 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:49 AM I said I might do this. The "Church in Modern World" thread has gotten too long & fragmented. I include religion because many specific arguments against evolution have religious claims at their base. I request that people keep to the topic here and refrain from insults & personality clashes. I will request editing if it gets out of hand. (it may be appropriate to C&P posts from the other thread(s) to avoid typing the same things again) Let me begin with an article I happened across this morning. walking-fish-evolution several excerpts for those who want the main points: ", life as we know it began in Earth's oceans. At some point, those fish developed the ability to walk on land, using their fins as simple walking appendages..." " researchers from the University of Ottawa and McGill University took modern fish known for walking on land, and raised them there for two years." " "After two years, what they observed was essentially evolution at work. The 'terrestrialized' fish walked much more capably than their aquatic brethren, holding their fins closer to their bodies and their heads more upright. Their skeletons even adapted, developing stronger pectoral attachments and reducing connections with the head, allowing for longer strides and improved head mobility." Pete has often said that 'we can't see any evolution'... but this seems to be a good example of how it might appear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Aug 14 - 11:58 AM Well, that's more like Lamark than Darwin, innit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:04 PM Good job now how about some good old threads on my political views are better than yours.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: olddude Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:06 PM Some people on mudcat stopped at the ape stage |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:26 PM That lasted a long time Bill. Hard luck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:31 PM Dan... you are already tossing in the kind of remark I asked to be avoided, Lamarck? No...not really. It's easy to see why some would think that way, but Lamarck never dealt well with the mechanisms of change. One doesn't inherit bigger muscles as such, but merely the capacity to develop them. Those fish seemed to actually experience small, though basic, DNA changes. An individual fish might, thru practice, increase its breathing capacity, but ability to breath better in successive generations 'without practice' requires actual evolving mechanisms. Research & DNA sequencing is required to sort out which ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:35 PM We shall see how it goes, Musket... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:08 PM In religion, it's the other guy who is always wrong. If you want a bananas vs. Limburger thread, so be it. My ancestors were climbing trees while yours were limpets on the rocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:09 PM You cannot change your DNA. Male circumcision has been practised for a while now and is showing no signs of becoming inherited. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. Either you know about it or you don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Les in Chorlton Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:12 PM That was me |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM Correct, Guest... now I have shop work to do, for |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Wesley S Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM Another popcorn thread if I ever saw one. At least 200 posts and nothing will be decided. Count on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:35 PM *peeking in one last time before shop work* It's not FOR deciding! It's for discussing! Not every human issue has simple things that can be decided! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:36 PM Wesley, like Monday night football, I go to sleep after the first half of the first quarter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: BrendanB Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:38 PM There are subjects that can be debated and subjects that cannot be debated. The latter are those which involve an unquestioning faith. This is because such a faith allows no possibility of changing belief. Debating evolution with a fundamentalist Christian falls into this category. Not all people of faith are unquestioning in their belief. Some believe that because humanity is endowed with intelligence that requires them to think for themselves. It is true that that can lead to difficulties when seeking to align religious orthodoxy with personal morality but seeking for truth in one's spiritual life is a valuable activity in developing self understanding. There are those who will condemn such an approach as 'boutique religion', well, so be it. In short, this thread cannot possibly achieve anything. Although it may afford opportunities for the usual suspects to hurl abuse at anyone who admits to having a Christian faith. Strange that some people are so infuriated by perceived homophobia and yet indulge in what might be termed rabid christophobia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Les in Chorlton Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:07 PM Most faiths accept evolution. Some members of them faiths don't. This should not come as a surprise since many members of most faiths don't know the details of their own faith Best wishes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:20 PM Viva la religolution! