Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Discuss Evolution

SystemSystem Administrator Posts: 176
This discussion was created from comments split from: The lesser known historical facts thread.

StummvonBordwehr
«134

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    DreadKhan wrote: »
    https://jezebel.com/japan-is-also-fighting-a-measles-outbreak-1832868877

    Uh, so apparently more political populism, the more 'distrustful of science' people tend to be. I really don't mean to be rude, but isn't it more or less denying objective reality to deny proven science?? I have non-mainstream beliefs about some stuff, including evolution (I am pretty strongly Christian afterall), but I am well aware that genetics definitely change over time, and the scientists that independently thought of it extremely intelligent. I was pretty authoritarian while a teen (...no, I did not have many friends, nor did I really want to), yet I always believed in justice and the Rule of Law.

    Seriously, are people just insane in huge numbers?? Vaccines are imho the biggest and best bit of science we've ever had, better than the wheel even. What the heck are these people thinking? How can anyone sanely disregard actual, solid research?

    Wait what? Are you seriously denying evolution while saying denying science is denying objective reality? And why do you think we need two influenza vaccines per year if there is no evolution. People in the US (I'm assuming here) are so damn weird.

  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    DreadKhan wrote: »
    https://jezebel.com/japan-is-also-fighting-a-measles-outbreak-1832868877

    Uh, so apparently more political populism, the more 'distrustful of science' people tend to be. I really don't mean to be rude, but isn't it more or less denying objective reality to deny proven science?? I have non-mainstream beliefs about some stuff, including evolution (I am pretty strongly Christian afterall), but I am well aware that genetics definitely change over time, and the scientists that independently thought of it extremely intelligent. I was pretty authoritarian while a teen (...no, I did not have many friends, nor did I really want to), yet I always believed in justice and the Rule of Law.

    Seriously, are people just insane in huge numbers?? Vaccines are imho the biggest and best bit of science we've ever had, better than the wheel even. What the heck are these people thinking? How can anyone sanely disregard actual, solid research?

    Wait what? Are you seriously denying evolution while saying denying science is denying objective reality? And why do you think we need two influenza vaccines per year if there is no evolution. People in the US (I'm assuming here) are so damn weird.

    I don't believe that true speciation, which according to my definition means unable to mate genetically, can occur naturally in a reasonable timeframe, and in truth there is essentially no proof of this. I am pretty solid about natural selection itself, and as noted am aware of the occurrence of mutations that don't result in non-viability. *shrug* I might adjust my position if actual proof of that part is found, but its pretty clear that we won't likely have such evidence any time soon. Fossil records do suggest evolution may have occurred, but they are not actual concrete proof. I think if I was non-religious, I suspect I would be more willing to just handwave the lack of concrete evidence and accept the admittedly significant circumstantial evidence. For the record, that's my definition of species because it was the first I read, and I despair of scientists that use species so loosely as to refer to a population that is isolated.

    A flu virus for example is pretty simple to mutate, as it is essentially a robot, and not only doesn't mate, it technically cannot even reproduce, its the host cell that reproduces incorrectly after having faulty genetics installed. So, simple mutation and natural selection can easily create diversity, as each flu virus is 100% independent. Is this really a new species though? I don't think so, since it doesn't reproduce. Bacteria are a better example, but these tend to divide rather than mate obviously, so its not really clear that the new mutation is actually a new species. This really leaves us with plants that primarily/solely reproduce by sexual reproduction, but all plants are fully able to reproduce by cloning, so even here its a bit weird. Btw, you clone plants via cuttings usually, and its very possible to graft diverse plants together, and easy to graft/bud anything distantly related. Stonefruit are notoriously easy to bud large numbers of different fruits, ie peaches, cherries, apricots and almonds on the same bush. Are cherries and almonds the same species?

