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

[Nimcha]

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

Well that's kind of the problem. It is a scientific theory, which is different and basically means you can accept it as fact. It's annoying that the word theory means two things which are similar at first glance, but in the end totally different.

I bet a lot of this issue would've been resolved had the terminology been different. I think the number of people having a problem with evolution would be a lot lower if it had been called the 'law of evolution' from the start.

 

[Player 2]

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 your natural genetic coding. Short answer at no stage I am aware of.

Nature changes your genetic coding when the replication of a cell goes wrong and an allele [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics#Genes_and_evolution] of the original gene is formed. This site [http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_body/health_basics/genes_genetic_disorders.html] should give a brief explanation of cell mutation for you. It's intended for young teens so the language is quite simplistic, but the main points are there

 

[Ampersand]

Take no offense the majority of computer scientists, but among your number are some of the most entitled self important and vain little shits on the planet. So at a guess I'd say this is as a result of delusions of grandeur in the vein of "I can't possibly be related to animals, their not as clever as I am!" perhaps accompanied by "and i'm a computer scientist, therefor I must be right and all other scientists must be wrong."

 

[WolfThomas]

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution really needs to be infected with MRSA, that'd change their thinking.

 

[Detective Prince]

Meh. I've got a friend who doesn't believe in evolution. He knows I do, I know he doesn't. I don't make a deal to bring it up with him unless I want to understand his reasoning for it. He does, however, think that people should be taught evolution in school and says that if you don't it's like only teaching children there's just one religion. That's a fair enough reason I think. XD

 

[Ampersand]

I am a Christian and I'm not saying evolution is false, but there's a problem with it. If we really did evolve from monkeys wouldn't the old form die out or change?

Humans didn't evolve from modern monkeys and the old form did die out, just like 99 percent of every species that's every existed.

 

[Tdc2182]

What do I say to him?

"Why did you bring up this subject? I don't remember asking you."

Honestly, maybe he figured it all out?

 

[JUGGERNAUTBITCH]

it's still a theory guys.

 

[orangeapples]

Snip

Yes, creation can work with evolution. However, there are a few serious problems with this apologetic line.

First off, "day". It could mean something different to god than to us in that context. That doesn't mean it does, or should. As QualiaSoup has pointed out in his videos, once you change the meaning of this word, you're speaking across the actual written meaning. Why not claim that Light and Darkness (and, for that matter, Water) mean something totally different to god than to us? It's stupid semantics, especially when Jesus himself asks you to take the word as written.

Secondly, the 7 days of creation are completely fucked up. Never mind that day 7 makes no sense in the context of omnipotence...

God's day 1: created light and separated darkness <- Did not actually happen
God's day 2: created the sky to separate water from water <- Seems to indicate that everything was made of water...
God's day 3: gathered the lower water and separated it and the land formed. Plants grew. <- No sunlight? Nice to know that they could grow... Furthermore, as far as I know, the oceans of the earth were formed AFTER the continents; the oceans forming first makes no sense at all
God's day 4: God created the sun and moon to govern daytime and nighttime <- Completely backwards; we know that the sun predates the earth by a longshot, and that the moon predates any life on earth by a very long time.

Also, let's not forget that apparently, not only is god's day several billion years long, it also changes in length. Maybe on a logarithmic scale? If you want to claim that the time from the formation of the oceans to the formation of plant life took as long as the time up to it, or even half as long, then you are sorely mistaken.

Thirdly, why even bother? The bible as a work is self-falsifying, riddled with contradictions, and completely ignores any reality. What you're doing is akin to trying to explain why we've never heard of Middle Earth and why we don't still have Orcs. It's a pointless waste of time with ridiculous assumptions up the ass. I'm sorry to say, but if you're going to go so far as to try to shoehorn your ridiculous beliefs into what we know about reality, then you should probably start opening your eyes to why most people don't.

I wasn't trying to argue the creation story, just show how evolution works from a Creationist point of view. And I also mentioned that I haven't ironed out everything. But I also point out that the sun and moon weren't created at the same time. It is also strange for there to be a morning and evening without the sun. But God can have a variable measure of a day, He can do whatever He wants.

[edit]
Also, the bible wasn't written in English, but translated to English, so the word 'Day' is inaccurate. I haven't studied it, but it is possible that the original Hebrew used a different term that translated roughly into 'day'
[/edit]

However, I wasn't there at the beginning of the universe and I also doubt that you were there. No person has seen nor can see the beginning of a universe because we are in the universe. Since we weren't there at the beginning and end, all theories of the universe are fair game, right? In this universe, after a person dies their body decays and is essentially recycled. Who is to say that the soul/spirit doesn't leave for another existence? For all we know this argument is pointless because the Norse were right and we'll all just be laughing when Ragnarok comes.

