[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 38 KB, 631x300, evolution-631.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4718919 No.4718919 [Reply] [Original]

Do you know anyone that doesn't believe in evolution?

>> No.4718924

my girlfriends whole family

>> No.4718928

I live in oklahoma, so everyone who isnt in my science classes

>> No.4718932

My one friend one day while we were driving just happened to say out of nowhere "I don't really believe in evolution man. Do you think we came from monkeys? That sounds like bullshit.".

>> No.4718934

what is evolution. serious question.

>> No.4718940

>>4718934

The diversification of species by means of natural selection.

>> No.4718950

>>4718919
I don't believe in all parts of it.
so what?

>> No.4718951

My Mom

>> No.4718952

>>4718919

My mum, a bunch of people I know from school. A few years ago I was on an interstate trip for high achieving science students from around Australia, and was fucking devastated when a conversation revealed that a stupidly disproportionate amount of people didn't believe it.
Didn't realise we were as bad as America until that day.

>> No.4718953

Probably. I'd rather not know.

>> No.4718954

>>4718950
What parts?

>> No.4718958

I probably do, but I don't really care. If they want believe God created everything, then that's fine by me.

>> No.4718971

Hard to "believe" in evolution

Does one "believe" in gravity?

>> No.4718977

>>4718971
There are many hypothesis explaining how gravity works.
See: Entropic gravity

And just like gravity, there is more than one way to explain biodiversity.

>> No.4718978

>>4718971

It's kind of dodgy wording, just cause of the similarity with religious belief. I still think all knowledge is essentially a belief (NOT drawing parallels with religious belief), since you are presented with the evidence from your senses (which can, after all, deceive you) or from scientific enquiry, and when the evidence is strong enough, you accept it as essentially true. Even though the tenet of science is that it could always be falsified down the track. So It's kind of still a belief, but a more substantiated one, rather than "I'm going to believe this and nothing will tell me otherwise ever."

>> No.4718980

>>4718954
The parts that I don't understand.
ok that's a lame answer.

Anyway, I think natural selection is reasonable since it follows from the models of genetics + common sense.

I don't see how the molecules turned into the first forms of life. I think there are various explanations concerning that, but I am not too familiar with them or whether there is some consensus on the subject.

also not familiar with how humans got so far ahead of other animals.

as far as a scientific theory, I think it's fine since it seems to work well enough for people who use it.

>>4718971
actually gravity is pretty interesting in that there is not yet a generally accepted theory of quantum gravity.

>> No.4718987

>>4718980

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, it explains its diversity.
Homo sapiens have been around for ~200K years and yet it's only in the last several thousand that you could honestly say we're "so far ahead" of other animals. Before then we were essentially indistinguishable. So clearly it's not like, bam, humans are amazing. Our technological advancement was the fruition of gradual development of things like agriculture and which brought together permanent communities and cultures, and growing economies which freed people to think about things other than just survival.

>> No.4718991

I believe in parts of it but I am also open to new views on the origins of life.

>> No.4719006

>>4718991
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, fuckface.

>> No.4719019

>>4719006
You took the words right out of my mouth.

>> No.4719054

>>4718924
How many girlfriends? And who's whole family?

>> No.4719068

I'm in Texas,next to a huge Baptist University. Most people in my town don't

>> No.4719070

It took the church until 1994 to officially renounce geocentrism.

Expecting them to concede on evolution right away is unrealistic.

>> No.4719071

>>4719006
Agreed, it's not evolution's job to answer that question. As it was put somewhere I can't be bothered to cite, "gravity can explain why a ball comes back down when you throw it in the air-not why you threw the ball"

>> No.4719089

My family

>> No.4719103

I'm Catholic, not believing in evolution is considered heretical.

>> No.4719156

Not really. I do not attend a church, my family are either non-religious or apathetic to the modern social conflicts their religions wage, and I went to a state university; however, it's entirely possible they exist among my co-workers, but I keep to myself so I wouldn't know.

