America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[Turtle]

Many Christians say someday their viewpoints will come true, and people will say that they only have faith. However, they have evidence recorded in the Bible to say that what they believe is real, which we don't seem to have regarding the question of religion and genetics.

 

BS and off topic. Again to the point of the thread...Americans don't believe in the science of evolution because they believe it contradicts what they believe is truth in the bible. This kind of fundamentalist thinking is not only a problem for America with Christianity, it is the very same problem we face with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.:phones:

[TheFaithfulStone]

The point of the speciation articles was to engage you (and others) back in the conversation about why scientists choose to define a species (such as a poodle or a labrador.) These two animals obviously do have different traits, this much I am aware of. However, they are capable of mating and producing offspring. The result is yet another new species called a Labradoodle. Is this new "species" a result of evolution? The reason this is important is the definition of evolution. See previous posts for the definition, or if you can't find it, I'll dig it up again. Obviously, I'm saying that evolution has something to do with new species.

 

You've made an error of fact. Labrador and poodles are not different species.

 

In fact, I believe part of the definition of "species" is that it can only produce fertile offspring with one of it's own.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

What do today's psychology textbooks say about whether nature and nurture are the same or different?

I haven't picked one up in a while, but were I to venture a guess, I'd say that textbooks treat these as different. My point was not that they are the same. My point was that they are so highly interrelated that it's nonsensical to split them.

 

 

Hmm, gonna have to just call you wrong here. Both [nature and nurture] are only measured (defined) by the stimuli and response. The stimuli being the catalyst and the response being the collectible data.

No, not exactly. Stimulus/response are descriptive elements akin to "before/after," used often in experiments in psychology, experiments which are sometimes related to better understanding the interplay of nature and nurture.

 

However, your statements thus far have said that they are measurements of the same thing (hot an cold).

No, again, this was an analogy to demonstrate the interelation of the two.

 

You have been saying, or at least it appears you have, that both nature and nurture are related to our genes, where I have said nurture is not related at all to our genes.

Really? I don't recall saying this. Our genes predispose us to certain tendencies. Nurture is the collection of all previous experience. That's what I recall saying, but sometimes it's tough to get across our true meaning to others... Ah... Communication, ain't she grand? :hyper:

 

 

Nature and nurture are two different things.

Yes, but they are linked inseparably. You can't have one without the... oth... er... Love and marriage... go together like a... horse and carriage... :phones:

 

 

The learned part has nothing directly to do with evolution.

This is mistaken. You must have evolved some machinery (call it what you will, I'm saying nature) to be able to learn through nurture. Each plays a role. Evolutionary success for humans is largely related to the evolution of our minds, of our curiousity, or if you prefer more vanilla terms, our prefrontal cortex and it's inhibitory effect on the limbic system.

 

 

The beginning of religion is not caused by evolution, changes in society are not caused by evolution, and I have not yet seen someone provide the data that a particular gene caused the first man to begin worshipping.

Since you're so keen on using evidence, show me support of this claim. Should be interesting.

 

Let's say you're right and that evolution did not cause these things, but evolution certainly played a role.

 

 

Cheerio. :secret:

[ughaibu]

Human populations, living in distinct locations and conditions (environments), have been observed to have hereditary resistance to different diseases, a disease that is trivial to one group is life-threatening to another. This is an evolutionary effect, yet these effects exist within one species, evolution is not just about speciation. Neither is speciation a matter that can be proven false by giving an example of something that is not speciation, if speciation can be shown to have occured, even if only once in the Earth's history, then speciation is an observed fact.

[hallenrm]

Intersting thread indeed, only its title is so misleading that I never cared to view it.

 

At present all I would say is that I think the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, is very interesting in the context.

[Boerseun]

...if speciation can be shown to have occured, even if only once in the Earth's history, then speciation is an observed fact.

Look around you, dude.

[Dov Henis]

Intersting thread indeed, only its title is so misleading that I never cared to view it.

 

Should be interesting to learn what you mean, to have some elaboration of your this statement, please... It would undoubtedly contribute to elucidation

of the status of evolution in the USA public mind.

 

Dov

[hallenrm]

Well as I said in my first post on this thread, reading the title I never really cared to view it. Now that you asked me to elaborate my thoughts regarding the status of evolution in USA public mind, i viewed several pages of this thread, including your opening post Dov.

