual level. The Universe, our God, however, not conscious or personal, it just is what it is. You could say that the Universe might place the cosmic roll with loaded dice. The dice having a higher chance of rolling the numbers for life.

 

When it comes to natural selection and the chance that we exists as a result of it, yes, it's like rolling the dice and be on a winning streak. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen once in a while. Chances are that we'll in the future find planets where life got stuck and didn't evolve higher beings like humans. Chances are that they will far outnumber the ones that have higher beings. But there will be some.

 

When it comes to the numbers game of the universe, do understand that the Universe is extremely huge and the number of stars is far beyond our comprehension. When you play a numbers game, the number of times you play do matter. Let's say it's almost impossible to win Lotto. It is. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. Funny thing though, almost every week there is a winner or two. Impossible? No! Because you have so many players and statistically you will have a higher chance of having one winner. It doen't mean that you're the winner or you know who's going to win, but the potential that someone does, is higher.

 

Currently the estimated number of stars in our universe is 20 sixtillion. That's 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. That means there are something like 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) stars per person. In other words, you could name 3 trillion stars as your own. If you name each star each second it would take you 95,000 years to go through them all. And this is only the current low-ball estimate, we might discover that the universe is even bigger than this. So playing the numbers game, no problem, there probably are a large amount of other planets like ours out there. We just haven't found them (yet).

[Vigile]

When it comes to natural selection and the chance that we exists as a result of it, yes, it's like rolling the dice and be on a winning streak. It doesn't happen all the time,

 

Maybe I misunderstand, but I disagree with this statement. More accurately, it would be like looking back at all the rolls of the dice and saying, this is the result that ended up.

 

Put another way, If I predict beforehand the outcome of 1 million rolls of the die, odds are vastly against me being correct. Yet, if I simply record the rolls of a million die, the results just are what they are. They could have been something else, but this is what they gave.

 

Moving on.

 

Evolution is far more than just the rolls of a die. It is driven by more than just random mutations. It is also driven by the environment in which an organism evolves. The puddle doesn't just randomly and fantastically fit the shape of the pool, the puddle adjusts to the shape of the pool. White moths have a disadvantage when acid rain turns birch bark black, meaning that black moths have an advantage as the birds can't see them in contrast to the bark as easily, thus the population changes in this particular trait as more black moths survive to pass on their genes than white moths. This isn't a roll of the die.