    In multi-cellular animal that uses sexual reproduction however, it is obviously very different. If a mutation occurs, it must be extremely minor to remain genetically compatible, and this ultimately makes speciation mathematically extremely unlikely. So, in my view you can get a weirder and weirder breed of dog over centuries of selective breeding, so much that physiological mating becomes impossible, but they will pretty much always be viable genetically with other dogs, assuming they are viable period. It is my view that any offspring is pretty much viable with any dog, or basically no dogs, thus making speciation kinda impossible to occur, as the creature would have no mates. You might argue that you could have siblings able to mate only amongst themselves, but this is a dead end often, with higher order species being very harshly punished for any inbreeding, and remember, if you have a population of only 2 or 3 members, any further mutations are a very big risk, due to lack of diversity. The only now successful species that is very heavily inbred I know of is the cheetah, and they had AIDS, and are endangered now iirc.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited February 2019
    So your opposition to evolution is there is no proof of what scientist are not claiming? Because that's not how speciation is defined in science.

    FWIW here's a very easy to understand resource

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

    On another note, do you think there is some sort of conspiracy here? Because evolution is accepted science just as any other science you do accept.

    DreadKhanThacoBell
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    I fully understand the definition, and I clarified that I am aware I'm not using it the same way it is always used. I will however take a look at your link, as I enjoy reading about the subject. Who knows, maybe this one will convince me. ;) I've read stuff from both sides actually, and the most interesting stuff I found so far is about the math, the argument that even on the timescale we have evolution may not be practical to create as diverse a pop as we have, but obviously this uses TONS of assumptions and isn't science. It's just interesting to me.

    It may interest you that science does change over time, and I fully believe that some day science will favour something closer to my view of species, as the present definition is IMHO completely worthless. You can still find my version kicking around actually, if you look.

    https://nature.com/scitable/definition/species-312

    Technically, a species that is geographically isolated cannot mate in nature, and would meet the definition, and in what way is that useful?? It might be some day a different version if evolution holds true, but dogs can breed with wolves from all over the world, and we also refer to dogs and wolves as separate species, which to me is not science, but is in fact human fallibility, where we see a separation that doesn't actually exist to nature. How does it help us to define dogs and wolves as different in terms of understanding actual biology? Honest question.

    I don't see it as conspiracy thinking in my case (I do think there are people that do think evolution is a conspiracy, so it's a valid question actually), though I do see it as not strictly rational thinking to believe in God. No Gods can be proven to exist, and I don't claim my faith is based on science, because it really isn't.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    DreadKhan wrote: »
    I fully understand the definition, and I clarified that I am aware I'm not using it the same way it is always used. I will however take a look at your link, as I enjoy reading about the subject. Who knows, maybe this one will convince me. ;) I've read stuff from both sides actually, and the most interesting stuff I found so far is about the math, the argument that even on the timescale we have evolution may not be practical to create as diverse a pop as we have, but obviously this uses TONS of assumptions and isn't science. It's just interesting to me.

    It may interest you that science does change over time, and I fully believe that some day science will favour something closer to my view of species, as the present definition is IMHO completely worthless. You can still find my version kicking around actually, if you look.

    https://nature.com/scitable/definition/species-312

    Technically, a species that is geographically isolated cannot mate in nature, and would meet the definition, and in what way is that useful?? It might be some day a different version if evolution holds true, but dogs can breed with wolves from all over the world, and we also refer to dogs and wolves as separate species, which to me is not science, but is in fact human fallibility, where we see a separation that doesn't actually exist to nature. How does it help us to define dogs and wolves as different in terms of understanding actual biology? Honest question.

    I don't see it as conspiracy thinking in my case (I do think there are people that do think evolution is a conspiracy, so it's a valid question actually), though I do see it as not strictly rational thinking to believe in God. No Gods can be proven to exist, and I don't claim my faith is based on science, because it really isn't.

    Your link doesn't work.

    If dogs and wolves can potentially interbreed, then they are not a different species as per definition. The common use of species (or any word) does not often match the scientific use, unfortunately.

