When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution

[gussy1z]

Well, it helps is you understand taht evolution is not a fact. It's a theory (and not a particularly good one, since all the evidence used to 'prove' it has either been disproven, or is ALSO evidence for intelligent design). "

i cant believe what I just read. Evolution is pretty much the unifying theory of all biology. It holds the same weight as gravity, germ theory, relativity, thermodynamics etc.

All science is not 100% true. Its more like 99.99% true.

 

[Jonluw]

As Bill Maher put it, faith causes otherwise rational intelligent people to make some of the most ridiculous claims imaginable. Hell I know a couple of Evangelical Christians whose beliefs seem both ridiculous and at times even disgusting to me, but there's no denying that (these few at least) are still highly intelligent people.

To paraphrase Maher again, having faith is about making a virtue out of not thinking. There's really not too much one can do, but accept that, unfortunately, it's just the way of the world these days.

Pretty much this and only this.

A girl in my physics class came to school with a shirt that said "I am a christian. Ask me why"
Expecting to hear some really good arguments for the existence of God, I decided to do what the t-shirt said.
While her views weren't that preposterous (some stuff about God guiding evolution and making the big bang happen) she was pretty bad at debating for her views. She wasn't even prepared to deal with Russel's teapot (although I like to use a pink unicorn on the backside of Jupiter instead of a teapot).
My point is, she's still very good at physics. And she's smart. The fact that a person is intelligent in some fields does not mean that you should take their ridiculous views any more seriously.

 

[OutforEC]

Well, it helps is you understand taht evolution is not a fact. It's a theory (and not a particularly good one, since all the evidence used to 'prove' it has either been disproven, or is ALSO evidence for intelligent design).

You'd think that with as many creationists out there with access to millions of dollars of church money and the strong-arm backing of the religious right, someone could have disproved evolution by now. But they can't; instead all they do is re-iterate tired catchphrases and disproved lies to get the more gullible citizens to echo the same things to the other gullible citizens in their social groups. It's nothing more than church propaganda.

 

[Contradiction]

-snip

External factors don't usually force mutations. They do occur naturally in every organism that reproduces (most of them don't do anything though). I remember reading somewhere that mutations occur more under large amounts of stress (not sure where so I'll assume it's not true until I find it).

The genetic coding changes independantly of the enviroment, the enviroment is responsible refining the gene pool down to the ones most suitable for it. Surviving the enviroment makes you more likely to mate, more likely to pass on your genes and produce children that are also capable of surviving the environment and passing on their genes.

I understand this but its simply changing the attributes of the species not change the species itself.
Domestication has been referenced before in this thread and its a similar thing. Although dogs aren't as big or capable as they once were they are still dogs. Which is true for those that survive and pass on genes but they are simply the most efficient [insert animal here] at what point will they change their chromosomes to a different amount through refinement and become a different species geneticly?

 

[Nimcha]

I don't believe in religious creation or intelligent design. I DO however believe that DARWIN'S concept of evolution is pretty much flawed.
It runs of the idea that animals will change due to environments. Yeah we all know this is true, HOWEVER, at what stage does nature change you natural genetic coding. Short answer at no stage I am aware of.
You can make a mutation. You can breed smaller different coloured ect. You can make something LOOK or ACT like a completely different animal geneticly they are the same animal based on different mutations.
And if a kind escapist does know what in nature forces a deep and basic genetic mutation I would very much like to know and reneg on my doubt of Darwin's theory.

We've kinda gotten past Darwin, you know. But what you're objecting to is simply false. Nature changes your genetic coding by selecting for certain traits in breeding and survival. That is, those animals with the genes to survive in certain climates are more likely to survive. Within a species of, say, Elk, for example, this could mean that in the onset of an ice age, the elk with the thicker, warmer fur have better chances of surviving the cold winters, while the elk with less fur die off and therefore cannot pass their genes on. Natural Selection has been understood since well before Darwin, for that matter-not only did ancient human selectively breed for certain traits in livestock, but Gregor Mendel theorized the cause... in 1590.

Seriously, read a science textbook. >.>

Perhaps rather than I read a text book you read my post.
I had made mention to "warmer fur" and other such changes that you described about the elk. My issue is with the fact that this does NOT and never will change the fact that it is an elk. Species are instead based on deeper genetic code (as mentioned in my post) unlike the mutations that you mentioned. You have in no way disproved my issue with the theory in fact you have addressed my point on your own.

Actually, species are defined by humans only. It is a human construct to better categorise nature. As a rule of thumb, two individuals (of opposite sex if necessary) who can't produce fertile offspring are of different species. But nature as a whole is not as clearly defined as all that. We just live in such a short timeframe that it may look like it is, and that is why we can identify species.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

People dont believe in Evolution because "It is just a theory". It was that when Darwin published it by now there are piles of evidence for Evolution and you could say its more of a "fact then theory".

I stopped trying to convince people about Evolution. If you are religious and believe in god that is fine by me. As long you wont try to shove your religion down my throat I wont do the same.

