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

[wndwalkr99]

That is incorrect.

 

Wndwalkr let's get right to it.

 

Do you believe that if our understanding of evolution was comprehensive, then it would explain all that there is to know about organisms?

 

Such as? Please clarify. I'm not going to allow you to walk me down an unlit path.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to answer the question about the chicken or the egg. :-) I'm not saying I don't agree with evolution either. It makes sense to me. It's even quite fascinating and I might need to read a book or visit a website on it (got any favorites?). What I am saying is that, over the years evolution hasn't really had an impact in my life personally. Neither creation nor evolution has had much of an impact on me that I'm aware of. Prove me wrong. I bet you can. :-)

Are you able to walk? Type on a computer? Think? Evolution has an impact on you daily. Are you conscious? Well.... I guess it has an impact on you every day that you're awake. As for when you sleep, that too. Guess you just can't get away from its impact on you. It's everywhere.

 

I can't prove you wrong, that's the problem in your thinking, its logically impossible to prove a negative. Now you're just being annoying because you've been called out. First you diminutize evolution, then run like a dog with your tail tucked between your legs. Tonewise, there's a very big difference between this post of yours and the one that precedes it, they contradict eachother.

[Legion]

That is incorrect.

 

Wndwalkr let's get right to it.

 

Do you believe that if our understanding of evolution was comprehensive, then it would explain all that there is to know about organisms?

 

Such as? Please clarify. I'm not going to allow you to walk me down an unlit path.

 

I'm not walking you down anything. I'm asking you a question. Let me rephrase it.

 

Do you believe that if we fully understood evolution, then we would also understand everything there is to know about organisms?

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Nice to see someone besides myself understands panspermia isnt only about aliens and distant galaxies. :0)

 

I've actually argued with a woo about panspermia, but the woo in question thought that life on earth could only have come from other star systems, because life on Earth supposedly appeared too quickly and in too much complexity to be from here originally. Nevermind that he's been told that we're basically talking about a petri dish in which countless "experiments" were being run simultaneously in every body of water on the planet, making the appearance of life practically inevitable. Most other people I've seen discuss the subject (as in, actual scientists) agree that the basics of life forming in comets isn't terribly far-fetched; after all, you have most of the right chemistry, so combined with an energy source, you should get at least some of the building blocks of life going. The idea of a rock being blown off of Mars or Venus and finding its way to Earth is also not only plausible, but confirmed (at least with Martian meteors found in Antarctica. I don't know if we've actually found any rocks from Venus; it's still a possibility, just a much less likely one due to Venus' much larger gravity well and thick atmosphere, and the fact that any rocks blown off would be going "uphill" out of the Sun's gravity well to get to Earth).

 

However, even this idea acknowledges that abiogenesis happened somewhere in the solar system as a result of natural processes, whereas the idea of interstellar panspermia is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible. Even if interstellar panspermia is plausible, it's little more than a punt, because abiogenesis had to happen somewhere for the panspermia to get started in the first place.

I completely agree. I just think as far as our own goes, we had caught some kind of space bug that added to our soupy mix. I think more than anything, it all goes hand in hand with evolution either way. And we don't enough of the Universe yet to say that life elsewhere HAD to be abiogenesis. There are infinite numbers of scenarios we can't even wrap our minds around yet.

[mymistake]

That is incorrect.

 

Wndwalkr let's get right to it.

 

Do you believe that if our understanding of evolution was comprehensive, then it would explain all that there is to know about organisms?

 

Such as? Please clarify. I'm not going to allow you to walk me down an unlit path.

 

I'm not walking you down anything. I'm asking you a question. Let me rephrase it.

 

Do you believe that if we fully understood evolution, then we would also understand everything there is to know about organisms?

 

This had been a conversation about science. You are trying to change it into a conversation about some hypothetical total, complete knowledge. Such a condition is not possible in the real world because it's beyond the limits of the human mind. So what is the point of going down that road?

[wndwalkr99]

That is incorrect.

 

Wndwalkr let's get right to it.

 

Do you believe that if our understanding of evolution was comprehensive, then it would explain all that there is to know about organisms?

 

Such as? Please clarify. I'm not going to allow you to walk me down an unlit path.

 

I'm not walking you down anything. I'm asking you a question. Let me rephrase it.

 

Do you believe that if we fully understood evolution, then we would also understand everything there is to know about organisms?

 

Such as?

[wndwalkr99]

Legion, just so we're clear: my proclamation of your post being incorrect refers to your first paragraph. I have no particular quibble with your second one.