    Isn't the last point what you criticised the anti-vaxxers for? The apparent cognitive dissonance is quite interesting here. Anti-vaxx is bad because it's anti-science, but somehow anti-evolution is not bad even though it's the same.

  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    Sorry, I assumed it would work fine cut and paste, but I'll paste the text instead.

    species
    A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. Species are characterized by the fact that they are reproductively isolated from other groups, which means that the organisms in one species are incapable of reproducing with organisms in another species. The term species can also be defined as the most basic category in the system of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a scientific system that classifies organisms into categories based on their biological characteristics. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. This method of defining species is called phylogenetics, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being is called speciation.

    As per the actual defintion, they shouldn't be, yet if I look, they are considered separate. Apparently I've gotten behind the times, dogs are now a lupus, so my point is not valid. :O Oh well, it used to be!

    Anyways, according to the strict definition above, a population that is geographically isolated is cannot mate in nature, and I have heard that specific example used (perhaps erroneously?) to describe a species. Now, I think the above definition is pretty close to mine, where exactly do you find fault with mine?

    Regarding my views being on par with anti-vaxxers, there are some key differences that should be remembered, and these are that vaccines are proven to not only work but have almost no downwides even on a population scale there will be negligible deaths/complications, making it a clear issue. God cannot be prove or disproven, so it's outside science's purview, so believing it isn't anti-science, it's extra-scientific belief that is not strictly contradictory of known data. Evolution as I said has pretty staggering circumstantial evidence, more than enough to convince most educated people, but I find my standard is a bit higher. I suspect if not believing would have a more direct impact on my life (IE if I would definitely have a much higher likelyhood of catching a life-changing disease like measles or smallpox or polio, I would be much more likely to change my view I suspect, but as it is, I can work with plants (including breeding them) without contradicting my views. To be entirely frank, I'm not strictly certain evolution DIDN'T happen, I don't know what tools God may have used after all, and if he designed species to have mutation-prone genetics, it was likely done with a reason.

    A favorite point I like to make is that if all species evolved from a common ancestor, how would that be testably different from having the same individual designing every species? Both would have the appearance of common ancestry, and would likely use lots of the same building blocks, just like a new model of car draws heavily on it's predecessors.

  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    edited February 2019
    Oh, I think I have a new one, lets see if I can find a link for it... Hope it works!

    https://livescience.com/58018-are-viruses-alive.html

    My dad learned in university in the 80s that virus' do not meet the requirements for the definition of life, having no life-cycle to speak of. You have no idea how many people thought this was silly and I was crazy for telling them virus' aren't alive. This included into highschool and beyond.

    So really, virus' aren't really alive, since they do nothing living things do, though apparently this is somewhat debated.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    DreadKhan wrote: »
    Sorry, I assumed it would work fine cut and paste, but I'll paste the text instead.

    species
    A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. Species are characterized by the fact that they are reproductively isolated from other groups, which means that the organisms in one species are incapable of reproducing with organisms in another species. The term species can also be defined as the most basic category in the system of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a scientific system that classifies organisms into categories based on their biological characteristics. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. This method of defining species is called phylogenetics, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being is called speciation.

    As per the actual defintion, they shouldn't be, yet if I look, they are considered separate. Apparently I've gotten behind the times, dogs are now a lupus, so my point is not valid. :O Oh well, it used to be!

    Anyways, according to the strict definition above, a population that is geographically isolated is cannot mate in nature, and I have heard that specific example used (perhaps erroneously?) to describe a species. Now, I think the above definition is pretty close to mine, where exactly do you find fault with mine?

    Regarding my views being on par with anti-vaxxers, there are some key differences that should be remembered, and these are that vaccines are proven to not only work but have almost no downwides even on a population scale there will be negligible deaths/complications, making it a clear issue. God cannot be prove or disproven, so it's outside science's purview, so believing it isn't anti-science, it's extra-scientific belief that is not strictly contradictory of known data. Evolution as I said has pretty staggering circumstantial evidence, more than enough to convince most educated people, but I find my standard is a bit higher. I suspect if not believing would have a more direct impact on my life (IE if I would definitely have a much higher likelyhood of catching a life-changing disease like measles or smallpox or polio, I would be much more likely to change my view I suspect, but as it is, I can work with plants (including breeding them) without contradicting my views. To be entirely frank, I'm not strictly certain evolution DIDN'T happen, I don't know what tools God may have used after all, and if he designed species to have mutation-prone genetics, it was likely done with a reason.

