Thread: On Climate Change and Evolution

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

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 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 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.