 

[fenrizz]

I can perfectly understand his point of view. Maybe it's just me, but the evolutionary process for me has always seemed a bit far-fetched. Maybe if it was 100% verified and I could see it, but regardless of the fact that evolution is taught as a completely undeniable fact of life, there still remains quite a lot of holes and missing links in the whole thing.
I know most people on this site would disagree with that assessment, but that's been what I've observed. It's the most convenient way to explain life on earth without involving a creator, and as a result I think its been taken as THE ONLY TRUE ANSWER far too quickly.

"I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has."

-Malcom Muggeridge

How is believing in a scientific theory any different from believing in a religion? Science isn't the end all and be-all of reality.

I'm just quoting these two for truth. They hit the nail on the head.

In fact, I might go so far as to say MoeTheMonk's statement regarding explaining life on earth "without involving a creator" is exactly why the theory of evolution has been so intensely pushed and universally accepted despite its lack of any real finality. Our culture is so desperate to separate itself from the idea of a divine entity, and I'm not sure if it's because we have become unable to accept the possibility of existence outside our own or because we don't want to answer to a higher authority. Maybe both. Point is, I think maybe we are not trying to explain our world so much as trying to remove the concept of God from it. And that base is more than a little biased considering the weight of human understanding it holds.

Of course we are trying to set ourselves apart form this so called "god".

There is no god, no higher authority.
Dismissing scientific theories because you read 2000 year old fairytales is downright moronic.

If you have real scientific objections, then that is obviously ok.
But that does not include creationist psuedo science and 2000 year old local middle eastern fairytales.

 

[Griffolion]

Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion that came to be about evolution at some point. what you need to understand before replying is that this guy is probably one of the smartest people out there, the guy is a certified genius.
He practices Judaism up to a certain degree (separates meat a dairy and other stuff) but calling him religious will be a vast exaggeration.

So when this guy, who is probably the smartest guy I ever met told me he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution it blew me away. To make things worse he said "there are some things that humans are meant to understand. and we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

So..... WTF?!?!

As far as I can see, he's entitled to his opinion. If he gives an alternative or at least rationally explains his thoughts then further credit to him.

Still, I personally think that someone could "disagree" with the concept of grass being green. They may think it's bright pink with purple polkadots. It doesn't stop the FACT that grass is green (sometimes blue, depending where you are). Of course we COULD get all philosophical about this and go on for ages, but I hope the general gist of my point is made.

By all accounts and purposes, I am a "Christian" (though as you can probably tell by the inverted commas, I don't like that moniker for many reasons) but I don't disagree about the fact that evolution happened and humans came out of it. In my own mind I personally reconcile that to being part of "creation". I think about how endlessly intertwined, interdependent and infinitely complex and time consuming the process of evolution is and think "yeah, that's probably something God would do". As for the Genesis poem (because that's what it was), I think it tells the big bang/evolution story as well as someone could tell it those thousands of years ago with next to no understanding of the things we know of today. There's many errors, many things lost in translation, both from God's perspective to ours and from the ancient languages to our modern ones.

Please don't flame me for this, it's simply what I believe. I understand that neither I, nor anyone else, has anywhere near "all the answers".

 

[CarlMin]

Why would his view on evolution has anything to do with his intelligence?

Beats me, why would a person's views on ANYTHING have to do with their intelligence?

...Oh right, because denying evolution is like denying gravity or the holocaust. Doing it makes you look stupid. And rightfully so.

I'm so sick of people saying things like "let people believe what they want to believe". There's a difference between faith in something unproven and undemonstrable (which is naive) and faith in something which is demonstrably wrong (which is stupidity). If you do not believe in evolution, gravity, the holocaust, etc, you are an idiot. There's not much more to it. Simply put, stupid is as stupid does. I honestly think that the most basic beliefs that one holds about the world make a severe impact on how the world should see you. If you honestly believe in the literal story of biblical creation, then it does not matter how smart you are in other fields-in this field, you are a patented idiot.

You should honestly press your friend for details. If he meant that we are subverting natural selection by saving our sick, weak, old, etc., then he's probably right. If he meant that evolution itself doesn't have an effect on humans, then he's dead wrong and you should show him why. And he really needs to slap this "there are some things we shouldn't know" mindset RIGHT out of his head.

Firstly, intelligence is not a mensurable quantity that some people have more of and other people have less of. And saying that someone is more or less intelligent because of a political opinion, or a religious perspective, is wrong of some many reasons I shouldn't have to mention them all. An opinion regarding something has nothing to do with your neurological impulses and cognitive abilities. It has more to do with social factors (obviously).

You don't make any distinction between intelligence and knowledge.

So if you really have to insult those who deny evolution because of their, presumably, religions conviction - use the word unknowledgeable.

Secondly, a person is free to believe in whatever he or she wants to believe in. Now you can agree or disagree, or marvel at the persons ignorance to what you might call scientific facts. But if you you're in a position to call someone an idiot because you don't agree with him, perhaps it's you who are stupid.