 

So here I go! To begin with I do not think that there is anything like a monolithic public mind in USA, so far my understanding goes, USA is a big democratic country, where people are free to believe in what they want to. So the next point is

Why do many Americans do not really believe in evolution? Or why don't they go Ga Ga about this theory as some scientists do?

 

There can be several reasons for that, and not the least among them, would be the prosperity most Americans enjoy. They have so much money to splurge, and so little time to think. Given such living conditions people often get easily misguided. If you are aware of the history of several ancient prosperous civilizations, you can spot similar symptoms there. People are often confused and direction less. and that holds for the scientists as well. They are like frogs in a well, enjoying life as long as they can and whenever in doubt experiment with spiritualism of the east, be it Rajneesh or ASKING. They are looking for a direction away from the materialism that science supposedly propagates.

 

Well, that's all I would say in the present post, more later, if necessary:)

[cwes99_03]

You've made an error of fact. Labrador and poodles are not different species.

TFS

 

You are in fact correct. I was wrong. Scientists are in agreement that a labrador and a poodle are all part of the same species. They are considered different breeds (sometimes referred to as subspecies) but they are all of the species canid.

 

This actually is of particular note. In many cases, a new species is classified by appearance alone. That dogs aren't surprises me, but I would guess they haven't been classified as different species largely because it was well known that they could be interbred.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_hybrids_and_crossbreeds

 

However, scientific naming has identified wolves and dogs as different species. Check out the following websites.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2826322_ITM

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/wolves.html

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/canis.html

 

That dogs and wolves can interbreed with fertile offspring should identify them as the same species, should it not?

 

In fact, I believe part of the definition of "species" is that it can only produce fertile offspring with one of it's own.

 

What about darwin's finches?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/finches.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=1106

 

Here are recent articles (or at least their abstract) on Darwin's finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant

http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0012-9658&volume=081&issue=09&page=2442

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5054/193

 

And an ABC news report on it as well.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm

[clapstyx]

I dont know if America believes in evolution or not. It seems to me that if America is anything like Australia it depends on what the TV tells them to think. By and large I think that modern man doesnt really take the time to think through to an ultimate conclusion of any strand of an argument or concept. I really do feel that because most of us dont have the kind of mindset framework that seeks to conceptualise ultimate absolutes we keep kind of falling short. I suppose to make a reference to the concept of evolution the parallel would be like imagining the earliest concept of a flower (which had only scent as its primary source of attraction) and not taking the concept to its furthest extreme. Whether or not the natural world was created or evolved is a mute point for me...the point is that you can evolve a concept to a higher level of perfection and suitability to a given circumstance..and the closer you get to that the better the chances of success are. In the natural world I see that as improving the probability of survival. I dont think you can just look at evolution from the point of view of physical changes (or non changes). For us as a species our biggest theoretical advantage is our mental capacity and the ability to imagine, and the way I see it is that for us to survive in the long term our ability to imagine solutions for, what well may be incredibly difficult scenarios, in advance (like how do you stop the atmosphere we breath from become more polluted) is going to be the real test of what may or may not be an evolutionary advantage in the long run. We have shown that we can create and remarkable things that no other species has done (space travel for instance) but time is yet to tell whether we can evolve ours sense of direction and rise to the challenge of what we collectively imagine to be our best ultimate destiny point. At the moment we say we are progressing and progress is the thing that most people say you cant stop...but so far as I can tell we havent bothered to work out what it is we are progressing towards. From what I can see we are progressing for the sake of progress and the ultimate that we pursue is maximum commerce and I really do think that this is misguided. Ive have seen first hand the quality of peoples existence and live span fall fall dramatically in "indigenous" communities where commerce has been introduced. Coca Cola might eb seen as a flagship of American culture but the fact is that in the island communities of the Torres Strait diabetes has now entered plague proportions and expected lifespans have dropped by almost 30 years since the introduction of this product and similar "junk foods". Thankfully they still have enough consciousness to judge and say "This hasnt been a good change...our quality of life has gone down not up since they built the convenience stores" to the point where they are now considering banning these products. Sooner or later I think as a kind of collective humanity we have to decide and define what sort of world we want to be living in 100 years from now and progress towards that point, but the problem seems to be that we havent defined an agreed upon what those target points are so that we can make decisions that are in harmony with the achievement of those objectives and I really do think that until we do decide where we ultimately want to end up as a civilisation or as a planet we are just going to go hurtling off into a direction of God knows where...its not looking good. We are compounding the chances of the ecosytem we live in being completely destroyed more often than we are of it being perfectly maintained in good working order for instance. Sure we can say we are doing heaps about the environment and look at recycling rates but the fact is we are still way into the negative end of the spectrum..we are still doing more things that make the place worse than we are that make the place better than it was before we decided to have an industrial revolution. Now science would say that they can work it out but when they cant even make a conclusive point of fact about whether or not we have changed the climate or not..even though those still in tune with it can plainly see that the wind blows from the south in October now when it used to blow from the west and has done forever as far as they can remember. Sceince I think as got to really start proving that it is doing its job and start coming up with the solutions that its supporters have been claiming it will come up with.