I kind of find the whole debate a bit silly. The wealthy public schools that have some independence to determine their curriculum choices and the universities that most of their good students feed into are going to teach the facts of science. It hurts some feelings, and I'm sure there are a small number of good kids being 'left behind' which is unfortunate, but let's just be honest and face a reality - most of these public school regions that ban evolution are white trash garbage states that aren't going to make any notable contribution to science or society anyway. Getting bent out of shape because Buttfuckville, Kansas wants to put stickers on their books denying reality really is of no consequence to the rest of civilized society. I really can't be bothered to show concern that Bubba Joe manning the register at the grovery store in some Southern state I'm driving through doesn't understand evolution.

The kids that do want to learn about science will do so on their own thanks to the internet and get the fuck out of those states as soon as possible, Wikipedia is probably a significantly better teacher than the dropouts teaching science high school classes these days anyway, since teaching anything below the university level is no longer considered an actual profession in America anymore - you just follow what the school board tells you to teach and not question their misguided standards, you have no more qualification than the guy flipping burgers at that point.

>> No.4719163

>>4719103

children rapist

>> No.4719181

No, I live in New Zealand - a progressive country.

>> No.4719192

Yup.
I even know 2 or 3 atheists/agnostics who don't believe in evolution too.
Even some of the people I know who do believe it don't really understand it.

>> No.4719197

>>4719103
until the pope changes his mind again

he's a jesus proxy tho so don't doubt him. don't want to go to hell for thinking for yourself or anything.

>> No.4719198

The problem with not believing in evolution is that apart from superstitious and religious answers there is no scientific explanation that explains life as it is currently.

>> No.4719200

Nobody else in my family accepts evolution because they don't even understand it.

My father's a walking stereotype of far-right Christians in America (except that he doesn't even go to church anymore). He even still believes that nonsense claim that NASA "found a missing day" or whatever. Oh and he also claims that the Old Testament contains directions given to Moses to create a battery, and when "we" (he's never clear about who he means) attempted to reproduce it there was so much extra energy that we couldn't harness it.

Mother's not bad, she's just ignorant (poorly educated honestly, only graduated high school in the '70s from a terrible district) and desperate to hold onto her religious beliefs no matter what.

I also have an older brother who's into all kinds of new-age bullshit and alternative medicine quackery, but refuses to accept the evidence for evolution and the big bang because "they don't make sense" to him.

Extended family's hopeless except for my maternal grandparents (they're still anti-evolution, just not ludicrously so). One of my aunts heard I was an atheist and attempted to convert me by arguing that evolution is obviously a lie (using a bunch of shit that seemed like it was read straight off of answersingenesis.org) and her religion must be right because she just knows it is.

I rarely go to family events anymore. Their bullshit consumes everything about them and they always feel the need to talk about it.

>> No.4719204

>>4719163
>implying pedophilia is wrong

Moraltard.

>> No.4719207

>>4719204
>children rapist
It's the rape part that's wrong there.

>> No.4719208

>>4719192
How can you not believe in God AND evolution.

>> No.4719210

>>4719208
Not all atheists agree with science apparently. Does seem kind of odd though, how would you explain the world as it is if you do not believe in any of the explanations for it.

>> No.4719213

>>4719210
My guess is that they're abstaining from answering those questions, but dismiss the current answers (probably convinced by the same arguments against evolution that religious groups rely on).

>> No.4719214

>>4719208
I used to believe in evolution, when I was indoctrinated in school. Thanks to /sci/ I learned to be skeptical.

>> No.4719216
File: 47 KB, 600x284, Fall-back-we-failed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4719216

No I don't believe in evolution anymore. Humain kind is doomed.

>> No.4719220
File: 65 KB, 467x325, 1318483278798.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4719220

ITT: Noone knows what evolution is.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies of a trait in a population. That's it.

>> No.4719223

>>4719220
thats the definition of selection, not evolution.

>> No.4719224

>>4719213
That does not say much about their intelligence if that is the case.

>>4719214
You are not 'indoctrinated' with evolution, by that logic you were 'indoctrinated' with chemistry or gravity.