    A favorite point I like to make is that if all species evolved from a common ancestor, how would that be testably different from having the same individual designing every species? Both would have the appearance of common ancestry, and would likely use lots of the same building blocks, just like a new model of car draws heavily on it's predecessors.

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure you were ever with the times. I recommend trying to find the actual science which might challenge your position. It seems you've never gone to the effort. I recommend Dawkins if you're willing to pay 10 USD, although his book obviously does not contain the latest science anymore.

    What does god have to do with evolution?? What if an anti-vaxxer said the science of vaccines conflicted with their god belief?

    Also, when you "work with plants" is your plan to produce changes in allele frequency? Voilá, evolution.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,526
    While wolves and the majority of dogs can interbreed naturally, without human intervention a chihuahua cannot breed with an English Mastiff unless humans mess with them. There's man made speciation in only a few hundred years.

    If you were designing species, it would not make sense for unnecessary/vestigial traits to be in species. It also would make no sense that our eyes would work better underwater than in air. We've adapted somewhat to the air, but still have refraction artifacts in our vision from the change of medium light goes through to get to our brain, going from air to the fluid inside our eyes. It's just like how if you put a straw into a glass of water, the straw appears bent at the water's edge. Our brains have just gotten good at filtering that out.

    So to turn this back to the historical bend a bit, a huge amount of Charles Darwin's work was with the finches around the Galapagos islands. For him, he reasoned why would a designer make all these finches that are adapted to the various ecological niches around the islands. Why wouldn't the designer have put bats or another animal more suited to the ecological niches on the islands?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

    Proont
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,668
    @DrHappyAngry Evolution and a Designer are not mutually exclusive.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,526
    edited February 2019
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @DrHappyAngry Evolution and a Designer are not mutually exclusive.

    You're right that certain types of design aren't mutually exclusive. I was mainly making a point to DreadKhans statement about how it would be testably different from all species being designed.

    *Edit. BTW, while Dawkins is scientifically correct from at the time his books are published, his writing can be rather abrasive to religious people. There's a great set of lectures from The Teaching company called Biological Anthropology - An Evolutionary Perspective I'd recommend to anyone curious about how evolution works and how we know what we know about it.

    ThacoBellGrond0
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @DrHappyAngry Evolution and a Designer are not mutually exclusive.

    You're right that certain types of design aren't mutually exclusive. I was mainly making a point to DreadKhans statement about how it would be testably different from all species being designed.

    *Edit. BTW, while Dawkins is scientifically correct from at the time his books are published, his writing can be rather abrasive to religious people. There's a great set of lectures from The Teaching company called Biological Anthropology - An Evolutionary Perspective I'd recommend to anyone curious about how evolution works and how we know what we know about it.

    @DrHappyAngry I don't think The Greatest Show on Earth is abrasive at all. Some of his books certainly are, but not this one. Although I fully admit I'm not very sensitive to taking offense.

  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,526
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    @DrHappyAngry Evolution and a Designer are not mutually exclusive.

    You're right that certain types of design aren't mutually exclusive. I was mainly making a point to DreadKhans statement about how it would be testably different from all species being designed.

    *Edit. BTW, while Dawkins is scientifically correct from at the time his books are published, his writing can be rather abrasive to religious people. There's a great set of lectures from The Teaching company called Biological Anthropology - An Evolutionary Perspective I'd recommend to anyone curious about how evolution works and how we know what we know about it.

    @DrHappyAngry I don't think The Greatest Show on Earth is abrasive at all. Some of his books certainly are, but not this one. Although I fully admit I'm not very sensitive to taking offense.