 

So far as America goes I cant really comment because I havent been there to see if it is a sensible place or not..but if the crap they put on the TV and the ridiculous arguments they come up with in favour for the courses of action thay take in the world is any indication I would say that they have lost the plot and and have lost touch with the truth of their own existent reality. Thats sad and I dont mean to be wrongfully judgemental but honestly their focus seems to be towards keeping people conditioned through the media to believe that their lives revolve around fast cars, fast food and music with lyrics that dont mean anything. As a culture it just doesnt seem to have much meaning or point to it when you compare it to other cultures in the world. They consume as much as they can as fast as they can when really I would have thought the idea if you wanted to exist for a long time would be to consume your resources as slowly as possible. It would be different if as a nation they only consumed the resources from their own country but they have invaded almost every other country on Earth so that they can obtain those resources as well and ship them back to the US. And without meaning to get political about it I think thats what the Muslims are pissed off about. If thats the case then they have every right to be upset that this nation is destroying their culture and taking away the way off life that they were quite happy with and replacing it with theirs. Who's to say. The American owned media, which is all we get in Australia through NewsCorp chooses not to give the full perspective because who in the West wants to have to admit that they are in the wrong.

[cwes99_03]

I haven't picked one up in a while, but were I to venture a guess, I'd say that textbooks treat these as different. My point was not that they are the same. My point was that they are so highly interrelated that it's nonsensical to split them.

Ok, so a psychology textbook (we agree) will say that nature and nurture are separate things. One refers to the natural tendencies one has due to genetics, and the other refers to the learned tendencies one has due to upbringing/education (see what is learning thread to get a fuller understanding.)

No, not exactly. Stimulus/response are descriptive elements akin to "before/after," used often in experiments in psychology, experiments which are sometimes related to better understanding the interplay of nature and nurture.

Yes exactly. Stimulus and response are the two markers that identify the difference between nature and nurture. It is impossible to determine a natural tendency without a measuring stick (stimuli) and a unit of measure (response). Thus my reason for saying:

Both [nature and nurture] are only measured (defined) by the stimuli and response. The stimuli being the catalyst and the response being the collectible data.

 

No, again, this was an analogy to demonstrate the interelation of the two.

Ok, that was what I was trying to get out of you. The hot/cold analogy you used was a bad one. It obviously isn't similar enough to the situation at hand. However, if I had not called you out on it, others would have read that and not understood that it was a bad analogy. You must be careful, illustrations and analogies that have little or nothing to do with the actual topic are very misleading. Thus when you make a mistake (such as I did above with the labrador and poodle illustration/example) you must fess up when you make a mistake.

 

Quote:

You have been saying, or at least it appears you have, that both nature and nurture are related to our genes, where I have said nurture is not related at all to our genes.

 

Really? I don't recall saying this. Our genes predispose us to certain tendencies. Nurture is the collection of all previous experience. That's what I recall saying, but sometimes it's tough to get across our true meaning to others... Ah... Communication, ain't she grand? :surprise:

 

I'm sorry Infinite. Have you missed the whole point of this discussion? I have asked for conclusive evidence (data, at least something to substantiate theory) that social change (religion, politics, etc) is linked to biological evolution (genetic evolution). The only way to do this is to prove that the learned response to questions about life that science has not yet answered is a geneticly caused response.