>> No.4719229

>>4718987
>>4718987
>Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, it explains its diversity.

Not entirely true, people in evolutionary biology may not be looking for the origin of life, but origin of novel features and traits is one of the biggest topics of research.

>> No.4719228

>>4719224
Well in school we ARE indoctrinated with all that stuff. But other than evolution the theories behind chemistry and gravity are scientific, i.e. testable and hypothetically falsifiable.

>> No.4719230

>>4719223
>>4719223
That is not the definition of selection. That is the definition of evolution.
The definition of selection is differential survival and reproduction of different traits.

>> No.4719232

>>4719230
>of
*from

>> No.4719233

>>4719228
>But other than evolution the theories behind chemistry and gravity are scientific, i.e. testable and hypothetically falsifiable.

If you are claiming evolution is unscientific and unfalsifiable then you are an idiot or a troll, which is it?

>> No.4719237

>>4719214
>being indoctrinated with evolution
That's as retarded as saying you were indoctrinated with physics.

>> No.4719239

People seem to get confused sometimes. Evolution is like gravity, it occurs and this cannot be denied by anybody who is intellectually honest. The science is done on what causes it, for the most part that is natural selection, sexual selection, drift and various genetic shuffling and virus/transposon stuff.

>> No.4719241

Almost all of my highschool teachers didn't. I was forced to watch expelled 4 times.

>> No.4719242

>>4719233
Neither. It might have started as a troll, but it lead to finding the truth. Sometimes I think of how comfortable it was to be a child and to accept evolution without questioning it. A high level of scientific understanding is required to see why evolution is in fact unfalsifiable.

>>4719237
I adderessed your concern in >>4719228

>> No.4719245

>>4719242
You do not have a 'high level of scientific understanding'. Evolution could be falsified if it was suddenly found that the frequencies of different alleles in the population never changes. Natural selection could be falsified if it was found selective pressures have no effect on allele frequencies in any way whatsoever.

>> No.4719243

>>4719230
Just had a course concerning this last year. You gave a perfect scientific definition of selection: "a change in allele frequencies of a trait in a population"
The other one is unsientific and not used because we cant predict/test/quantify that. All we can predict is that the allele frequencies change.

>> No.4719244

What is sad is that people seem to view evolution only as any major morphological change. Like growing or losing a tail or being able to fly.

Evolution is actually just change in allele frequencies. So, evolution occurs in ALL natural populations EVERY generation because allele frequencies never stay the exact same from one generation to other due to various factors - nonrandom mating, migration, drift etc.

>> No.4719251

>>4719233
Not that guy, but can anyone provide me with some hard facts? Has evolution other been observed or mapped in any mathematical way? Fossils at most just provide markers in history, the lines connecting those markers are pure guesswork.

>> No.4719248

>>4719243
No, he was right and you are wrong. Selection needs additional factors that have to be named and cannot be defined by the change of alleles only.

>> No.4719250

>That feel when someone says they don't believe in evolution and not to be an ass you agree with their retarded reason.

>> No.4719252

>>4719243
Well, I don't know where you had that course but might want to check the institution's accreditation.
>other one is unscientific and can't test/quantify
>can't quantify differential survival and reproduction because of different alleles in gene loci
Dear lord, what the fuck did they teach you...

>> No.4719254

>>4719251
You talking macroevolution?
Because if you're just saying evolution, then there are countless studies of bacteria evolving resistance in laboratory.

>> No.4719255

>>4719250
You should just give some perfunctory nods and change the subject.

>> No.4719256

>>4719245
I found your misunderstanding. Evolution does not predict these. It only explains observations. If we found a population whose allele frequencies weren't affected by selection pressures, then we would just have to find a new explanation within the framework of evolution. It wouldn't render evolution wrong.

>> No.4719260

>>4719245
>Evolution could be falsified if it was suddenly found that the frequencies of different alleles in the population never changes.

>allele frequencies never change
It has never happened before and will never happen in a natural population.

>> No.4719262

>>4719248
All we can scientifically predict is that under certain circumstances the frequency of alleles in a population changes, the rest is metaphysical bullshit. Read some poppers criticism of the theory of evolution.