    I haven't read that one, but would like to eventually. While I love Dawkins, I thought providing another source that didn't have the baggage he carries wouldn't be a bad idea.

    FinneousPJ
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,769
    edited February 2019
    DreadKhan wrote: »
    I don't believe that true speciation, which according to my definition means unable to mate genetically, can occur naturally in a reasonable timeframe, and in truth there is essentially no proof of this.

    I think the part I bolded may be the sticking point here. A human definition of a reasonable timeframe is far different from the timeframes evolution by natural selection actually occurs in. You mentioned dogs and wolves. The earliest confirmed dogs are 14,000 years old, though it's accepted that domestication began earlier than that. Still, 20-30,000 years is an eyeblink when considering evolution.

    Also, I would say your claim that there's no proof of speciation is incorrect. As one example, I invite you to look up "ring species". This is where an initial population begins to spread out, but there's a terrain feature that's inhospitable, like a desert or mountain range, so the expansion proceeds in two directions around the obstacle. As the organisms spread, differing evolutionary pressures in the new territories produce slight changes in the populations so they are noticeably different, but can still interbreed with neighboring populations. Eventually (tens or hundreds of thousands of years later) the clockwise expansion meets the counterclockwise expansion and those two populations cannot interbreed.

    The part that really blows my mind, is that going around the ring, each population can still interbreed with its neighbors. I was totally shocked that the transitive property doesn't apply to biology.

    Also, speciation can happen more quickly. Just look at how fast Littleknowni historicus speciated into Evolutionum debaticus. :smiley:

    mlneveseGrond0FinneousPJBelgarathMTH
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,413
    The weird thing about evolution is that it seems to take leaps once in a while instead of the usual baby-steps. There hasn't been a good scientific explanation for this that I've heard of as of yet.

  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 947
    edited February 2019
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    The weird thing about evolution is that it seems to take leaps once in a while instead of the usual baby-steps. There hasn't been a good scientific explanation for this that I've heard of as of yet.

    Niches, specialization, and extinction.

    Niches are "roles" played by species.

    Species get more specialized to better fit in a niche, or even create a new niche. Evolutionary selection favors specialization, because it means doing something better than everyone else (the advantage).

    Specialization makes it easier to go extinct.

    Species get OVER-specialized, as they get further and further out on a limb. Then they go extinct because they're easier to disturb than a generalist organism, and that leaves gaps for the new.

    After every mass extinction event there is a period of mass evolution as species fill in the gaps.

    The greatest extinction event was the Permian-Triassic, caused by Pangaea reforming, vastly cutting down the coastlines at a time when almost all species were aquatic or near-aquatic and creating 1 landmass, which is hard to get rain in the center of. The dinosaurs were successful over a period of 160 million years because conditions were much hotter and drier than now, then Pangaea broke up, turning into hot and wet. It favored their "lukewarm"-bloodedness that is now the dominant theory on them.

    Then about 70 million years ago, the Earth started cooling from reduced volcanism and it got too cold for them. They were on their way out because conditions had finally turned against them, then the coup de grace hit with the bolide impact at Chixulub.

    Which is good, because it was so hot that it'd be very hard, if not impossible for large mammals (us included) in Mesozoic conditions. We just couldn't radiate heat off fast enough.

    FinneousPJThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,497
    DreadKhan wrote: »

    species
    A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. Species are characterized by the fact that they are reproductively isolated from other groups, which means that the organisms in one species are incapable of reproducing with organisms in another species. The term species can also be defined as the most basic category in the system of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a scientific system that classifies organisms into categories based on their biological characteristics. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. This method of defining species is called phylogenetics, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being is called speciation.

    A favorite point I like to make is that if all species evolved from a common ancestor, how would that be testably different from having the same individual designing every species? Both would have the appearance of common ancestry, and would likely use lots of the same building blocks, just like a new model of car draws heavily on it's predecessors.

