Is Evolution a form of religion

Faith & Science Conversation
82

No, the giraffe is enough

No there are land reptiles

Yu have evidence that they did. The evolutionary pressures are not the same. The truth is that there is no evolutionary advantage for reptiles to have fethers, even if they were capable of growing them, which is debatable at best.

Evolution does seem to have a habit of not repeating itself. That is, once a mutation has either died out or been succeded it does not recur and start over. If the mutations are trly random, or inevitable then they should recur. Perhaps they do?

Trouble is, we are not actually arguing science are we?

Richard

83

Data has to be interpreted. This is one of the basics of science.

" Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”

Some of those processing capabilities are not scientific.

Science is a specific way of interrogating the data. You have to propose testable hypotheses which includes sets of data which would falsify your hypothesis. Any explanation needs to explain the data, not simply ignore it if it contradicts their already held beliefs as YEC’s do.

For example, according to YEC why do transitions outnumber transversions when comparing the genomes of humans to other apes?

https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations

Evolution explains this perfectly, so how does YEC explain it? Why do we see those specific patterns and not another pattern?

2 Likes
84

Why? Because you say so?

You are forgetting about the genetic background that the mutation happens in. Mutations don’t happen in isolation. Mutations interact with the rest of the genome. When speciation occurs you get two new populations, and they accumulate different mutations. We can watch this happen in real time in many species. Since the genomes drift apart over time this also means that the same mutation in the same gene can have a different effect.

Evolution is historically contingent. The effects of mutations now depend on the other mutational events that have already happened in that lineage. It is a bit like a game of chess. There are known openings that people follow, but at some point in the game you will reach a position that has never existed before. A pawn move in one game will not have the same result as the same pawn move in another game.

2 Likes
85

No, because there aren’t any with them. Besides, what might the benefit be?
Colour display? There are some very colored reptiles without feathers
Insulation? That would work against reptilian metabolism
Flight? Pteradactyle seems to have been the way forward for that one
(Besides you claim that flight is not a primary use of feathers, especially without wings)
Tails? Feathers do not have the same properties as reptilian tails They appear to need bones and muscles
Waterproofing? Scales are perfectly suited for that.

Perhaps you have an idea?

Richard

86

Why couldn’t there be in the past?

There are two lineages that evolved from reptiles that use a different body covering for insulation: birds and mammals.

What you are also ignoring is the possibility that different lineages of reptiles had different metabolisms. If a lineage of reptile moved towards being warm blooded then feathers would have been very advantageous, just as they are very advantageous for today’s birds.

Archaeopteryx had a feather covered tail.

So are feathers.

1 Like
87

same reasons. There is little or no advantage until you become a bird.

Don’t get me started.
Changing from one to the other is an example of incompatible systems as opposed to just ireducible ones. The route from one to the other is virtually impossible in stages due to the complete changes needed. it is like trying to switch a petrol engine to a diesel… it can be done but in the mean time the car is dead. (Unable to be driven)

Been there. Or are you going to claim that an Ostrich is actually a precursor to flight instead of a throwback.

But there is no good reason to swap. They have virtually the same waterproofing properties. No advantage (or disadvantage) to change? Is that your reasoning? If it happened it would not matter? (Just convenient for the next stage!)

Look, we can argue this until the cows come home.

It is just that, an argument. There can be no winner here. You can claim false incredulity because you do not see what I see. And I do not see what you see as plausible…

Richard

88

Based on what? Your say so?

Based on what? Your say so?

What about the tuna which has a very simple heat exchange system and warm blooded metabolism?

They don’t have anything that extraordinarily different than other fish.

So all we have is your completely misinformed opinion that moving from cold blooded to warm blooded requires a complete redo of the entire workings of an animal, contrary to many of the living examples we have.

Why? Because you say so?

2 Likes
89

You are moving the goalposts.