I don't know because I haven't died yet and scientists have yet to discover a way to attach a tracking device to a soul.

it is clear that the ancients knew things we don't. They accomplished a lot. It is possible that our scientific understanding might not be as good as theirs. Was it God? I dunno. Gods? I dunno. Aliens? I dunno. I wasn't there.

 

[Cowabungaa]

*shrug* Misinformed perhaps? The fact that he's a brilliant computer scientist doesn't mean he knows or gets everything. Richard Dawkins for example is an established and well-known evolutionary biologist, but I don't expect of him that he can tell me everything about quantum mechanics.

However, if he's just willingly ignorant than he's an idiot. Oh sure, everyone's entitled to their own believes, but if they're stupid and make no sense than that doesn't make them anything less of an idiot.

Well evolution has always been a theory

Nope.

There's two important parts of the whole evolution business; the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution is simply this; live has developed itself over the span of a couple of billion years.

The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that tries to explain how evolution has happened. And as said before, that'll always be a theory.

Where some see science as something trying to disprove religion I find that it can strengthen faith.

It only does so when faith tries to get into the realm of the "how", in which it hopelessy fails. Religion comes forth out of the burning desire of man to know the answer to "why", even if there isn't neccesarly an answer.

However, some people (hell, a lot) throw the "how" and "why" together into one lump. That's when religion is interfering with science and that's when coexisting becomes hard. But in the end it all boils down to people, "science" and "religion" aren't their own entities, they're ways of thinking and/or feeling (religion is mostly feeling, science is mostly thinking) that man has developed in it's lifetime and both things change and branch out and whatnot.

I am a Christian and I'm not saying evolution is false, but there's a problem with it. If we really did evolve from monkeys wouldn't the old form die out or change?

Evolution isn't a straight line, it's a branching bush. In other words; we share ancestors, just like you share ancestors with your siblings (if you have them) only way way back.

I don't know because I haven't died yet and scientists have yet to discover a way to attach a tracking device to a soul.

Because scientists, or anyone for that matter, doesn't even know whether a soul exists. Hell, what is a soul anyway?

Also, you say he can do anything, except apparently explain what he/she/it is or why he/she/it does anything. And if he can but doesn't than he's an asshole.

 

[Player 2]

I am a Christian and I'm not saying evolution is false, but there's a problem with it. If we really did evolve from monkeys wouldn't the old form die out or change?

We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from hominids, an extinct type of ape. The modern great apes (such as the gorilla or the chimp) followed a different evolutionary path, they did not just remain exactly the same as the original hominids. Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution] is a complete timeline of human evolution if you want to know more.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

I know what you are trying to say but that is a god awful argument as Gravity is a lot more observable than Evolution which is the problem.

OT: Ok I am opening this can of worms one more time but this time I am going to explain it nice and clearly. Evolution is scientific fact and it is a theory. As a theory it is not absolute fact and subject to change. Take for example our understanding of atoms and light and how that has evolved over the years. Yes evolution is observable and there just look at how we have the modern yellow desert banana. The problem is that we do not fully understand evolution and we find out new mechanics about how it works.

So yes Evolution as a Theory could be completely fucking wrong and in future years so many people on the internet could look like the biggest twats ever. Same as how light is still there but we now know that it is not a beam of particles or a wave but a photon.

Ah young grasshopper, now we come to the root of the problem, and it stems not from the facts or the theory, but from the pedantics of how people chose to phrase it.

People paraphase, calling it the 'theory of evolution', which causes the uninformed to make the assumption(understandably enough) that evolution is the thing being referred to as the 'theory'. This couldn't be further from the truth.

As you said, evolution is a fact. Full stop end of story. No, its not a fact and a theory (on that bit you are wrong), it is straight fact and that is all.

The theory part people refer to is actually "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".

Key word there being 'by natural selection'.
THAT is the theory. THAT is the part which is 'not absolute fact and subject to change' as you put it. (though as far as theories go, Natural Selection is a very solid explanation, for unless we make some truly world-shattering discovery in the field of evolution, its all but impossible that natural selection will be proven 'wrong')

However, because people are lazy and misinformed, they shorten it and call it 'the theory of evolution'.
This is bad... and wrong... and wrong... and bad... and deceptive.. and wrong.


((So, to simplify the explanation to a TL;DR version:
Evolution is fact, the theory is how evolution occurs.))


On a related note, another misconception like this stems from the word 'theory', scientific theories are not declared as such until they have solid proof. So theory doesn't just mean an idea or explanation like it does for the layman. In a scientific context it means an explanation which is not contradicted by fact and proper solid evidence which distinguishes it as a possible answer for the observed phenomenon

---
Bet you weren't expecting such a serious reply

 

[Treblaine]

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?!?!

