|
Post by Star Cluster on May 21, 2009 7:00:16 GMT -5
If you haven't already, read the comments following the article. The sheer willful ignorance of creationists is so absolutely incredible and to what degree their misunderstanding of how evolution works has reached is really quite fascinating yet frustrating at the same time.
And it does no good to try to explain it to them. The more fossils that are found, the more evidence uncovered, the more proof that evolution is the driving force behind all life on earth, the more fundies will claim that evolution is junk science and has been shown to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 21, 2009 7:17:43 GMT -5
I'm almost to the point of just feeling sad for those people who insist on staying ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on May 21, 2009 13:01:59 GMT -5
And it does no good to try to explain it to them. The more fossils that are found, the more evidence uncovered, the more proof that evolution is the driving force behind all life on earth, the more fundies will claim that evolution is junk science and has been shown to be wrong. I seen some (in)effectively arguing that more evidence actually invalidates evolution. ...and now for some quotes: "I've also seen a dude named Kent Hovind constantly make evolutionists look stupid." There was another great one, but it seems to have been lost in the middle of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 21, 2009 14:33:11 GMT -5
And it does no good to try to explain it to them. The more fossils that are found, the more evidence uncovered, the more proof that evolution is the driving force behind all life on earth, the more fundies will claim that evolution is junk science and has been shown to be wrong. I seen some (in)effectively arguing that more evidence actually invalidates evolution. ...and now for some quotes: "I've also seen a dude named Kent Hovind constantly make evolutionists look stupid." There was another great one, but it seems to have been lost in the middle of the thread. Yeah, that's what I was referring to. But all their "evidences" that "invalidates" evolution are almost always spurious quotes from some pseudo-scientist or another that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about in the first place or a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of some natural law that they think evolution violates in order to be true. Yet the fundies grab onto these evidences like they are divine revelations and absolutely refuse to let go of them even if shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong. And Kent Hovind....BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
libertyprime
Junior Member
Hey, it was acceptable in the '80s.
Posts: 58
|
Post by libertyprime on May 21, 2009 15:16:15 GMT -5
Everyone knew that all that would happen is that creationists would take a step back and say "oh yeah well what about the step behind the missing lnk" regardless of whether or not there is one.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 21, 2009 16:45:08 GMT -5
Everyone knew that all that would happen is that creationists would take a step back and say "oh yeah well what about the step behind the missing lnk" regardless of whether or not there is one. As I said on the other thread about this, fossils are relatively rare considering the overall number of creatures that have roamed the earth for millions of years. And just because the fossil of a link between two steps on the evolutionary trail has never been found does not mean that link never existed. As has also been stated, all fossils are transitory and represent just a step in the evolutionary process (except in the case of extinction when the line ends.) But fundies refuse to accept this and continue to claim that the "missing link" didn't exist because a fossil of one has never been found. Yet when a new link is found that closes a gap in the process, they ask, as you say, well, where's the ones before and after it? Their closed little minds won't allow them to acknowledge and accept what all evidence shows to be the most likely of explanations.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 21, 2009 20:57:40 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm in a creation/evolution argument right now, & I'm headdesking over a few things:
1. Apparently, everything is subjected to the same standard of proof except for God, who is deemed correct by different standards, because he is supernatural.
2. Archaeopteryx is an ordinary bird. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it can even be classified as a bird. I also pointed out its sudden emergence in the cretaceous period, but as of late, haven't gotten a response.
3. The freakin' missing link thing. OBVIOUSLY, they must be creatures that arose independently, and are very similar.
I also get sort of annoyed in my own lack of knowledge, at times. Why is it I'm expected to name all of the organelles of the cell, but I only get the bare minimum of evolution, and it's watered down with a bunch of semantics about being "only" a theory, that one needn't necessarily believe in?
Fuck, I still remember the vaccuum tube experiment about verifying electrons, but the best thing I can remember being in my textbook on evolution is the God damn peppered moth.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on May 21, 2009 21:24:51 GMT -5
Fuck, I still remember the vaccuum tube experiment about verifying electrons, but the best thing I can remember being in my textbook on evolution is the God damn peppered moth. Try this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteriaOf course, it is obviously a result of evolution to you and me, but a creationist will just respond with "They're still bacteria, right?". You know, the term "kind", even blurrier than "species" and much less useful.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 21, 2009 21:46:09 GMT -5
Fuck, I still remember the vaccuum tube experiment about verifying electrons, but the best thing I can remember being in my textbook on evolution is the God damn peppered moth. Try this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteriaOf course, it is obviously a result of evolution to you and me, but a creationist will just respond with "They're still bacteria, right?". You know, the term "kind", even blurrier than "species" and much less useful. Yeah, there was an argument made about speciation not occuring in E. Coli during some experiment that was apparently attempted to--well, make it change into something else. (Incidently, I just found it on Wikipedia.) Then there was some math comparing it to homo erectus becoming homo sapiens in a space of 1 million years. They want me to "prove" macroevolution. I basically said, "Pass."
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 21, 2009 21:59:04 GMT -5
I also get sort of annoyed in my own lack of knowledge, at times. Why is it I'm expected to name all of the organelles of the cell, but I only get the bare minimum of evolution, and it's watered down with a bunch of semantics about being "only" a theory, that one needn't necessarily believe in? Fuck, I still remember the vaccuum tube experiment about verifying electrons, but the best thing I can remember being in my textbook on evolution is the God damn peppered moth. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I recommend The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 22, 2009 1:46:32 GMT -5
I read The Panda's Thumb by Gould and it was quite good too. Old, but good.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on May 22, 2009 4:09:40 GMT -5
...homo erectus becoming homo sapiens... Yeah, the blood flowed more back to the brain. Seriously, this is a cool find. Sadly I don't understand much of what all is involved or exactly how it's important, just that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on May 26, 2009 17:08:06 GMT -5
I watched the documentary on TV just now. Not too bad, really. There were some sensationalist claims, obviously to sell the story to a broad audience. I have noted the controversy within the scientific society. Not all agree that Ida is an early anthropoid, they want to classify her among the Adapiformes, an extinct group of early primates. There's still research to be done, and a long debate until the scientists reach consensus. I'm going to Oslo this weekend. I'll visit the Museum of Natural History to have a look at Ida. I'll make sure to see this fossil too: www.nhm.uio.no/pliosaurus/english/
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 28, 2009 17:10:33 GMT -5
damnmit, I missed the documentary! :,(
Evolution books...sounds interesting. I'll have to keep that in the back of my mind when I go to pick up Vol 18 of FMA tomorrow.
Although, in all honesty, I already have 2 books out that I haven't read much of. Junior year's pretty busy.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 1, 2009 23:13:22 GMT -5
I was under the impression that humans are a member of the clade of apes, and that the recency of the common ancestry of the apes is well-established.
There is so much misinformation out there to be corrected.
|
|