See, antisocial behavior and the inability to understand or tolerate other humans' reasoning is, in difference to knowledge, linked to your intelligence.

 

[TastyCarcass]

what people fail to understand is just how much has changed since Darwin made his theories.
Masses of information has been found since then, most of which backs up his theory completely.
Darwin had no knowledge of DNA, as that is a fairly recent discovery.

But why can't religious people just believe in what the Mormons or the pope before the current one said, it's all just part of the process?

 

[Player 2]

Gravity has been a Law now for a bit.

The Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity are two different things.

Law: A description of something that happens.
Theory: An explanation of why or how that thing happens.

Law of gravity: Fg = GMm/r2
Theory of gravity: (Einsteinian) Mass bends space itself, causing things to fall towards each other.

Law of evolution: The further back you go in the fossil record, the simpler the most complex organisms get.
Theory of evolution: (Darwinian) Organisms with more favorable genetic make up pass their genes down to the next generation, eventually altering the genetic makeup of entire populations/specie and resulting in a trend of growing complexity.

A theory has never, and will never become a law. EVER. They are not different rungs on the same ladder. They are entirely different ladders.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

-snip

External factors don't usually force mutations. They do occur naturally in every organism that reproduces (most of them don't do anything though). I remember reading somewhere that mutations occur more under large amounts of stress (not sure where so I'll assume it's not true until I find it).

The genetic coding changes independantly of the enviroment, the enviroment is responsible refining the gene pool down to the ones most suitable for it. Surviving the enviroment makes you more likely to mate, more likely to pass on your genes and produce children that are also capable of surviving the environment and passing on their genes.

I understand this but its simply changing the attributes of the species not change the species itself.
Domestication has been referenced before in this thread and its a similar thing. Although dogs aren't as big or capable as they once were they are still dogs. Which is true for those that survive and pass on genes but they are simply the most efficient [insert animal here] at what point will they change their chromosomes to a different amount through refinement and become a different species geneticly?

There are several definitions of speciation and species can be hard to categorise. The definition I would use is that speciation occurs when two animals can longer exchange genetic material. I'm not sure if there is a set point where it occurs but it is very easily observable. They don't need to be the most efficient, just separated for long enough to change to the point where breeding between the two is very difficult or impossible.

Observed examples include
fruit fly species
mosquitoes
domestic sheep
Ligers and other hybrids

The best example would probably be the Ensatina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina

 

[Alexlion]

Why is it that people hate on religion so much when by and large Religious people are content to sit quietly and behave?

Leave them alone. Please. Listen to the Beatles on this one and just Let it Be.

Its not hating on religion to want them to learn a widely accepted scientific fact its reality people need to know or they make stupid decisions based on fallacy.
Ignorance is not an excuse, mans inhumanity to man is generally caused by it and i dont want to see it drag our species down.

Also if you think people "hate" on religion your wrong when people say that what they mean is: not every one is Christian and does not agree with us and states their views.

I respect a persons right to have a religion but, if you think being religious is tough try being an atheist when:
They have thousands of churches
The prime minister and president are Christians and the majority of all government
the queens a Christian (defender of the faith)
Bishops in the house of lords
Political correctness protects those of religion but not agnostics and atheists
The religious holidays start in October and finish in December its food songs decorations you literally cant escape it. Christmas despite its name is mainly a pagan festival the date, the tree, presents and feasting are all pagan traditions.
Not to mention the adverts tv, nativity plays in schools.
And of course if you don't celebrate it you either weird or Scrooge, thanks.

The move by creationists to reject a proven fact even though it doesn't prove nor disprove the existence of their god but simply reject it because we are associated with it, and instead try to force THEIR own BELIEFS (not fact) onto our children through school.

Oh and there was of course the one time I visited my relatives in America or will ever. The fact that simply announcing I was an atheist was enough to get a brick through their window, numerous death threats, refusal to be served and every other freaking person walking up to me telling me how Jesus loves me or im evil and going to hell.

If we can take all this then you can take a forum post with the opposing point of view.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Hmm, how to put it, religion has compelling stories and evolution is not a solid theory, we still don't fully understand how things work.

And being a genius in one field does not make you a genius at everything, everyone has their own blind spots so to speak.

 

[Druss the Legend]

Things like that just baffle me. There is so much evidence out there, and for people to just pretend that it doesn't exist just makes no sense to me.

The exact same thing could be said for peoples belief in God, there is evidence enough for them personally to believe, but perhaps maybe not enough for some.


In response to OP:

So your statement stripped down to the basics is "I cant believe my friend doesn't think the same as me"
Get over it and live your life the way you see it and don't worry about others views. You'll feel much better for it.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

...So your friend is very smart and doesn't believe in evolution for humans...I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's all about beliefs and opinions.

 

[Phoenixlight]

Evolution is only a theory, you shouldn't be so surprised that not everyone believes everything that they're told.