• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows[W:571]

Lursa said:
Ah yes, my bad. Matt Ridley goes into sexual selection in his book The Red Queen on sex and evolution. A book I highly recommend and one...including the theory of sexual selection...completely support and depend on EVOLUTION. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I was thinking of sexual selection on a narrower scale after Sanghas post.
Click to expand...

No problem. I've read the Red Queen. Another good one is Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. I think there's a lot to those books, but they're missing quite a bit as well.

Lursa said:
And again, it is only ONE mechanism that drives evolution, not one that 'dispproves it.' And as I mentioned as a quick reminder to Sangha, sexual reproduction is not the only way organisms pass on genes.
Click to expand...

Did I try to use sexual selection as something that disproves evolution? I don't think I did. And you're right, it's not the only way organisms pass on genes, but it's the only way complex organisms do.

Lursa said:
I know how organisms change over time. They do NOT mutate. Their is a mutation in a gene and that gets passed on *thru generations.* The organism does not mutate.
Click to expand...

OK, but that's semantics. We're saying exactly the same thing. One particular organism won't mutate, that's obvious. The genes will mutate and the next generation will show the results of that mutation. Whether that mutation survives is dependent on how sexually attractive it is, or on how it affects the organism's survivability.

We've all read the textbooks. I still don't believe that man evolved from lower life forms, though. The mechanism for evolution is somewhat sound (though I still have issues with, for example, speciation), but what really bothers me the most about the theory is the sheer complexity of the human organism. The brain is just one organ. Our DNA is unbelievably intricate. It would take trillions and trillions of generations, in my humble opinion, for something like that to just evolve, and even then....
 
Peter Grimm said:
Funny you should ask. If you read the link, you'll notice something quite interesting. It seems that until this year, scientists believed the number of neurons in the human brain was over 100 billion. New research suggests that number to be quite a bit less, which is how we arrive at the 80 billion number.

A year ago, I'm sure there are many who would state that we have 100 billion neurons and that's a FACT because science says so. However, as we've seen, they would have been incorrect.

How many neurons make a human brain? Billions fewer than we thought | James Randerson | Science | theguardian.com


Just goes to show my skepticism is well-placed. How do I know the number is 80 billion? I don't. It's very likely that number can be revised again in the future.
Click to expand...

And did the substance of the science determining that number change significantly? The foundation of the science behind it? No, the basic principles are still solid.

Same with evolution.

Post 560:

Lursa said:
Science is based on skepticism.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
No problem. I've read the Red Queen. Another good one is Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. I think there's a lot to those books, but they're missing quite a bit as well.

We've all read the textbooks. I still don't believe that man evolved from lower life forms, though. The mechanism for evolution is somewhat sound (though I still have issues with, for example, speciation), but what really bothers me the most about the theory is the sheer complexity of the human organism. The brain is just one organ. Our DNA is unbelievably intricate. It would take trillions and trillions of generations, in my humble opinion, for something like that to just evolve, and even then....
Click to expand...

Personally then, IMO it's your personal limitation that you cannot wrap your mind around that kind of complexity. It's not easy, I remember sitting thru zoology, microbiology....2 of my favorites and having to delve deeper into concepts & having it explained....over and over....to gain understanding. I do not claim complete understanding. As someone who studies epidemiology, I have gotten more comfortable with incredible numbers and the forces & complexity of tiny things.

Thanks for the recommendation on Sperm Wars. I hope it's available for my Kindle.
 
Lursa said:
And did the substance of the science determining that number change significantly? The foundation of the science behind it? No, the basic principles are still solid.

Same with evolution.

Post 560:
Click to expand...

Skepticism is good, the scientific method is good, I just think there are problems with the theory of evolution that get whitewashed somewhat due to the sensitive nature of the topic.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Even the simplest single-cellular life is incredibly complex. Life could have evolved elsewhere in the universe and arrived here frozen on a comet. Who knows.

The other possibility is that we've been genetically engineered.

I simply can't believe that chance can produce such complexity.
Click to expand...

But you keep on bringing up the complexity of the human brain as a flaw of evolution. That would still have to evolve regardless with panspermia - 90 billion neurons in a specific pattern.

