Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune  Yeah you're mistaken.
Speciation is a holistic idea you can only really discriminate against with hindsight.
There is still no good, workable definition of species.
Like Baazl said, you really don't know how complicated evolution is until you get into it. There's no good way to just launch into it. I tried, but I really feel like nobody is even reading what I write. Funny, reminds me of when I was teaching the undergrad class.
I study bacteria, and it's the one field in which evolution could not be clearer. Viruses are even better, and if you read up on HIV you can see how it has evolved and influenced human evolution as well.
There's also a lot of plant / insect coevolution, which is another clear-cut example of organisms like ants and flowers moving into directions away from a general species into niches. Coevolution and Pollination |
Now we get to the disconnect. It always ends up like this. Once you hit a part of scientific knowledge that isn't crystal clear the argument becomes "you wouldn't understand, just trust that I know and I'm right".
So are you saying that speciation is well postulated and has a lot of evidence or not? It sounds like you said "it's too complicated for mere mortals to understand" which sounds a lot like religion to me.
I understand the concepts of speciation. A bunch of marsupials stuck on the continent of Australia diverged from their mainland cousins. Eventually the slight differences become large differences. Geological time multiplies these splits etc. etc. etc.
But really...is there observable proof of speciation or not? Or is there some other version of fact that I, as a layman, just can't understand?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brekk Which one? There are like umpteen hundred religions. Most of them contradict each other. Which one is right about spiritual things?
No. They do not deserve to be placed on an equal level. One is supported the world over by experimentation, research, and empirical study with minimal bias. The other is not even unified. Religion A could be completely contradictory to religion B. When you refer to religion i assume you actually mean Creationist believing christians. Why don't you attack the other religions that don't support creationism?
I don't fear the unknown. I fear and hate people so steadfast in their ideas that there is no open mindedness.
Creationism's biggest fight against evolution is that theories are not fact.
That right there is why I hate religion. The idea of a theory is to leave room for change if new evidence surfaces. Science does not like to deal in absolutes, because you never know what you might find. This interest in not labelling things as fact even if they pretty much are is key to the scientific method and learning. Religion is the anti-thesis of this. Not only taking things as fact rather then theory. But taking as fact stories in an ancient book.
I stand by my same simple argument. Survival of the fittest is simple logic. It's not special science, or magic. It's just an absolute truth of life. It's also the most basic concept of how evolution works. To deny it is just being retarded. |
Couple things: you quoted me, so I assume you're talking to me. I'm attacking no one. I'm not saying evolution is wrong and Christians are right to try to teach religious concepts in science class.
You, in the mind of a scientist, seem to be confused by the concept of "right" and religion. A religion is right if it spiritually satisfies its followers. This doesn't jive with the scientific concept of right. Hence why the extremists from both sides just can't understand.
Science's domain is facts. Religion's domain is truth. In science there is no truth...all facts are deemed incomplete since any current observable fact can be usurped by facts that aren't yet known or observable. In religion there are no facts...all elements are taken on faith.
You can avoid religion all you want. Religious followers/nuts should avoid you, as well. You'd be none the wiser if they did. Unfortunately, there are idiots on both sides who insist on trying to overlap the two, starting pointless arguments in two different grammars.