    @DreadKhan the definition of species above is that they are able to breed and produce offspring that can also breed. However, there is no clear dividing line about this. For instance lions and tigers are always considered as separate species under that definition, but can produce offspring - and it is possible, though rare, for those offspring themselves to be fertile. Though the lion and tiger case is well known, there are numerous similar examples in other animals.

    It seems to me that there are in fact no distinct break points at which suddenly new species arise. Variations will occur in any population over time and, if different populations don't breed with each other, they will gradually become more different. That process will result in decreasing fertility, then generally sterile offspring, then inability to breed at all.

    However, even at that stage I think it's in some ways misleading to consider them as different species. Consider the example @BillyYank posted about ring species. That shows two population groups that have diverged sufficiently that they can no longer breed between themselves at all. However, that doesn't mean that their gene pools are now permanently distinct. There are intermediate groups around the ring that the populations can breed with, allowing, over time, a full re-mixing of the original gene pools.

    It would seem to me that these grey areas wouldn't be expected if someone had designed separate species from the outset. However, such grey areas are inevitable if speciation occurs over time through evolutionary processes.

    FinneousPJThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,497
    BillyYank wrote: »
    Also, speciation can happen more quickly. Just look at how fast Littleknowni historicus speciated into Evolutionum debaticus. :smiley:

    I obviously skimmed through too quickly when getting up to date with this thread. When I first read the above I thought I would need to Google what those animals were ... ;).

    Balrog99
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Dev6FinneousPJArtona
  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 719
    Reading some of the comments on this thread makes me feel like I just teleported back to the stone age.

    Artona
  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 814
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    The weird thing about evolution is that it seems to take leaps once in a while instead of the usual baby-steps. There hasn't been a good scientific explanation for this that I've heard of as of yet.

    Punctuated equilibrium is the scientific term used to describe this. It's the phenomenon whereby geological changes force populations to split or otherwise adapt rapidly. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Elderedge coined the phrase in the early 70s, but a lot of others have written about it since.

    Grond0Balrog99
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    My interest on the matter was the stance where anti-vaxx is bad, anti-evolution is not bad. That was odd to me, as both are anti-science in a very similar way. Whether evolution is valid and established science is not a controversial issue.

    Dev6
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,413
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    My interest on the matter was the stance where anti-vaxx is bad, anti-evolution is not bad. That was odd to me, as both are anti-science in a very similar way. Whether evolution is valid and established science is not a controversial issue.

    Vaccination success is readily provable. Evolution is not. The only thing you need to prove to yourself that vaccines work is to Google polio, mumps, measles, rubella, smallpox, scarlet fever, etc... rates in the 1930's vs. present day. It takes two minutes. Evolution is far more complex and probably isn't totally 'provable' considering the limitations of the fossil record.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,413
    I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,108
    Both vaccines and evolution are theories with a broad scientific consensus behind them. Neither of them is trivial, however.

    Higher rates of disease in 1930? Need to investigate whether it is due to hygiene or nutrition. Why does vaccination work for some diseases and not others? Why do some vaccines have severe potential side effects (e.g. smallpox), while others are perfectly safe?

    Evolution in the present can be seen in practice (e.g. the nylon eating bacteria). Combined with the fossil record indicating that it happened in the past, the record is really solid.

    Balrog99FinneousPJThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?

    Well first of all science doesn't attempt to prove anything. Vaccines aren't "proven" either, and neither is the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity, or anything in science. That is the dumbest criticism.

    ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,413
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    @Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?

    Well I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I'm not an authority on evolution by any means. I can likely understand the concepts better than the average person though if that means anything. I hope I'm allowed to question things without being called out too harshly...

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited February 2019
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    @Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?

    Well I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I'm not an authority on evolution by any means. I can likely understand the concepts better than the average person though if that means anything. I hope I'm allowed to question things without being called out too harshly...

    The average person has nothing to do with this. I asked why do you think the scientific consensus (of biologists and other professionals relevant to this issue) do not agree with you?

Sign In or Register to comment.