[Legion]

Wndwlkr, let me just get right to it.

 

Evolution, though it IS a process which has transpired with terrestrial life, is NOT the whole of biology. There are also deep considerations of physiology.

 

Doctors, for instance, have little need for evolutionary theory. They may require some of it in considerations of bacterial or viral adaptation for instance. But in the main, they don't need it.

 

Bill Nye, the backwards science guy, recently repeated an old mistaken saw. He asserted that evolution is THE central idea in all of the life sciences. This is wrong, flat wrong. The central idea in the life sciences is... life.

[mymistake]

Oh is that what all this was about? I agree with Nye. Evolution is the foundation of life science. We desperately need to teach evolution. Clinging to religious misinformation regarding origin education rather than teaching proper science has harmed our society as a whole. Nye explained that very well. I hope that he reached a few Christian parents and made them think.

 

The fact that evolution is a subset of all biological knowledge doesn't mean it isn't critical.

[Ouroboros]

Biology: 1.

The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.

 

 

In other words, Biology is more than just evolution, but evolution is one important and fundamental part of Biology. Those two statements are true at the same time. Abiogenesis belongs to Biology, not Evolution.

[wndwalkr99]

Wndwlkr, let me just get right to it.

 

Evolution, though it IS a process which has transpired with terrestrial life, is NOT the whole of biology. There are also deep considerations of physiology.

 

Doctors, for instance, have little need for evolutionary theory. They may require some of it in considerations of bacterial or viral adaptation for instance. But in the main, they don't need it.

 

Bill Nye, the backwards science guy, recently repeated an old mistaken saw. He asserted that evolution is THE central idea in all of the life sciences. This is wrong, flat wrong. The central idea in the life sciences is... life.

 

Okay. Not sure what this has to do with the post in which I indicated that evolutionary theory is exceptionally well supported. You did, however, miss your opportunity to "get right to it." That ship sailed several posts ago.

[Legion]

We desperately need to teach evolution.

 

We HAVE desperately taught evolution, and probably precisely for the reason you site. To crush superstition.

 

Unfortunately, the over emphasis of evolution, and the reductionism associated with it, is itself like a form of superstition.

 

And still, I correctly assert, that LIFE is the central idea in the life sciences, not evolution.

[Legion]

Not sure what this has to do with the post in which I indicated that evolutionary theory is exceptionally well supported.

 

How many times must I repeat this? Yes. I am perfectly aware that evolution is a fact of terrestrial biology. But it is not the sole fact, nor perhaps even the most important.

[mymistake]

We desperately need to teach evolution.

 

We HAVE desperately taught evolution, and probably precisely for the reason you site. To crush superstition.

 

Not superstition. Misinformation. When somebody keeps himself ignorant by choice that is called willful ignorance. Intentionally keeping your children ignorant is called The Theory of Intelligent Design.

 

 

Unfortunately, the over emphasis of evolution, and the reductionism associated with it, is itself like a form of superstition.

 

And still, I correctly assert, that LIFE is the central idea in the life sciences, not evolution.

 

Something is very wrong with your perception.

 

Following the mountains of evidence (and it literally can fill hundreds of libraries for there is that much of it) following evidence is not like superstition. Superstition is not steping on a line because it will break your mother's spine. Superstition is avoiding black cats because they bring bad luck. Superstition is killing ten thousand women by burning them alive because a book told you to never let a witch live.

[Legion]

Something is very wrong with your perception.

 

You only believe there is something wrong with my perception.

 

Consider this simple hypothetical, which occurs daily on Earth.

 

Suppose we have before us a living organism. It is alive and doing its thing. Then, a moment later for reasons unknown to us, it dies.

 

In this span of a moment, what has changed?

[LivingLife]

Does anyone here have a curriculum of what exactly is taught at US schools as far as the ToE is concerned? I looked at the current day curriculum of biology from the UK and out of a whole two pages, it is only addressed in part in one sentence. Even when I was at school in the 70s, the topic hardly came up but I dropped biology in Gr 10 for Physics with Chem as I was heading into that domain as far as sciences went.

 

I seriously doubt that one can really address this in any great detail at a HS curriculum level with having to share the week with at least 5-6 other subjects. One would assume this is also Gr10-12 which if IIRC, is what you lot call senior high. I do not recall that the Brits or the CoE had any issues with the ToE being taught even back then. Most schools had religious assemblies but nowhere did creationism or anything religious even get posited. From what I can remember, the ToE was presented to us in the form of a Nat Geo 35mm film and I think was over two periods of an hour each. We were not even examined on that.