What does he mean by "agree" and "concept"?

If he doesn't like the idea of evolving from animals and that the bible is not literal truth, well he is perfectly entitled to be disturbed.

But does that mean he will flat out deny facts and scientific work? Or will he just refuse to go there and consider where science clashes with religion?

Which is it?

PS: isn't separating meat and dairy one of the stricter interpretations/following of Judaism?

 

[Treblaine]

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

No it is not "only" a theory, it is a PROVEN theory.

Like the theory of gravitation.

Like the theory of relativity (general and specific).

 

[floppylobster]

Three things -

(1)

"Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion"

You're at college yet you spelt it 'collage'. People make spelling errors all the time but if you're going to tell a story about smart people it helps if you get the details right. If only for the sake of credibility.


(2)

"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."

Was that because you just realised you had been over-estimating this guy and suddenly realised he clearly was not the smartest guy you'd ever met?


(3)

"...he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution..."

There are a lot of people who make this mistake without even realizing it. Anyone who thinks they can alter the course of evolution is effectively saying 'humans are not part of evolution'. Or 'Humans are outside of evolution and so somehow can magically alter it'. Humans are part of evolution. Everything humans do is part of evolution. Thinking we can change evolution is part of evolution. Denying we're part of evolution is part of evolution.

The logical conclusion in examining the mechanisms of evolution points to some god-like force dictating all our actions. NOT specifically a 'god', and not a 'creator', but laws of the universe that are a product of its creation. This same force is likely what is misinterpreted by many as "God", but two things are certain - we came into existence and we are governed by certain laws that only allow us to think and do certain things. We are located in an environment, subject to the influence of others. This interaction alters us. This is evolution. To say we're not part of it is just a misunderstanding of what evolution is and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

What I've said above could easily be mis-read as an argument in support of God. But it's not. That's how complex a concept the theory of evolution really is when you start getting in to the implications of it.

In the end it doesn't actually matter what your friend thinks, nor I for that matter. We are in the middle of an evolutionary process whether we want to talk about it or not. Thinking we can control or change it, or that we're outside of it, is ignoring the fact that for all the thought we can put in to our next course of action - we can still only do one thing.

 

[Contradiction]

Snip

Snip

Snip

Snip

I'll admit up to this point I have been vague so allow me to specify certain points so that the discussion is less broad.
For my point I use human evolution as an example. As well as assuming that the chimpanzee is our closest relative as per modern evolutionary theories.
If you have an issue with this don't bother replying because it will just be semantics otherwise.
The human being as 46 chromosomes. Yes?
The chimpanzee has 48.
Currently the most people agree that what happened was a single chromosome pair combine.
This is fundamentally wrong as that would create 47.
So assuming it was possible to combine chromosomes it would require TWO pairs to unite.
This would create a chimpanzee with the with a genome containing 46 chromosomes and equal amount which is a requirement for mammalian reproduction.
For this off shoot of a chimpanzee to breed I'm sure we would all agree it requires either a partner of equal chromosomes or else it would create sterile off spring.
This would be omitting the fact that even if a chimpanzee with 46 chromosomes were to meet another opposing sex chimpanzee with 46 in their own troupe open to breeding that they would have combined the SAME pairs of chromosomes other wise their centro-mere would not match and thus the entire process fail.
So at this point we have assumed that two chimpanzee have met as a reproductive couple in the same troupe with two combined chromosome pairs that are the same pairs and thus synchronised with each other.
Well the fact is that research has shown that chromosomes can't combine or separate. (of course they can in the reproductive sense but I mean in a fundamental level two of our 46 can't combine to leave us with 45) unless this research is false (which I am not saying it isn't). The idea is that two chromosomes would meet and thus it would have two centro-meres. This can not happen nor can there be no centro-mere. So the chances of it happening at all are according to research impossible or if we say possible but very rare it would be extremely rare to the point where it has never been observed either naturally or experimentally.
Translocations and inversions in DNA will produce a fertile living offspring however chromosome based mishaps will not produce sterile young. (down syndrome)
So unless there was some amazing moment where chromosomes could combine and or split we did not come from the chimpanzee. Even if there were such a moment the likelihoods of it happening twice in the same offspring is tiny the chance of it happening to another that was available for reproduction even more minuscule.
It is by that logic that I refute Darwin's claim that we are descendant of the chimpanzee.
I do not claim to be a biologist. This is simply what was drawn to my attention. Like I said in the original post I am willing to accept any counter evidence. (condescension NOT needed cadet)
Anyway that's what I got.

 

[CarlMin]

Firstly, intelligence is not a measurable 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 of the world, is wrong of some many reasons I shouldnt 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).