BTW, nurture is not necessarily a collectoin of all previous experience. It is a collection of one's experience. That that experience is affected by previous generations I agree. However, one parent may choose to throw caution to the wind and completely abandon all previous experience for what some scientist (Dr. Spock) says you should do. They still nurture their children.

 

According to thousands of years of data, this would not be a natural response, as for thousands of years the majority of parents have based their child rearing off of their own experience. This is not to say that this is a geneticly linked action. No, the sheer evidence that a parent can abandon such a pattern either means that a new gene is causing it (which you have already effectively acknowledged isn't the way it works) or it is not connected at all to our genes directly.

 

This is mistaken. You must have evolved some machinery (call it what you will, I'm saying nature) to be able to learn through nurture. Each plays a role. Evolutionary success for humans is largely related to the evolution of our minds, of our curiousity, or if you prefer more vanilla terms, our prefrontal cortex and it's inhibitory effect on the limbic system.

 

Ok, but now you are coming back to the very beginning of the species typing these words today. You are of the opinion that back at that point, when we became the species we are today (which most evolutionists agree is a gradual process not a sudden leap, but for the sake of this argument we will say it was a sudden leap) a new gene developed giving us the ability to think abstractly and ask questions that lead to the natural arising of religion, politics, family units, etc.

 

This is not what the study of social "evolution" is claiming. They are studying the changes we see occuring in society right now. Would you agree that what they are studying (changes in human society) is evolution, biologically speaking, as others earlier on this thread suggested?

 

Let's say you're right and that evolution did not cause these things, but evolution certainly played a role.

 

If this idea is in agreement with the above paragraphs, then I will concede for the moment that the theory of evolution states that man developed the idea of religion because evolution allowed him the ability to develop it.

 

Quote:

The beginning of religion is not caused by evolution, changes in society are not caused by evolution, and I have not yet seen someone provide the data that a particular gene caused the first man to begin worshipping.

 

Since you're so keen on using evidence, show me support of this claim. Should be interesting.

 

God created man. God gave man commandments to live life a certain way, and to only worship him. Fallen angel suggested another way if they stop worshipping God. Other way has led to today's imperfect society.

 

I'd say according to the data put forth thus far on this thread, this has just as much support as your idea that thousands of years ago a new gene developed allowing man to construct religion and society.

 

However, there are many on this site who do not want an in depth scientific study of the scriptures to be carried out on this site. Would you say I'm right, oh humble Turtle?

[cwes99_03]

Human populations, living in distinct locations and conditions (environments), have been observed to have hereditary resistance to different diseases, a disease that is trivial to one group is life-threatening to another. This is an evolutionary effect, yet these effects exist within one species, ...

 

Actually, you claim it is an evolutionary effect. One thing when speaking with a person who doesn't believe in the theory you claim is fact, is that you provide supporting evidence.

 

Here's some evidence that suggests there is another mechanism.

 

1) There are other humans with the hereditary resistance to different diseases that don't live in the same region as the larger population with the same hereditary resistance. If one were to trace back their origins, both have ancestors in common.

2) Since both have ancestors in common, it is easily deduced that that ancestor likely carried the original gene (thus proven by hereditary science).

3) At some point in the family tree. A particular carrier of that particular genetic trait moved to an area and began having offspring. Those offspring had offspring (incestual offspring) and thus a large nation of people with the particular hereditary trait developed in a portion of the world.

4) A sibbling of that person, also with the genetic trait moved to a region where they had children with a person not having that trait. The trait became suppressed by other genes, but continued to exist within a portion of the population, occasionally being expressed when two decendents of the original ancestor get together and have offspring.

 

...evolution is not just about speciation. Neither is speciation a matter that can be proven false by giving an example of something that is not speciation, if speciation can be shown to have occured, even if only once in the Earth's history, then speciation is an observed fact.

 

I've never stated that there isn't speciation. The idea of speciation is that there are different types of animals containing different sets of genes and different numbers of chromosomes, and that these animals should be fairly incapable of producing fertile offspring (mules/hybrids). That the different species developed by a natural process of evolution instead of creation is what evolution is all about. I think you need to brush up on your definition of the theory of evolution.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to straigthen you out on the "if only once" part. That actually is false. If it happens only once, then it is generally considered an un quantized anomally in science. It has to be repeatable, or observed multiple times for it to become a factual statement. Others on this site have said that nothing can be fact, but if you can observe it multiple times, I'll give you leeway. That being said, I do agree that different species incapable of having fertile offspring do exist. My only problem is in the use of false speciation in the support of evolution (darwin's finches being the prime example.)