 

I have no idea how it went from Gr8-10 but if it was such a huge issue, I am sure it would have been more than one line in two pages of content by now.

 

I have seen the creationism curriculum and again it posits genesis 1 and then they get on with secular biology, one would assume when it comes to human reproduction, they are past the "when a man and women really, really love each other then babies happen"

 

Then again, for most of us in the colonial rule, we were separated by sexes as far as HS went which was very much a carry over from the Victorian era. But that is another topic of discussion.

[mymistake]

Something is very wrong with your perception.

 

You only believe there is something wrong with my perception.

 

Not only. I also explained why I hold that opinion. I illustrated the difference between evoultion and superstition. Rather than addressing what I wrote on that topic you deleted it from your response.

 

Consider this simple hypothetical, which occurs daily on Earth.

 

Suppose we have before us a living organism. It is alive and doing its thing. Then, a moment later for reasons unknown to us, it dies.

 

In this span of a moment, what has changed?

 

It is unknown. You set that up in your question.

[Legion]

I illustrated the difference between evoultion and superstition.

 

Superstition can be many things. Among them can be the belief that everything is simple and tidy.

 

It is unknown. You set that up in your question.

 

Allow me to rephrase it then.

 

What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive?

[mymistake]

Does anyone here have a curriculum of what exactly is taught at US schools as far as the ToE is concerned?

 

Public schools are mostly good about it. There are some jurisdictions in the Bible Belt where the religion lobby tries to make in-roads.

 

The trouble is that any Christian parent can opt to home-school. And while home schooling curriculum is supposed to be reviewed and approved the parent doing the teaching is usually unsupervised and mostly untrained. Many parents do it so that they can protect their kids from the "lies" of evolution. Plus there are thousands of independent private schools. My HS taught the flaws of evolution. And I did a term paper on how humans and dinosaurs lived side by side. I got an "A" on it. No kidding.

[mymistake]

I illustrated the difference between evoultion and superstition.

 

Superstition can be many things. Among them can be the belief that everything is simple and tidy.

 

So I am right and you were wrong. Evolution is not superstition. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive?

 

I'm not qualified to answer that because I never got a real education in biology. I took biology at my Christian HS (they taught me that God is mysterious) but when I went to public college I avoided that science because I didn't want to offend my imaginary friend. My superstition prevented me from learning that science. I took anthro instead. Lo and behold evolution is the foundation to all the life sciences so I learned evolution anyway.

[Legion]

What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive?

 

I'm not qualified to answer that because I never got a real education in biology.

 

Well said in my opinion. Many biologists themselves have avoided addressing this question. Yet, it is the central question in biology.

 

My hero biologist was bold enough to ask it, and even did the work required to find an answer.

[wndwalkr99]

Not sure what this has to do with the post in which I indicated that evolutionary theory is exceptionally well supported.

 

How many times must I repeat this? Yes. I am perfectly aware that evolution is a fact of terrestrial biology. But it is not the sole fact, nor perhaps even the most important.

 

Are we arguing? If so, precisely what about?

[wndwalkr99]

What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive?

 

I'm not qualified to answer that because I never got a real education in biology.

 

Well said in my opinion. Many biologists themselves have avoided addressing this question. Yet, it is the central question in biology.

 

My hero biologist was bold enough to ask it, and even did the work required to find an answer.

 

Ok, so what is the answer?

[Legion]

Ok, so what is the answer?

 

Well, this theoretical biologist found one answer, but it may not be the only one. I mean, this is apparently a necessary condition for a natural system to be alive, but is not a sufficient condition. I suppose I could quote him...

 

"... a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation. That is, if f is any component of such a system, the question "why f?" has an answer within the system which corresponds to the category of efficient cause of f." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

It would likely make more sense if the remainder of that publication was read. But I forewarn you. Some theoretical scientists do not care much for Rosen's work, apparently because in finding an answer he was required to re-evaluate the reductionism which characterizes much of theoretical science.

[mymistake]

Back on topic:

 

We know evolution is true. Every issolated environment we visit has unique species. Clearly they all resemble creatures found in other areas. The new species are decended from a common ancestor species. But being in a unique place causes them to change and adapt to that unique place. Every thermal vent, every tropical island, every cut off body of water - they all evolve new species if left alone long enough. This is a prediction and result of evolution.