Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

sorry but this post isn't the proper venue to get into another of these arguments about evolution. besides its a non sequitur because you have your beliefs and I have mine and neither will change right?

It indeed sadly is my experience that this is most often (but not always) the case, I used to be like many on the other side.

Originally Posted by northpaw

I, too, found the wording of the second part of statement B a little odd. While the first part of B represents one of the general principles of evolutionary descent, the second part does not. Rather, it seems to take one side in what is an ongoing discussion.

The problem is that at that early stage of life's development, there probably weren't individual organisms as we think of them today. Instead, there were something akin to "genetic pools" where the process of sharing genes was likely accomplished via horizontal gene transfer (see the section "Importance in evolution").

In a nutshell, it's generally accepted by biologists that all life descended from a Last Universal Ancestor. However, that ancestor may well have been more like "a discrete genetic pool". In terms of whether or not the average layperson would believe in such things at all, the difference between whether it was an individual organism (didn't really exist back then) or a discrete genetic pool is utterly insignificant, imo.


Therefore, a suggestion:

It might be most useful to read statement B as including whatever nuances it would need in order to fit with current evolutionary theory. Only then would any meaningful correlation between belief in the two statements be revealed.


[Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, so the above just comes from my vague understanding of the relevant research/ideas.]

This is what is found to be one of the obvious and glaring points, that you hear things like 'well it's something like .... ' or 'the general consensus is .... ' or 'we believe that .... '. You know why they don't just show you examples or why they show an 'artistic rendering'? Because they don't have them. They BELIEVE that stuff because it is their RELIGION. And they use Soviet style teaching methods and adhere to it and it's doctrines with the dogmatic ferver of any religious cult that you could name.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

It indeed sadly is my experience that this is most often (but not always) the case, I used to be like many on the other side.

ControlFreak1,

Have you ever read anything by Richard Dawkins? I would recommend his Climbing Mount Improbable (or maybe the earlier The Blind Watchmaker).

He is admittedly pretty contentious sometimes but he really knows what he is talking about and can make it understandable to any intelligent reader. Note I said "understandable", not "believable" -- it is up to the reader to believe or not what Dawkins presents. But at least one will be in a position to know what the questions are! Much of what is heard in public about evolution is pure hogwash, or at least over-simplified and discussed in such strained analogies that any depth of understanding is pretty much impossible.

If you end up disagreeing with Dawkin's opinions you will in the future be able to present your opinions from a much more informed perspective.

Note also that if you have read or heard things about Dawkins or his writings it is almost certainly taken out of context and misleading. Or it will stress unrelated points to make a kind of guilt by association. People can be right about some things and wrong about others. Trying to argue about one category by citing the other is not a way to understand either.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

This is what is found to be one of the obvious and glaring points, that you hear things like 'well it's something like .... ' or 'the general consensus is .... ' or 'we believe that .... '. You know why they don't just show you examples or why they show an 'artistic rendering'? Because they don't have them. They BELIEVE that stuff because it is their RELIGION. And they use Soviet style teaching methods and adhere to it and it's doctrines with the dogmatic ferver of any religious cult that you could name.

In terms of why they believe it, I don't think it's at all comparable to why people believe in various religious dogmas. Not even close. However, that's probably better left for a different discussion.

As to why popular explanations may be lacking, the sad fact is that most people don't have the scientific background (or interest) to become familiar enough with the material to learn its intricacies. What astounds me is that people who have only the tiniest bit of (often incorrect) information about a subject feel compelled to argue against the conclusions of those who have spent their entire lives studying it. Those same people would never dream of arguing with a physicist about physics, but they feel qualified if it has to do with biology, genetics, etc. Weird.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

ControlFreak1,

Have you ever read anything by Richard Dawkins? I would recommend his Climbing Mount Improbable (or maybe the earlier The Blind Watchmaker).

He is admittedly pretty contentious sometimes but he really knows what he is talking about and can make it understandable to any intelligent reader. Note I said "understandable", not "believable" -- it is up to the reader to believe or not what Dawkins presents. But at least one will be in a position to know what the questions are! Much of what is heard in public about evolution is pure hogwash, or at least over-simplified and discussed in such strained analogies that any depth of understanding is pretty much impossible.