Fair enough, as long as they are real opinions. The validity of evolution via natural selection is NOT an opinion. When you state your opinion on it, you are debating the validity of a fact. Theres a difference between "my favorite color is yellow" and "the grass outside my house is purple". One is an opinion, the other is a statement of fact. And claiming that evolution does not happen is not a real opinion. Its a false statement of knowledge.

You dont make any distinction between intelligence and unknowledgeable

The latter is not a word recognized by firefox or the average English dictionary, and your sentence makes very little sense.

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

Uh... No. Because we KNOW that they are wrong. Its not unknowable, we know for a fact that young earth creationism is flat-out wrong. As said, theres a difference between believing in something we cant/dont know is correct (deism) and believing in something that we know is false (young earth creationism)/logically impossible (the god of the bible/literal interpretation of the bible).

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 youre in a position to call someone an idiot because you dont agree with him, perhaps its you who are stupid.

Perhaps its me who is right. People have the right to believe whatever they want. Just like they have the right to do and say whatever the fuck they want. But that doesnt justify it automatically. For example, I have the right to act like a total jerkwad to my fellow man, so long as I dont break any laws. I can have sex with his wife, get him fired from his job, and insult him publicly. That does not make it a good idea.

Hell, let me just point to the PRIME EXAMPLE of this. The Westboro Baptist Church. What they do is completely within rights. Does that make it reasonable or smart? No. Theyre incredibly insensitive fucktards, and Im shocked that what they do is not considered child abuse.

Similarly, believing in things that are flat-out wrong on any objective, realistic scale (things like young earth creationism, scientology, etc.) is something you can do, but at the same time its something that we as a society should try to stamp out as soon as possible. A few hundred years ago, the common wisdom was that illnesses were caused by "bad blood" and that bloodletting was the best solution. If we had not challenged that demonstrably wrong sentiment, we would not have modern medicine. Challenging bad ideas is not only praise-worthy, its the entire basis of the scientific method, and if I have to explain why this is a good thing then I honestly think you should probably join the Amish.

Yeah, I made the mistake of trying to write that on my iPhone but unknowledgeable is a word
but I placed it the wrong sentence. I updated my message so simply reply to that and I think my post will make a bit more sense.

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/unknowledgeable

Meanwhile, Ill just highlight some of your points that I think are the most wrong.

People have the right to believe whatever they want. Just like they have the right to do and say whatever the fuck they want. But that doesnt justify it automatically. For example, I have the right to act like a total jerkwad to my fellow man, so long as I dont break any laws. I can have sex with his wife, get him fired from his job, and insult him publicly. That does not make it a good idea.

No, because its unethical. Choosing not to believe in the theory in evolution is not unethical.

Hell, let me just point to the PRIME EXAMPLE of this. The Westboro Baptist Church. What they do is completely within rights. Does that make it reasonable or smart?.

Are you comparing the OPs friend with Westboro Baptist Church? I mean, seriously?

Anyway, WBC is hated not because they deny evolution or promote pseudo-christian values. They are hated because of their hate speech, slander and because they are picketing funerals and disrespect people.


Similarly, believing in things that are flat-out wrong on any objective, realistic scale (things like young earth creationism, scientology, etc.) is something you can do, but at the same time its something that we as a society should try to stamp out as soon as possible.


We should stamp on whats harmful to society, not what the most of us consider scientifically incorrect.

Let me describe the difference. In Western society, we believe in what we call scientific facts. In other societies, religious or philosophical convictions are more important. However, the problem does not lie in the source ? be it religious or scientific. The problem lies in the outcome. Like intolerance. For example; certain christian fundamentalist are dangerous, not because they believe in God, but because their opinion and view of the world leads to them being intolerant against, for example, homosexuals.

The problem is intolerance, and intolerance is always dangerous no matter where it comes from. Saying ?believe in this because everything else is wrong? is dangerous and it is intolerance. It doesnt matter if its motivated by science or religion. That kind of categorizing, intolerant thinking, which you display when you say that we as a society should ?stamp on? what you think is flat out wrong, is dangerous.


If we had not challenged that demonstrably wrong sentiment, we would not have modern medicine.

The ability to leave old concepts and move forward as a society is good of course, but the thinking you display will only hinder that progress.

Right now, your opinions could be labeled as ?correct? given current scientific perspectives. Of course, this will eventually change, but those who tolerate all sorts of opinions in society will accept this change. Those who are intolerant of opinions they cannot understand, like you, will not be able to move on. So there will come a time when the likes of you hinder the very progress you are promoting.

 

[Alade]

Wow, just wow... On a more serious matter, Evolution is often very misunderstood by people and a lot of people think it can explain the origin of the first life forms which it can not. Evolution itself has been and still can be reproduced in a lab with plants, it's a proven thing, it's not up to debate.