 

Now, I refer you back to the earlier point I made to TFS about species and Darwin's finches.

[cwes99_03]

Should be interesting to learn what you mean, to have some elaboration of your this statement, please... It would undoubtedly contribute to elucidation

of the status of evolution in the USA public mind.

 

Dov

 

Dov, he was mearly showing that the original thread title, does not explain that this thread has turned into a discussion of evolution vs. religion. You may fully understand it, but it actually is not a phenomena solely found in the US. There are in fact large numbers of people around the world who do not believe in evolution. In fact, I'd be willing to make a so far unsubstantiated guess that 50% or more of the world's population does not believe in evolution.

[cwes99_03]

At present all I would say is that I think the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, is very interesting in the context.

 

Definitely a site worth reading when it comes to speciation. This was my point much earlier, and to know that I am supported by a professor emeritus at Stanford...

 

Earlier I stated, and I don't think I need to go back and find it, that the way some scientists view speciation, they would have to agree that having dark skin means that you are of a different species from a lighter skinned person.

[ughaibu]

You are still confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. And what do you think you've described, in the first portion of your reply, if not evolution?

[CraigD]

Turtle raises an excellent point, as did Dov when opening the thread. The theory [Darwinian evolution] is fine. It's solid. Yet, it's rejected.

 

In evolutionary terms, one can only hope that the blindness of people's faith causes them to fall off the evolutionary ladder. Faith is fine, but rejection of clear and repeated evidence is ignorant.

This is an attractive wish, and one that I share, as do such celebrated people as Richard Dawkins, Ann Druyan, and the late Carl Sagan, who I think may have articulated it most eloquently – and proposed some of the most practical approaches to realizing it - in his 1996 book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”. However, I strongly suspect it to be just wishful thinking.

 

As someone who accepts the theory of evolution, and that personality traits such as those that result in a person like myself absolutely not believing in the existence of God, while a person like cwess99_03, who I suspect is similar to me cultural and family background, absolutely does, I’m confronted with evidence that practically compels me to conclude that theism, a belief held in some form by at least 80% of all adult humans, is the result of evolutionary adaptation, and it is atheists, not theists, who tend to “fall off the evolutionary ladder”.

 

Regardless of their objective truth, theism, and the religious traditions attending such beliefs, confer a survival advantage on populations that have them.

Although its difficult to interpret archeological evidence to gain convincing confirmation of such ideas, it appears that anatomically close-to-modern humans lived for millennia much like similar primates (eg: chimpanzees), until they began exhibiting atypical behavior involving the burial of dead members of their communities. This behavior is difficult to interpret as anything other than superstitious, and in the opinions of most cultural anthropologists, marks the beginning of religion. To an evolutionary zoologist, it marks the emergence of a novel genetic trait.

 

An argument can be made that it is the emergence of irrational, superstitious beliefs that caused human behavior to diverge so dramatically from that of other animals, so that now we have language, culture and technology far beyond any other animal. A more immediate and controversial question is whether these beliefs continue to provide a survival advantage. Will a predominantly theistic human civilization continue to dominate its environment – including the next frontier of environment other than on Earth – or, as Dawkins and Sagan suggest, must atheism come to dominate human culture?

 

IMHO, my last statement is a false dilemma. I believe that the past, and the continued evolutionary success of the human species depends both on behavior driven by a theistic, supernatural worldview, and by behavior driven by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. Rather than in conflict, I see these 2 conceptually incompatible worldviews as being culturally compatible, and necessary for the continued success and advancement of humankind.

 

For this cultural balance to continue, I believe it's important for people of both worldviews to be respectful and tolerant of one another. Athiests can’t help but occasionally see theists as superstitious fools, which theists can’t help but occasionally see atheists as godless fools, but neither side should violate the boundaries of civility and respect, and attempt to compel the other to change their views. Low points of civilization are, I believe, marked by periods of such compulsion, such as the church-lead inquisitions of the 11th-18th centuries, and the suppression of religion by 20th century communist governments.

[ughaibu]

Evolution in action:

http://www.umaine.edu/waterquality/Agriculture/virus_crops.htm

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/339976