Genetic engineering doesn't solve how our creators came to develop either.

Any alternative to evolution happening from abiogenesis occuring here is automatically less complicated than the alternatives without a supernatural explanation.
 
Lursa said:
Personally then, IMO it your personal limitation that you cannot wrap your mind around that kind of complexity. It's not easy, I remember sitting thru zoology, microbiology....2 of my favorites and having to delve deeper into concepts & having it explained....over and over....to gain understanding. I do not claim complete understanding.

Thanks for the recommendation on Sperm Wars. I hope it's available for my Kindle.
Click to expand...


I'm not the only one that thinks that way. How to account for complexity within the theory of evolution is currently being debated by the top minds in the field.

Here's an interesting read: The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity: Scientific American
 
Ben K. said:
But you keep on bringing up the complexity of the human brain as a flaw of evolution. That would still have to evolve regardless with panspermia - 90 billion neurons in a specific pattern.

Genetic engineering doesn't solve how our creators came to develop either.
Click to expand...

Yeah but with panspermia at least you buy yourself a few trillion more generations, making it more plausible in my mind.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Skepticism is good, the scientific method is good, I just think there are problems with the theory of evolution that get whitewashed somewhat due to the sensitive nature of the topic.
Click to expand...

Interesting. It is not remotely sensitive to alot of people tho...esp. those doing the studying. In the past I spent alot of time around academics and zoologists. And each real scientist was dying to discover something new or something that did NOT fit into the current or mainstream science....a solid way of gaining funding. But any of those 'discoveries' still had to undergo peer review and the general rigors of science. No one wants to 'ignore' something new in evolution.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

everything in nature has a beginning and an end. If you are saying otherwise you are admitting the universe is supernatural making my argument for a supernatural being or creator behind it all. thanks
 
Lursa said:
Interesting. It is not remotely sensitive to alot of people tho...esp. those doing the studying. In the past I spent alot of time around academics and zoologists. And each real scientist was dying to discover something new or something that did NOT fit into the current or mainstream science....a solid way of gaining funding. But any of those 'discoveries' still had to undergo peer review and the general rigors of science. No one wants to 'ignore' something new in evolution.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's being ignored. You should read the like from Scientific American I gave you in the last post, it's a good summary of the current debate on how to account for complexity in evolution. The top minds recognize that there's something there which needs to be worked out.

However, the public face of teaching evolution - the high school teachers, the outreach to discovery channel, that sort of thing, is all kumbaya. That's because they don't want to show any cracks in the theory, lest the religious folks jump on it and try to use debate as an opening to teach creationism in the schools.

So it's kind of a unified front. But in the halls of Harvard, there's a lot of discussion going on and I don't think it's entirely settled how to account for the vast complexity in such a relatively short amount of time as we've been on earth.
 
Ben K. said:
Those generations had to develop elsewhere, somehow.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the theory. I dislike it because it's just kicking the can down the road, so to speak, but it does help explain the problems of how such complexity could come about in such a short amount of time.
 
Ben K. said:
Those generations had to develop elsewhere, somehow.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I for one hope panspermia is wrong, because then we'll likely never know our true origins. But it could be the case that life evolved elsewhere in the universe, that a few cells got kicked in to space, survived, and were transported to earth in a watery comet or something like that. The possibility currently can't be ruled out.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

sangha said:
I've seen no evidence that this is true.
Click to expand...

think harder then.

so what are you saying? that NATURE created nature? That it wasn't something else? Because using logic like "gee, maybe the universe just always existed" makes the christian explanation sound downright brilliant!
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

JoeTrumps said:
think harder then.

so what are you saying? that NATURE created nature? That it wasn't something else? Because using logic like "gee, maybe the universe just always existed" makes the christian explanation sound downright brilliant!
Click to expand...

Nature is not a tangible thing. It is nothing more than a word we use to describe a set of processes.

All I am saying is that it is possible that the universe has always existed. Prove me wrong.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Skepticism is good, the scientific method is good, I just think there are problems with the theory of evolution that get whitewashed somewhat due to the sensitive nature of the topic.
Click to expand...