>> No.4719263

>>4719260
That's not the point. The point is that even if it happened and was to be observed, it would still be compatible with evolution and thus evolution is not even hypothetically falsifiable.

>> No.4719264

What was the dumbest reason you heard someone way why evolution is false?
>If evolution always make something better then a tree wouldn't evolve into paper

>> No.4719265

>>4719262
That's right. What you defined is evolution and not selection.

>> No.4719266

>>4719254
> Thinking there is a profound macro/micro divide.
> 2012
I shiggidy diggidy doo woo wop.

>> No.4719267

>>4719254
Yup. I know microevolution happens all the time, naturally even. But to extrapolate from simple variations (mutations which are scrambling of information) and saying that macroevolution (mutations which are ADDING new information) is real seems too far-fetched.

I've never found any satisfying evidence to support evolution regarding this point.

>> No.4719268

>People accepting micro evolution
>Not accepting macro evoltuion
Herp derp who would have guessed that many small changes turn into big changes.

>> No.4719269

>>4719266
There is evolution on small scale, i.e. testable within reasonable time in our laboratories, and evolution on large scale, which is more a philosophical and unfalsifiable explanation for how species might have developped over millions of years.

>> No.4719271

>>4719262
You realise Popper was ignorant of evolution and later retracted his comments right?

>>4719260
Exactly, evolution is like gravity. Gravity could suddenly stop existing but I doubt it will.

>>4719256
>Evolution does not predict these. It only explains observations.

All theories explain observations and make predictions. All scientists try to change a theory to explain data before abandoning a theory entirely, that does not make it unfalsifiable and unscientific.

>> No.4719273

>>4719265
Evolution means speciation trough selection and mutation. Selection means the change of frequency of an allele in a population(or better a trait).

>> No.4719272

>>4719268
Many small changes might result in a big change. This sounds plausible, but it is not testable. The point is that an explanation without testable predictions is unfalsifiable and has less scientific value.

>> No.4719274

>>4719266
I know there is no clear division between micro- and macro- (kinda like asking at how many hairs makes a person bald/not bald). I was merely using it for convenience.

That said, micro is small changes that have been observed immeasurable times. Macro is tricky because it is too slow to be observed directly and fossil records are patchy.

>> No.4719279

>>4719273
You are still mixing up the words. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you learned it wrong.

>> No.4719280

>>4719271
>You realise Popper was ignorant of evolution and later retracted his comments right?
I do. But Popper used your retarded unsientific definition of selection and he was right in what he said about it.

>> No.4719275

>>4719271
>All theories explain observations and make predictions.

Evolution only explains observations without making predictions.

>> No.4719276

>>4719267
There is no difference between micro and macro and you are completely ignorant if you think mutations can never add new information. How do you think bacteria evolve resistance to an anti-biotic? a mutation occurs that allows them to resist its effects.

>> No.4719277

I don't
well what

>> No.4719278

>>4719273
>Evolution means speciation trough selection and mutation.
No, it doesn't. You're just flinging words around now without knowing what they mean. If you really did learn this from your university, I'd transfer.

>> No.4719281

>>4719275
Then you know nothing about evolution. We can use it to predict what we would expect to observe in a given situation. Have you never even read an evolution textbook or one of Dawkin's books?

>> No.4719285

>>4719276
>>4719276
>How do you think bacteria evolve resistance to an anti-biotic? a mutation occurs that allows them to resist its effects.

Yeah but we have only observed them using mutagenic experiments. Usually a culture of bacteria already has the necessary mutation and it only proliferates after we introduce antibiotics. In this case, the mutation was already there, it just needed the selection to spread.

>> No.4719286

>>4719281
As I told you, I was indoctrinated with evolution in school. I had to learn all the theories and I tell you they make no testable predictions.

>> No.4719290

>>4719285
That mutation still generated new information when it occured. Any mutation that changes the allele can be acted on by selection, usually negatively but sometimes positively.