90

If a reptile lives somewhere that is consistently cool (like Alaska or Antarctica in the Jurassic or Cretaceous), then a bit of extra insulation to reduce the periods when it is lethargic would be potentially useful. Also, feathers are easier to manipulate to shift the amount of insulation they give, thus somewhere with a highly variable climate (deserts or high mountains, say) would plausibly make feathers a bit more helpful than scales for temperature regulation.

Yes, but how many reptiles can raise and lower a decorative fan of scales around their tail?

3 Likes
91

One summer at about age 11 at the county fair my dad was going to take my brother and I on this thing called the “Tilt-Whirl”. The contraption looked more than a bit scary to my sixth-grade mind, and I balked. My brother asked, “Don’t you trust it?”

I thought a moment and decided I trusted the engineers who built it and the insurance companies that approved it. But this was not, of course, the beginning of a “Tilt-a-Whirl” religion.
Nor, in later years when I extended my faith to other, more complex devices designed by engineers and approved by insurance companies, did I have an “Engineer and Insurance” religion.

QED

1 Like
92

Kind of like saying that since there are highways signs indicating that Littleville is 30 miles east, and another fifty miles away indicating that Littleville is twenty miles west then we don’t know that Littleville even exists.

Back to Luther’s theological term: excrementum tauri.

In geology class we were given rock samples to date. We did not start with the premise that they were at least several hundred thousand years old and then hunt for data to show that, we started by listing all the observations we could and charting the data thus obtained, and then formed our ‘theory’.
If you had taken the least history of science course at a university level you would know that the theory of evolution has been formed in the same exact way, though with a difference: in our lab class no one was trying to find flaws, but in biology people try to shoot holes in the theory constantly.
Which is to say that your claim is contrary to reality.

Or at the very least, papers written for upper-level university science courses that follow all the requirements for submission for publication, which was the standard for just about every junior- and senior-level science course I took.

Heh – I deleted what I wrote since this is so much clearer!

93

Monsanto spends many millions annually doing research directed by the theory of evolution to discover new ways to deal with the three above. It’s an important tool especially for dealing with parasites that haven’t been affected by other approaches.

Excrementum tauri.

Several of my various biology professors were always on the lookout for the least evidence that there wasn’t just a common ancestor. They got grants to fund research trying to find an organism that doesn’t fit the pattern.

You treat the scientific community as though it was an association of tribal shamans out to bamboozle the public, when the truth is far closer to community of tribes out to do in each other;s shamans.
That is incredibly disrespectful and shows a susceptibility to irrational thought.

Of course it isn’t taken seriously, ever since the young earth creationist crowd hijacked the term to try to smuggle religion into public school textbooks – in fact since then anyone using the term isn’t trusted just because that crowd proved they couldn’t be trusted (and have since proven it repeatedly).

Speaking from my experience with university science professors – false.

False, for the reason given above.

That’s because almost always the proposer isn’t in fact qualified, but knows just enough to make ridiculous claims without being educated enough to recognize why they are ridiculous.

Why?

Wildlife biologists in the region where I live suspected feral dogs had bred with coyotes, this being proposed to help explain some unexpected behavior. Not only did they demonstrate that there was in fact dog DNA in the suspect coyotes, they could tell how long go it entered and what dog breed(s) it came from.

Oh good grief!

Having taken university science courses that dealt with both feathers and grasses, I have to tell you that your claim is the sort that makes people wonder if they’re going to lose IQ points from reading! The chances of confusing fossilized grass with fossilized feathers are less than being dealt a royal flush in poker.

94

And I get accused of incredulity!

Its funny. People are all so full of their certitude. No one could possibly have an alternative viewpoint. Truth is so obvious and well defined. I always liked the quote
It’s the difference of opinion that makes horse racing

I am not going to argue with you further

you think I am not qualified
(But you think that you are qualified in my field of theology)

I should bow down to your superior knowledge and understanding.