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 28 Aug 14 - 02:45 PM ""This seems to be the classic paranoid-fundamentalist mindset: a very small 'elect', in possession of the truth who see themselves as besieged by a powerful elite who control everyone else's thought and expression. It is often possible to believe that you are a member of an oppressed minority and to simultaneously believe that you are silent majority who everyone really agrees with. A lot of the time, proponents seem to see themself as a member of a minority of one."" Taken from 'Upton Park'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,# Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:12 PM "My ancestors were climbing trees while yours were limpets on the rocks." Limpet on the rocks. The devil made me do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:14 PM ""Once you've managed to believe in Quantum Theory, the Holy Trintiy is relatively straightforward"" Andrew Rilestone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:16 PM No problem with Christophobia" or whatever you want to call it. Pointing out bigotry is pointing out bigotry, even if it is carried out by old biddies organising the church fete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:26 PM ""For the benefit of Americans and people who don't care, I should point out that a complex series of historical accidents means that the British head of state (Liz, not the PM) is also the head of the Church of England. This means that Church and State are bound together in complicated ways; however, it makes very little difference since the Queen gets to keep her political and religious powers only on condition that she doesn't use them for anything. There is a general feeling that disestablishing the church of England—legally separating church from state—would be a bad thing: it would mean that everyone would stop going to church and we wouldn't be able to teach school children about evolution. I mention this only because it gives me the excuse to use the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism.' " Andrew Rilestone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: gnu Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:37 PM BTW... it's a good idea to read the OP every now and then. Jus sayin eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:51 PM from Q: In religion, it's the other guy who is always wrong. But must it always be that way? I suppose you could also say, "In Internet discussions, it's the other guy who is always wrong." But maybe that's the wrong approach. It seems to me that for most questions and most issues, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer - there is a wide variety of valid perspectives. [well, there are some answers that seem downright ridiculous, but there are also many valid answers] -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:51 PM A bit dense, today so I looked up OP on Google- noun informal -a surgical or other operation -military operations Why not a discussion, OPs vs. APs Fergit it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:54 PM Yes, keep that in mind, gnu;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bettynh Date: 28 Aug 14 - 04:26 PM As for the original article: There's no talk of inheritance or generations. So they're describing the same fish two years apart. If you were required to climb a ladder every day for your food, you'd have stronger arms and legs after two years and you would probably move more efficiently up that ladder. I saw no reference at all to DNA changes. As far as I can see, the point to doing the experiment was to demonstrate that changing environment can change physical structures without needing mutation to cause the change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:12 PM "Strange that some people are so infuriated by perceived homophobia and yet indulge in what might be termed rabid christophobia." I'm not 'afraid' of Christians - I just think that they're a bit silly. Having "faith" i.e. a fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence just seems ... well ... a bit silly to me. But, as far as I'm concerned, Christians are free to believe whatever nonsense they like ... as long as they don't try to convert me ... like the two numpties who turned up on my doorstep the other afternoon ... Oh, what fun! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 05:58 PM " As far as I can see, the point to doing the experiment was to demonstrate that changing environment can change physical structures without needing mutation to cause the change." Bettynh- I see why you say this, but upon going to the researcher's site we see: "Standen's team said that if some ancient fish adapted this way, the pressures of evolution would select the most successful for life on land. "Potentially an ancestor (to modern land animals) had that same plasticity, which allowed it to engage in new environments," she said. A couple of years is indeed not a direct demonstration of evolution, but of observable traits that are similar to indications in certain fossil records. We can't, as the relatively short article notes, "view the behavior" of very old fossils, but we can see HOW such things might happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:26 AM I think the opening post , with it,s link , though interesting does not show evolution in action, as has already been hinted at. true 2 yr is.nt much to go on , but albeit quite remarkable *adaption* is not the information gaining process required for fish to philosophers evolution. you did however claim [or link did] that their experiment was verified by fossil record.....but elucidation required to demonstrate the validity of that claim. we do know that longer times can be extrapolated by using fast reproducing critters like flies, but again, best I can see, whatever adaption and natural selection may be observed, evolutionism is,nt being observed, ie flys is still flys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:00 PM But flys ...ummm flies...(my spell checker yelled at me).. change to more interesting flies...not butterflies. The fish in some fossil records do show fin structures similar to those walking fish of today. This experiment merely shows how survival OF fish which accidentally developed such structures might have been aided. It's just one of many indicators. (And by the way, a couple of years ago, another outcropping of very ancient fossils was found near the Burgess Shale in Canada. Remember... these fossils, which originally lived under water were found at 8000 ft altitude. It takes awhile to get up there.) Dozens of scientific discoveries in various disciplines ALL point to extreme age and various dating methods support the basic calculations. Science has to go where the hard evidence takes it, even if the evidence & map has to be re-evaluated due to new data. NONE of the data indicates any 8000-10,000 year age. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bettynh Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:23 PM " the point to doing the experiment was to demonstrate that changing environment can change physical structures without needing mutation to cause the change" "Potentially an ancestor (to modern land animals) had that same plasticity, which allowed it to engage in new environments" I see only semantic differences in these statements. The English language can be a bugger. We're looking at academic science here. Well done for getting it published in Nature! But the point to academic papers is a) to get grants for the lab and b) to suggest topics for further research. As seen here three grants supported the lab. Presumably they're finished supporting this particular research. The potential further subjects are more interesting to me. I don't know what correlations were made to actual fossils (can anyone access Nature to actually look at the paper?). That would be one direction. Someone might look at amphibian muscle and bone structures of the shoulder and neck to see whether the changes observed after birth in the fish had become embryonic in amphibians. That would imply an actual change in DNA. Further along that line, a demonstration of the chemical change in the DNA active in the development of that structure would be strong indication of evolution in action. There may be other directions. My point is that this study, interesting as it may be, is no answer but an inspiration for questions. I suppose some of those questions might involve God, but as Richard Dyson said once, "I'm OK with not knowing the answers." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:23 PM Pete.. I'm going to try to move the discussion which relate to evolution and to trust/faith --whatever... over to this thread so. "Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link - PM Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:46 AM joe, if Jesus seemed to regard Jonah as real, I see no reason to mistrust its historicity.,,, One would distrust it because the basic Jonah story.. as well as the Noah story and the Adam & Eve story... do not seem very likely based on what we know about fish, water, floods, population genetics and systems of writing and preserving exact information. If all you base the truth of Jonah on is the word of Jesus, then you must have some way to verify that Jesus was not only real, but that he knew what he was saying and where HE got his information. Whether Jonah was supposed to have been swallowed by a "big fish" or a whale, it seems unlikely because whale's throats are too small, and the few fish that 'might' swallowa man... i.e. big sharks, would not swallow him whole....and so forth.. If you merely believe it all because of 'faith' in the inerrant word of the Bible.... well, you can only speak for yourself, as those of us who really need solid evidence for such 'interesting' stories can't take it all in.....and there ARE good scientific theories now about how a local flood could have grown into a big story about a World Flood. Joe Offer has his sincere faith.. but he does a pretty good job of tempering it with the idea of Biblical stories being more guidance than absolute fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:02 PM ""it seems unlikely because whale's throats are too small, and the few fish that 'might' swalsperm wa man... i.e. big sharks, would not swallow him whole....and so forth.."" Well, while not intending to take sides on the overall issues, the above not totally (scientifically) accurate on the sperm whales throat size. Additionally, there are some fishes that do have the capacity (throat size) to swallow a whole human. While it is unlikely they would do so (from researchers observations), based on that, I suspect the potential is not totally outside the rhelm of being possible. ""Unlike most species of whale, sperm whales have a relatively large throat which is designed to allow it to consume large prey such as giant squid.While these whales do have large throats that would make it easier to swallow a human most of their hunting takes place several miles below the sea, up to 3,000 ft., which is much deeper than a human is able to swim."" whale facts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:40 PM Have you noticed how an increasing number of Western citizens have evolved beyond the need for religion? (As some smart arses have found a link between aardvarks and toast, I thought I'd find the link between evolution and religion.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Stu Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:42 PM It's likely that what we consider to be a tetrapod style of locomotion is derived from a far older origin than thought. The coeleocanth uses a very similar cycle when sculling, and many fish 'walk' along the substrates in their environment using the same cycle. This is too widespread to be convergent evolution, and it is likely that it's origin lies with early fishes or perhaps earlier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:59 PM "Have you noticed how an increasing number of Western citizens have evolved beyond the need for religion?" Well yes, of course-but that does not automatically translate to a disbelief in a God. Beliefs that are established at early life stages residing solidly with many folks, who have no similar attachment to organized religion-for a number of reasons (including bad behavour of some of those in charge). Many if these folks have made their accomodations for aspects that do not "fit" with what others (including those who have left such beliefs behind) may see as logic stacked against such beliefs. One can argue and "belittle" those with such a belief as they wish, but that alone will not change much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:12 PM "...evolved beyond the need for religion?" Linguistic equivocation on 'evolved'. Some *societies* have fewer members who identify as religious, but I doubt many individual citizens have 'evolved'. I did alter my view on acceptance of biblical stories soon after I was about 15. If that is what you wish to CALL evolving, then we can agree on a process, if not a name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:18 PM Oh, and by the way... if I remember correctly from a couple of years ago, Pete explained to me (because I asked politely) that he had also 'changed' from something like 'not sure' to believing. Maybe we can label him as having evolved.... though I suspect he would decline the label. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:35 PM O whoop-de-doo! Lets not confine evolve-- evolution to one meaning. It has many, if the dictionaries are to be believed, from its first use in 1622. Define your usage. A few variations from the Merriam Webster Collegiate (A lot more in the OED: - One of a set of prescribed movements - a process of change in a certain direction. Unfolding. -The action of a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse, to a higher more complex or better state. -A process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, economic advance... -The historical development of a biological group.... - meanings related to phylogeny. Modifications, etc. I find such discussions fruitless. Having spent my working life as a research paleontologist-paleoecologist with an oil company laboratory, determining ages of strata and their environment from the changes in the organisms through time, and running up against "belief" from time to time, I will no longer argue whether one particular person's dunghill is better or worse than another's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:21 PM I think that a clear definition is what I was requesting when someone uses a word with those variations.... what I was protesting was use of the word in a context where one definition is not relevant.... but Musket knew that (if he thought about it at all while making clever remarks) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ed T Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:25 PM Seems like "philosophy lingo" is peeping out of your last post, Bill D. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Ebbie Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:50 PM "(And by the way, a couple of years ago, another outcropping of very ancient fossils was found near the Burgess Shale in Canada. Remember... these fossils, which originally lived under water were found at 8000 ft altitude. It takes awhile to get up there.)" Bill D My birth family had a comfortable answer for that, Bill. They believed that in the Great Flood shells all over the world were left behind as the water receded. Incidentally I'm not sure what premise this thread is built upon. I read in the other thread from time to time but got bored and quit some time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM Yes but no but. I may or may not know what I speak if, but please judge the words printed rather than an estimate of the intent eh? Yes, the noble art of equivocation did assist me in my use of the word "evolve" in the same way as the word "folk" is used by me in a current thread above the line. This is what happens ; Person A has faith and gets on with his life. Person B doesn't have faith and gets on with his life. So far, no guns. Person C has faith and wants to prove why he is right to person B. Person B says it's all bollocks, so don't bother trying. Person A accuses person B of belittling faith. Before person C started feeling embarrassed by his belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden and wanting to assert it to give it credibility, persons A and B had been getting on alright, saying hello as one was leaving church at the same time as the other was off down the pub. We seem to have a number of A B and C in the Mudcat community. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:21 AM What I speak OF not if. iPhone and sausage fingers. Interesting combination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: dick greenhaus Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:08 PM Mek Twain told about the disacovery of oyster shells at the top of a mountain (Ararat?) He pointed out that this prove that, in biblical times, oysters could climb mountains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 14 - 01:53 PM " They believed that in the Great Flood shells all over the world were left behind as the water receded." Oh right...*grin*... at steep angles and in random patches. I think that Dick's story is "Incidentally I'm not sure what premise this thread is built upon. " Simply that Pete & I have been discussing these things for 2-3 years, and several threads started for other purposes have been co-opted by this topic. I just thought I'd see if we could confine it a bit. -----------------------------------------------\ "Seems like "philosophy lingo" is peeping out of your last post, Bill D." You noticed! Guilty as charged. I do that in semi-automatic mode when I detect ambiguity in the verbiage,,, (eeek..he's babbling again.) I also can't easily shorten what I want to say... like the guy who said: "I don't have time to write a short paper!" I had a professor who sometimes taught a 2 hours graduate level class, and was still always surprised and frustrated when time ran out. Every line of thought led to something else. That what philosophy was about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:02 PM methinks , bill, that, re Jonah you applied it as if I was addressing you, who is not claiming any belief in the bible, whereas I was replying to joe who seemed to be intimating he does [of sorts] and asking me for my reasons for taking Jonah as historical narrative. it is interesting to consider whether any existing sea creature that we know of, is capable of swallowing a live man whole, but the text itself says that God "prepared" a great fish. as I said before, if you believe in God, miracles are no problem. I reckon atheists need more faith for their secular miracles, ie ideas that don't jive with observational science. it is worth noting, bill, that you are asserting stuff as fact that even those who disagree with me, are providing some measure of correction on. you are also asserting that none of the data supports a more recent creation - 1, I have given data that does just that, but you have faith that science will yet show where observational science is, so far, wrong 2,data and evidence are interpreted according to the researchers worldview and/or peer pressure and need for funding. but if you have specific evidence of deep time, other than more assertion that all the data and disciplines agree......... I will say it again, textbook definition or not, that, is an appeal to numbers/authority. btw, from the aig site was a link to a video of the walking fish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Musket Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:26 PM Talk about picking up the goal posts and sprinting! God did it.. Poor bugger, it must be difficult for him to live up to pete's expectations... If anyone wants to explain to me what a secular miracle is, do us both a favour and don't bother eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 14 - 12:50 AM "you are also asserting that none of the data supports a more recent creation -" I am asserting that only certain interpretations of carefully selected data indicates the type of recent creation you prefer. There is, after all, something to be said for the 'data' about what % of scientists accept such selective data when almost all data shows otherwise. |