>> No.4719289

>>4719281
>Dawkin's books
Oh god, if you think Dawkin's book is the best source for knowledge on evolution then you know nothing of the subject.

>> No.4719293

>>4719281
>Dawkins

No, thanks. I want to read science, not religion.

>> No.4719295

>>4719289
No you are the ignorant one here and seem to be apparently completely disregarding the modern field of evolution, Dawkin's books have been very important in the development of the field. They helped dispel that group selection nonsense for a start.

>>4719286
>School

Right, because they teach you ALL the theories at bloody school.

>> No.4719294

>>4719269
>philosophical
Exactly! Theoretical! You have to want to believe small changes can bring about these big changes. It's no different from faith, from where I'm standing.

Don't compare evolution to gravity, please. Gravity can be mapped and proved both mathematically and physically (try pogo jumping, it's fun.) Neither can be said of evolution.

>> No.4719299

>>4719294
Evolution is exactly the same as gravity, it occurs and anybody trying to deny this is an idiot or has an agenda. The allele frequencies do change between generations, that is all that evolution is.

>> No.4719300

>>4719290
>That mutation still generated new information when it occured
Yes it did, I was only saying that mutations like ones that confer antibiotic resistance have only been seen occuring using mutagenic experiments. Noone has seen a bacterial colony acquire such mutation de novo in lab (although it happens in nature all the time). In the lab experiments, the colonies usually already contain the mutation.
>usually negatively but sometimes positively
Don't forget there are tons of neutral mutations too.

>> No.4719302

Its like nobody has seen the experiment where one species of bacteria split into three morphologically distinct and reproductively separated variants.

>> No.4719303

>>4719290
Most textbooks show a picture of a negative mutation (eg. a wingless fly or a odd-legged bambi) then go on to say that beneficial mutation is the engine of evolution. Why don't they show a picture of one?

Because it doesn't happen. It's just speculation.

>> No.4719304

>group selection nonsense
Holy fuck, I never thought I'd encounter a more ignorant person on /sci/. I thought you didn't know about evolution, but if you're saying kin selection doesn't operate, I KNOW you don't know.

>> No.4719306

Why are you feeding this sci?

>> No.4719310

>>4719299
Then why is it that no scientist has ever come up with a satisfactory code or program to map evolution and show a theoretical progression of it in any way?

We can map planets, dammit.

>> No.4719308

>>4719303
>Because it doesn't happen. It's just speculation.

No point continuing this travesty of a 'debate', you are just a troll. Next time don't try and make arguments that are objectively false.

>> No.4719309

>>4719302
Yes they have. Bacteria readily change their morphology and reproductive capacity, usually after acquiring genetic material directly from another organism or by picking it up from their environment.

>> No.4719311

>>4719304
Kin selection =/= group selection, it amazes me anybody could think they are the same thing.

>> No.4719313

>>4719310
http://exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/eye.shtml

>> No.4719314

>>4719308
Show me proof, a website or anything. Is a troll anyone who has a different opinion?

>> No.4719316

No, I'm European.

>> No.4719317

>>4719311
Kin selection = Group selection with relatives. There is no difference.
And group selection occurs too. I'm done arguing with the likes of you. You lost your credibility the second you mentioned Dawkins but not Haldane, Coyne, Orr, or Burt and Triviers.
Dawkin's book brought nothing new to the table, if you want to read the book that researchers actually read, read Genes in Conflict by Austin Burt and Robert Triviers.

>> No.4719319

>>4719310
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

I suggest all the ignorant people on here read this book at some point.

>> No.4719322

>>4719317
>implying researchers did not read the selfish gene or that it was not important

And I see no point continuing to talk to someone so obviously ignorant of the field of evolution.

>> No.4719329

>>4718919
If its macroevolution with people evolving from primates then no, I think its another crackpot theory. If we are talking microevolution due to natural selection then its a feasible theory to me

>> No.4719335

>>4719329

These two things are not different processes. Macro-evolution is STILL natural selection, in the exact same way, it's just over a longer period of time, where enough time has passed to prevent genetically isolated populations from reproducing with eachother: and thus, a species is born.