No, the problems get shown to not actually be problems and the religious crowd just keeps bringing them up anyway.
 
If it is so hard to believe that the universe and all it's contents came from nowhere and evolved, why isn't it even more difficult to believe that there's something that could have created it?

If a god created everything - what created the god?

Some people say we could not have come from nothing, yet forget that the god must have come from somewhere.

Where did "god" come from? Is he/she the offspring of other gods? And where did they come from?

How did this god come of such power and intelligence?

Those who say some things in the universe are too complex to have come from nothing seem to accept the idea that the creator came from nothing.

A very chicken vs egg scenario in a way.
 
Dragonfly said:
If it is so hard to believe that the universe and all it's contents came from nowhere and evolved, why isn't it even more difficult to believe that there's something that could have created it?

If a god created everything - what created the god?

Some people say we could not have come from nothing, yet forget that the god must have come from somewhere.

Where did "god" come from? Is he/she the offspring of other gods? And where did they come from?

How did this god come of such power and intelligence?

Those who say some things in the universe are too complex to have come from nothing seem to accept the idea that the creator came from nothing.

A very chicken vs egg scenario in a way.
Click to expand...

A law of physics is that matter is neither created nor destroyed, yet anyone who uses their head realizes that before time 0 there was no matter (prior to the big bang). At this, we must say that matter was once created, and by a creator.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying your argument isn't a particularly good one.
 
hjl1991 said:
A law of physics is that matter is neither created nor destroyed, yet anyone who uses their head realizes that before time 0 there was no matter (prior to the big bang). At this, we must say that matter was once created, and by a creator.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying your argument isn't a particularly good one.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a head would realize that this is very high level theoretical physics so they should probably check and see whether physicists might have a resolution for the apparent discrepancy.
 
hjl1991 said:
A law of physics is that matter is neither created nor destroyed, yet anyone who uses their head realizes that before time 0 there was no matter (prior to the big bang). At this, we must say that matter was once created, and by a creator.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying your argument isn't a particularly good one.
Click to expand...

Logically speaking, it is irreconcilable to simultaneously claim "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" and then claim "matter must have been created (by a creator)." If it can't be created, then it can't be created.

If one decides to follow the fallacious path that leads to "the uncaused cause (the Prime Mover)," one again runs into the irreconcilable propositions that everything needs a cause, but for the one thing specifically excepted by fiat. If an uncaused cause is possible (when speaking about a god), then it's possible (when speaking about the universe).
 
hjl1991 said:
A law of physics is that matter is neither created nor destroyed, yet anyone who uses their head realizes that before time 0 there was no matter (prior to the big bang). At this, we must say that matter was once created, and by a creator.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I am saying your argument isn't a particularly good one.
Click to expand...

At least get the theory right. Matter was "created" when the energy released by the Big Bang converted into hydrogen atoms according to Einstein's theory. When enough of these atoms collected together through gravity they formed stars that then created all the other elements by nuclear fusion . I don't see any creator mentioned. Matter cannot be destroyed but it can be converted to energy and back to matter. Energy and matter are interchangeable according to Einstein. There is no cosmic muffin involved in science.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
At least get the theory right. Matter was "created" when the energy released by the Big Bang converted into hydrogen atoms according to Einstein's theory. When enough of these atoms collected together through gravity they formed stars that then created all the other elements by nuclear fusion . I don't see any creator mentioned. Matter cannot be destroyed but it can be converted to energy and back to matter. Energy and matter are interchangeable according to Einstein. There is no cosmic muffin involved in science.
Click to expand...

Now what is the catalyst for the big bang?
 
hjl1991 said:
Now what is the catalyst for the big bang?
Click to expand...

Grasping at straws are we? Scientists are not sure but if you want the cosmic muffin to light the fuse those billions of years ago, never to be seen again then go for it. I'm not sure what that proves about religion though.
 
hjl1991 said:
Now what is the catalyst for the big bang?
Click to expand...

A difficult question to answer, since there wasn't anything "before" the big bang, because time didn't exist "before" then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom