Misconceptions about evolution and religion

reply to post by wirehead


Some excellent reply's, thanks all,

It sounds like TrueBrit's argument is that if you don't know every single thing about a process, you should throw out everything you do know!

reply to post by TrueBrit

1)That there is recently discovered evidence that life did NOT originate on this planet, but was delivered here, perhaps on the back of an asteroid or other torpedoing space crap that hit our planet back in the murk of time. This throws into question an awful lot of things about evolution. For a start, the begining of the evolution story we were taught in school includes none of this. Its a cut and dry "There was this primordial ooze. Compounds combined in an unusual fashion, and for some reason continued to do so, until amphibian life came about and strolled on land, eventualy turning into you me, and even Jenkins at the back ... marvelous bit of luck that! " thing we got told when I was in school.

I see this claim being made regularly and there's a subtle distinction that needs to be made -- if the hypothesis of panspermia is correct, "life" did not arrive here on an object that collided with the Earth. All of the evidence found supporting it to date shows that the precursors to life were carried on the object, not life itself. These are similar to, and some cases the same as, the precursors that are generated in updated versions of the Miller-Urey experiment. So whether those precursors were generated here or generated elsewhere and carried here, the end result is still the same. Further, this doesn't call into question what we know about biodiversity, only the origins of life.

2)Along side the existance of evidence that throws into question the entire set up for the evolution story, you have the fact that because life on Earth did not originate on it, we have no way to examine the true origin point of our species, or for that matter, any other of which we are aware! Until evolution can explain every single moment from the initial combination of the first co-operative compound (by that I mean chemicals in a combination which approximates DNA, and perform tasks vital for the survival of the whole) on what ever crazy planet, space rock, mote of galactic dross that it happened on, to present day, without missing a beat, or skipping a step, I will believe that the entire thing is bloody shoddy, and I wouldnt be a fool to think that way either.

Do you feel the same way about your car? Your cell phone? Your computer? Every other technological gadget you use?

How many people thought the world was the centre of creation? An awful lot. How many of them were right ? Zero.... a healthy LACK of respect for some of the more established ideas is not ignorance in of itself. Sure, if a person has seen none of the original work on evolution, is unfamiliar with the work of Darwin and so on, then thier comments are likely moronic and not at all informed. But given my familiarity with the subject, I can honestly say that I think the entire theory could use a ground up shake up, and needs adapting to fit, or drastic remodelling to accomodate new information.

Modern evolutionary synthesis is hardly static and is pretty far removed from Darwin's Origin of Species at this point, especially given that he had no real concept of genetics other than it must exist as the mechanism by which traits are heritable. The modern theory is constantly being updated as new information is generated.

Sorry, but I don't get why people think that the theory of evolution needs to be completely rewritten from the ground up as new data is gathered, and it seems to be the only scientific theory that gets targeted with this kind of attention. It's as ridiculous as saying that a document needs to be completely scrapped and rewritten from the first work every time a typo is found.

What really gets me about this debate is :-

1) Scientific evidence is being discovered, and tested as far as possible, and being proven sound, that evolution does in fact take place.
We can see in the fossil records that species change from one form to another slowly over long periods of time.
It doesn't matter how the first spark of life came about, evolution is the "process'' of changing into what we see today.

2) Creationists insist that everyone believe words written thousands of years ago by people who barely understood the world they lived in, let alone how it came about, with absolutely NO proof except those words.

So much evidence now exists that those words have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, deliberately changed and many left out altogether that how anyone can pick up a bible and, for no apparent reason, just believe it completely is beyond my understanding.

Maybe there was some form of higher being that created that first spark of life, maybe not, either way it has no bearing whatsoever on what that spark developed into and what changes took place for it to turn into what we see today.
That is what evolution is all about, the changes that happened along the way.

Why would any sensible person believe long ago words when the evidence, right here and now, suggests otherwise?

cheers.

Very much needed topic. Sadly, like always, those who really need to hear the the message are going to ignore it.

Still, it's a good thing to have it out there.

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


There is ample evidence supporting common ancestry among living systems and none at all for a series of many mutations accounting for that. As such, "evolution" as conventionally presented is most decidedly not a fact.