>> No.4719341

>>4719335
They are different. Microevolution can be confirmed by experiments. You can't conduct an experiment on macroevolution. The only reason to believe in macroevlution being a consequence of microevolution is becuase it sounds plausible. But that's a philosophical issue and not the scientific way of validating a theory.

>> No.4719350

I imagine I have met one or two creationists but none of them ever identified themselves as such.

Mind you I'm British and it's considered bad manners to go telling people you don't know very well about your religion

>> No.4719351

>>4719341

Using your logic I could pretty much claim that all of astronomy and astrophysics is not science because you can't "conduct experiments" on it, since it's over such a long period of time.
We have some understanding of the processes of star formation and deaths, even though these happen over billions of years, since we can analyse the information available.
Evaluating macroevolution doesn't consist of looking at two different species and saying, "Yeah that seems about right." You can look at a huge range of different aspects including fossils, genetics, physiology, microbiology, mitochondrial DNA ... All providing substantial evidence to suggest that living animals are related and share common ancestors.

>> No.4719352

>>4719351
>I could pretty much claim that all of astronomy and astrophysics is not science because you can't "conduct experiments" on it
That's right. Looking at the sky and waiting for aliens is defnitely less scientific than conducting experiments.

>> No.4719354

>>4719341
thats like saying continental drift is unscientific because we never observed a continental plate drifting for more than x m(I actually dont know how fast they drift).

>> No.4719355

>>4719351
Collecting evidence and trying to find plausible explanations is fine. But there's still no testable predictions in macroevolution. You can't design experiments on such a big time scale.

>> No.4719360

>>4719355
one prediction was that we will find transistional fossils. Guess what happens?

>> No.4719368

>>4719355
>>4719352
> Doesn't know what astronomy entails.

Jesus. Do you know anything about science? Of course you can make damn predictions about macro-evolution, it doesn't have to literally be in the future to be a "prediction", it's a model of what data will be obtained. You've already demonstrated your inability to comprehend this point, but astronomy uses data that is from light that is upwards of billions of years old, this doesn't negate the legitimacy of that data.
Likewise, you can make predictions about what would be observed genetically in populations that are descended from a common-ancestor. You can never, by definition, predict what evolution will do, other than natural selection, by sheer statistical probability, will drive a gene pool that contains traits suited to the particular environment.

>> No.4719370

>>4719351

The logic is correct and you answered your own question. Retrodiction is not a valid scientific approach, period.

Astronomy makes extensive use of it just like biology does, which is why astronomy is its own field that is divorced from modern physics (although this might confuse some undergraduates, since they are often taught in the same department). You cannot make testable predictions, only make inferences from the past. We can make some fancy models and design experiments to test those models, but we cannot actually state factually that is what happened in the past - same with evolutionary biology. I am not saying the fields of biology and astronomy are without merit, just that they are not science.

>> No.4719399

>>4719370
then you don't deserve to use anything that has been achieved in those fields.... enjoy living till you're 40.

>> No.4719402

>>4719370
If that is your definition of retro-diction then all science other than active experimenting is false.

An important distinction to make is that in a situation where analysis of historical events exposes new information that directly supports an existing hypotheses then the reasoning is not retrospective.

>> No.4719405

>>4719399

Doesn't logically follow. There are plenty of things I 'use' that come from areas of study that are not "science", yet, obviously, I use them. That astronomy and biology lack the rigor a true science does not mean I cannot appreciate them.

>> No.4719407
File: 1.99 MB, 360x200, 1335801877570.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4719407

>>4719200
At least I'm not the only one

>> No.4719422

haha, no. I'm Norwegian, the thought of anyone rejecting evolution has almost become surreal.

>> No.4719535

>>4719335
Except one takes it to the extreme entering into the realm of fiction.