If you end up disagreeing with Dawkin's opinions you will in the future be able to present your opinions from a much more informed perspective.

Note also that if you have read or heard things about Dawkins or his writings it is almost certainly taken out of context and misleading. Or it will stress unrelated points to make a kind of guilt by association. People can be right about some things and wrong about others. Trying to argue about one category by citing the other is not a way to understand either.

Dawkins sadly is just dishonest and an obvious con man (which is and was the main thing that turned me off and against that side), he is certainlly a high priest in the scientism cult, he IS 'the sound of one hand clapping' and as most uses Soviet style teaching and reasoning. I would recommend 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath to help open ones eyes about Dawkins, and another help would be 'The Devil's Delusion' by David Berlinski.

Originally Posted by northpaw

In terms of why they believe it, I don't think it's at all comparable to why people believe in various religious dogmas. Not even close. However, that's probably better left for a different discussion.

As to why popular explanations may be lacking, the sad fact is that most people don't have the scientific background (or interest) to become familiar enough with the material to learn its intricacies. What astounds me is that people who have only the tiniest bit of (often incorrect) information about a subject feel compelled to argue against the conclusions of those who have spent their entire lives studying it. Those same people would never dream of arguing with a physicist about physics, but they feel qualified if it has to do with biology, genetics, etc. Weird.

Ah, what is faith? It is believing in something that you can not see. But that definition somehow does not apply to so called 'science'? I'm not against real science, science is something that you can observe and demonstrate and demonstrate over and over again. And surely there is good science and good honest scientists, it's the close-minded narrow-minded dogmatists that give it a bad rap.
And you have indeed hit one of the nails on the head so to speak, the hierarchy have this elitist mentality that if you question their dogma then it is because 'you poor little stupid people are not intelligent enough to understand the enlightenment that we have recieved'.
Oh ya baby that's the ticket. High minded elitism on top of it.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

And you have indeed hit one of the nails on the head so to speak, the hierarchy have this elitist mentality that if you question their dogma then it is because 'you poor little stupid people are not intelligent enough to understand the enlightenment that we have recieved'.
Oh ya baby that's the ticket. High minded elitism on top of it.

Not being qualified to argue with a scientist about concepts they specialize in isn't the same as not being intelligent enough. Again, most people just don't have the knowledge and expertise that comes from studying something for years and years. Normally, this is something we all agree with - it's the reason you wouldn't let your dentist or auto mechanic perform brain surgery on you. It's got nothing to do with elitism.

Originally Posted by sparq

So you think there is a direct connection between people (read Americans) who do not believe in Darwinism and those who do not believe in AGW... or not? I do not see any other purpose this thread could possibly have.

I don't know why you've put "Americans" in brackets. But apart form that, yes, that is exactly what I think.

Don't take this to mean that I think one causes the other.

To put it in evolutionary terms, I think both lines of thought share a common ancestor

General point: I did have other versions of the two statements, but I wanted to simplify the poll as much as possible. I couldn't think of any way to create options which would be a catch-all poll.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I do believe that humans are descended from animals (which are non-humans), but I am not sure there is evidence that points towards a single ancestor.

As such, I am voting that I think both statements are false.

If I had written the second statement as "Humans are descended from animals who were not human. Humans, crocodiles and spiders all have a common ancestor", how would you have voted?

Originally Posted by northpaw

Not being qualified to argue with a scientist about concepts they specialize in isn't the same as not being intelligent enough. Again, most people just don't have the knowledge and expertise that comes from studying something for years and years. Normally, this is something we all agree with - it's the reason you wouldn't let your dentist or auto mechanic perform brain surgery on you. It's got nothing to do with elitism.

Like I said there are good scientists and indeed many, but there definitely is an elitist dogmatic religious mentality amongst those in high places trying to control the propoganda and banishing ANYONE no matter what their credentials who dares questions their authority to a virtual scientism gulag.