The meek will inherit the Earth (if it OK with the rest of you guys)

Richard

95

I think I may need to steal that! :slight_smile: [… if that’s okay with you.]

1 Like
96

It’s not my original

I have no idea who first said it

Richard

PS. Something in the back of my mind says it was in a book of graffiti wise cracks

1 Like
97

Haven’t you watched any news? Who wants it?! :grin:

 

98

Well some things are about as certain as you can possibly get. The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. London and New York have three thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean in between them. The digits in every row, column and 3x3 box in a sudoku sum to 45. password, qwerty, letmein and 123456 are bad choices of password.

Sure, some things are not so certain, but if you want to argue that something (such as evolution for example) falls into that category, you need to make sure that the case you are making to that effect is coherent and factually accurate.

The problem with unqualified people attempting to challenge scientific theories is not that they are unqualified per se, but that they are much more likely to make mistakes that invalidate the legitimacy of their critiques.

For example, they may claim that scientists do things that they do not, or that they do not do things that in reality they do. When a scientist studying evolution professionally says “We do X” and a naysayer confidently asserts that “evolutionists” do not do X, the naysayer is either not getting his or her facts straight, or else accusing professional scientists of lying about what they do for a living. In the former case, the naysayer’s claim can be summarily dismissed; in the latter case, the naysayer needs to provide credible evidence to back up their accusation of lying, otherwise, again, their claim can be summarily dismissed.

Or they may be critiquing an outdated or inaccurate description of what scientists actually do, or even an outdated or inaccurate description of the theory itself. Or they may be claiming scientists overlook various facts and evidence when in reality they have fully accounted for that very evidence. Or they may be attempting to challenge a description of the theory or its methodologies that is over-simplified and therefore inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that subject matter experts are familiar with the evidence that supports their theories, with the laboratory and field procedures that they use, with the protocols that they follow, with the assumptions that they make (if any), with what needs to be done in order to challenge those assumptions, and with the practical applications that their theories find in industry. Anyone who wants to challenge their theories and findings needs to be able to address this body of knowledge and to point out the places where it is fallacious or misapplied. It is unlikely that anyone without the necessary level of training and subject matter expertise will have the requisite knowledge and experience to be able to do so with any credibility.

4 Likes
99

Not argued. But whether they are familiar (in terms of understanding them) with ones against it is another matter entirely. More likely they do what is done here and dismiss them out of hand.

Richard

100

Forget that. Anyone who is competent in any career knows why there is a right way and the reasons the wrong way is wrong, what works and what doesn’t. You cannot understand the arguments for something if you are not fully aware of the arguments against. No one should expect less. You cannot understand relativity if you do not understand the limitations of Newtonian mechanics.

Yes. If that is your area and you do not know garbage when you hear it, you are not up for your job.

101

To quote @St.Roymond quoting Martin Luther, excrementum tauri.

Of course a subject matter expert will understand the arguments against a scientific theory! They will understand a heck of a lot more than that—they will understand the basic rules and principles that distinguish between arguments against it that are legitimate and arguments that are not. In fact they will understand the advanced rules and principles that distinguish between arguments that are legitimate and arguments that are not as well. They don’t need to be familiar with the details of the arguments that every unqualified armchair critic comes up with—knowing what the rules are is sufficient to enable them to assess them as they encounter them. Arguments that don’t follow the advanced rules may warrant an informed response to the naysayer explaining to them what they have overlooked. Arguments that don’t even follow the basic rules can and should be dismissed out of hand as the aforementioned excrementum tauri.

Most unqualified naysayers don’t even seem to be aware of the most basic rules, let alone follow them. In fact many unqualified naysayers even go so far as to take offence at the suggestion that there are any rules at all, claiming that they’re somehow “rigged” against them. As if the rules of mathematics, measurement and laboratory procedure—algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus, logarithms, linear regression, standard deviations, error bars, calibration of equipment and sample preparation and handling—were some sort of Illuminati conspiracy.

3 Likes