>> No.4719566

>>4719275
>From his observations and experiments with pushing a probe into the spur of the flower, Darwin surmised in his 1862 book Fertilisation of Orchids that there must be a pollinator moth with a proboscis long enough to reach the nectar at the end of the spur.[5] In its attempt to get the nectar at the end of the spur the moth would get pollen rubbed off on its head. The next orchid it visited would then be pollinated in the same manner.[1]

>In 1903, such a moth was discovered in Madagascar. It was described as a sub-species of the African hawk moth and named Xanthopan morganii praedicta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

guess again

>> No.4719567

>>4719289
Do you even know who Dawkins is? Or are you just hurt by his raid against religion?

He has done tremendous work within the field of evolutionary biology.

>> No.4719569

>>4719567
>popsci
>science

>> No.4719571

Nope.

>> No.4719573

I bealive in preasure!

>> No.4719574

I hope not. If they didn't, i'd consider it very good reason to stop being friends with them.

Small children and very old people excluded.

I did a check of my Facebook friends. Almost no religious people at all. Good thing.

>> No.4719577

>>4719319
What is the title of the book?

>> No.4719589

>>4719569
Yes, you can indeed pick two.
A physicist interested in biology would read this book, just like a biologist would read books by Hawking.

>> No.4719619

>>4718919
I live in Kansas.
So, probably.

>> No.4719937
File: 20 KB, 308x308, 1291855233234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4719937

>>4719239
>Evolution is like gravity, it occurs and this cannot be denied by anybody who is intellectually honest
This guy cant be serious.

>> No.4719942

>>4719937
He is completely right. It is impossible to be informed and reject evolution and be intellectually honest.

>> No.4719952

>>4719937
He is completely right. It is impossible to be informed and not think obvious troll is obvious.

>> No.4719980

ITT: People who forget that you can watch evolution occurring on a small scale in bacterial populations in a reasonable time-frame.
Fags.

>> No.4719989

I think I do, although he never answers me when I ask him those sorts of questions.
Obviously he is ashamed, as he should be

>> No.4720034

>>4719980
Even macro-evo. should be possible to observe.
r-selekted species, or artificially bred dog-races, tends to easily show change.

>> No.4720047

>>4719942
>Theory with no proof.
I bet you think its impossible to reject string theory as well.
>>4719980
Adaptation does not equal evolution. Scholasticism people. do you into it.
Evidence for microevolution does not validate macro-evolution

>> No.4720049

Yes, there was a girl in high school who, during an English class somehow, brought up how she didn't believe in evolution. She's one of these Christian nuts who goes to church constantly, goes to pro-life protests and all that horse shit.
That being said, she's still a nice, smart girl, just a nut.

>> No.4720105

>>4720047
> thinks micro and macro evolution are different
> trolling /sci the shittest of all boards
> 2012

ISHYGDDT

>> No.4720109

>>4720105
>Thinking macroevolution is the same as microevolution
Come back when you find your unicorns and missing links

>> No.4720122

>>4720105

No way, /tv/ is way shittier. I never thought the autistic awkwardness of /sci/ could be topoed, but yeah, it's possible.

>> No.4720123

>>4720105

don't flatter yourself.

remember, 4chan has boards dedicated to ponyfaggots and futanari.

>> No.4720125

>>4720122
I've never been on /tv/ I have seen the shit storm that is /v/ they dont even talk about games...? So I guess we're not the only offtopic random board.
and /b/ is anything but random same gfur/trap/rate me threads everyday.

>> No.4720141
File: 49 KB, 512x512, aj-lurk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720141

>>4720123

>> No.4720160

fucking idiots.

>> No.4720191

An extensively studied and understood mechanism and pathway for macroevolution

google: Evolutionary Cytogenetics of primates
example: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

I'll just leave this here

>> No.4720204

>>4718919
My ex gf
That was strange,she liked science,physics and stuff
and yet she disregarded evolution

>> No.4720215

>>4720204
>That was strange

No, it's perfectly normal, given that biology is not a science.

>> No.4720219

>>4720191
his whole argument
>Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

All Im reading is assumptions. its like how physicists make up particles to complete a model. hit or miss.

>> No.4720253

>>4720219

I'm glad that you've reduced you arguement to a scepticism of all science instead of just evolution.

You are now a dismissible fringe element.

>> No.4720269

>>4720253
>scepticism of all science
Not in the least. Nut a theory is just a theory. Quit treating it as fact when its not.

>> No.4720344

>>4720253
>implying biology is science

>> No.4720361

>>4720344
>>4720215
Reddit is waiting for you.

>> No.4720365

The next science to go, is that chemistry? It's seems to be the next thing between fysics and biology on the purity scale.

>> No.4720376
File: 19 KB, 614x604, 1331411167397.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720376

>>4720269

>Doesn't understand the definition of scientific theory.

>> No.4720381

>>4720376
it is not me who doesnt understand what a theory is if you think it is fact

>> No.4720387

My dad is very religious. Has been all his life, as in, goes to church weekly. He's also a physicist who worked for Jet Propulsion Laboratory for 25 years. He's now retired. He does not believe in evolution.

Granted it's not his field of study or expertise. Primarily he helped design instruments for scientific study of other planets. That doesn't do much in the study of evolution.

But it is pretty interesting to know a real life rocket scientist who doesn't believe in evolution.

>> No.4720392

>>4720365
Chemistry is a pure science. Its just that physics is more fundamental.

>> No.4720561

> thats like saying continental drift is unscientific because we never observed a continental plate drifting for more than x m(I actually dont know how fast they drift).

Coupla inches per year— about as fast as fingernails grow. Surveyor-grade GPS receivers can detect it these days.

I'm kinda surprised that more people don't disbelieve in continental drift, after all it was controversial as late as the 1960s, and the origin of species through descent with modification has been settled for much longer than that. (Legitimately controversial among actual scientists, I mean, not evolution or climate-change style controversial.)

I guess nobody has figured out how to make people vote differently by telling them that continental drift is a threat to their way of life, unlike evolution.

>> No.4720567

>>4720387
Is there a scientific reason he doesn't believe in it? Like does he think it's actually wrong? Or does just he just choose not to believe in it because of his religion?

>> No.4720629
File: 398 KB, 720x960, photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720629

>>4719329
>crackpot
LaughingAustralopithecus.jpg

>> No.4720635

>>4720567

not that guy, but i can damn well guarantee you it's not the former.

>> No.4720653

>>4720109
>missing links
Which one would you like to see?

>> No.4720906

i wanna see the bacteria that 'evolved' into a human. not even darwin believed that bullshit.

>brainwashed fags.

>> No.4720912

EVOLUTION is SCIENTIFIC FACT. If you don't belief it, you are stupid.

>> No.4720922

>>4720906
Yeah fucking faggots. And then there are all these astronemers who claim they "know" that stars are millions of miles away! I mean were they there??? Sure they have this "evidence" but it's completely unfalsifiable because we could never actually get to them. Anyway, if stars are all different distances, why do they all look the same? Astronamy is a religion just like any other; just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

>> No.4720927

so it's not the 'theory of evolution' anymore?

>homofag

>> No.4720931

>>4718928
I live in Oklahoma too, he's right. The place is fucked up.

>> No.4720932

Keep your fairy tale bullshit to /x/.

>> No.4720937

>>4718980
Read up on abiogenesis. It's a young, experimental field that doesn't yet have all the answers, but it's pretty cool looking into amino acid formation and lipid layers and the like.

Evolution really is very well supported by the evidence.

>> No.4720946

>>4718987
The origin of novel features and the process of abiogenesis are very very different-one is action inside of a formed system, the other is a system actually arising from a non-system in good conditions.

>> No.4721033

I used to live in Alabama...so a lot of people I knew back then fervently fought against evolution.

Then again, Alabama didn't allow mixed-race marriages until 2001...not the most progressive place in the world in any sense.

>> No.4721185

>>4720922
You see stars.
You dont see evolution

>> No.4721212

>>4719274
Except for, you know, the countless different species of life that exist.

>> No.4721229

>>4721212
Kill yourself so I can brag and lie that I killed you myself.

>> No.4721272

>>4721212
>different species of life
>EVOLUTION
Hows that autism feel