NationStates Jolt Archive

Some recommended reading:

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/niklas.pdf

It is a fairly plain-language but very well written summary of evolution, evolutionary theory, and some of the evidence and concepts we're dealing with on the subject. I have found that the greatest frustration I am personally faced with whenever these debates begin is that I spend far more of my time correcting creationists wild misperceptions of what evolution and evolutionarey theory actually are then I do engaging in any real discussion of the evidence.

I've literally lost count of the number of times I've had to explain to someone triumphantly declaring that evolution doesn't have every single answer to life, the universe and everything and that it is therefore worthless that evolutionary theory is biology... and that it has nothing to do with theories of planetary formation, or the Big Bang, or why gravity exists... nor is it supposed to. Rather like we do not toss out the theory of gravity as inadequate because it can't tell you why you really like chocolate ice cream.

I am so, so tired of having certain people confidently inform me that they know evolution isn't true for a fact because anything with "half a wing" or "half an eye" would die and go extinct.

I'm sick to death of people declaring with the kind of certainty inspired by blissfully total ignorance that there is absolutely no evidence for evolution.

So I have a request.

If you're going to debate evolution... at least commit the absolute minimum time and effort required to learn what the heck you're talking about. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to expect. The link above is a very good place to start and only about 18-19 pages... including illustrations... and in large type... plus a bibliography. If you're entering a debate on evolution you are committing yourself to discussing findings in a scientific field that has entire libraries of research and supporting evidence... less than 20 pages is not asking much. And quite frankly, if that's too much for you you have absolutely no business whatsoever injecting an opinion on the subject into the debate.

None. I mean it. Just Go Away. You are wasting people's time, you are wasting people's energy, and quite possibly wasting oxygen as well if you insist on engaging in a discussion of this topic without at least doing that much prep work. If you just show up to ask honest questions that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all... in fact I encourage it. But to jump into a discussion on a scientific topic and immediately begin making authoritative declarations that a group of scientists is without a clue when you haven't even bothered to find out what those scientist's position is or what it is they're talking about is the height of stupidity, arrogance, or some staggering combination of the two.

My $0.02

I agree completely. But if creationists understood evolution, I doubt they'd still be creationists, well, at least when it comes to what evolution actually covers.

I agree completely. But if creationists understood evolution, I doubt they'd still be creationists, well, at least when it comes to what evolution actually covers.

True... but it's at least possible that a person could look at the actual evidence and understand the actual theoretical framework and still not believe in evolution... and I think engaging some creationist in a debate and discovering I've actually encountered one of those people would at least be a little more interesting than what I keep running into now.

Some recommended reading:

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/niklas.pdf

It is a fairly plain-language but very well written summary of evolution, evolutionary theory, and some of the evidence and concepts we're dealing with on the subject. I have found that the greatest frustration I am personally faced with whenever these debates begin is that I spend far more of my time correcting creationists wild misperceptions of what evolution and evolutionarey theory actually are then I do engaging in any real discussion of the evidence.

I've literally lost count of the number of times I've had to explain to someone triumphantly declaring that evolution doesn't have every single answer to life, the universe and everything and that it is therefore worthless that evolutionary theory is biology... and that it has nothing to do with theories of planetary formation, or the Big Bang, or why gravity exists... nor is it supposed to. Rather like we do not toss out the theory of gravity as inadequate because it can't tell you why you really like chocolate ice cream.

I am so, so tired of having certain people confidently inform me that they know evolution isn't true for a fact because anything with "half a wing" or "half an eye" would die and go extinct.

I'm sick to death of people declaring with the kind of certainty inspired by blissfully total ignorance that there is absolutely no evidence for evolution.

So I have a request.

If you're going to debate evolution... at least commit the absolute minimum time and effort required to learn what the heck you're talking about. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to expect. The link above is a very good place to start and only about 18-19 pages... including illustrations... and in large type... plus a bibliography. If you're entering a debate on evolution you are committing yourself to discussing findings in a scientific field that has entire libraries of research and supporting evidence... less than 20 pages is not asking much. And quite frankly, if that's too much for you you have absolutely no business whatsoever injecting an opinion on the subject into the debate.

None. I mean it. Just Go Away. You are wasting people's time, you are wasting people's energy, and quite possibly wasting oxygen as well if you insist on engaging in a discussion of this topic without at least doing that much prep work. If you just show up to ask honest questions that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all... in fact I encourage it. But to jump into a discussion on a scientific topic and immediately begin making authoritative declarations that a group of scientists is without a clue when you haven't even bothered to find out what those scientist's position is or what it is they're talking about is the height of stupidity, arrogance, or some staggering combination of the two.

My $0.02


Good article. I totally share your frustration.

Think about it this way, everyone once thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Shit will change, people will realize this sooner or later. ;)

I totally agree as well.

Oh, and hey, creationists! Here's a thought. In evolution, there is a form of creation; it's called "procreation" and it when two humans/animals have sex to produce the next generation. :D

Good article. I totally share your frustration.

Think about it this way, everyone once thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Shit will change, people will realize this sooner or later. ;)

Unless I am very much mistaken, the USA is the only place in the developed world where this is actually an issue - and even then it's purely a socio-political one, not a scientific issue at all. From what I gather, the situation is getting *worse*, not better.

But yeah - I totally agree with the first poster. Creationists should be compelled to take an exam on the basics of evolution [such as the fact that evolutionary biology makes no claims as to the beginning of the universe] and the workings of science [distributed, cumulative knowledge etc] before being admitted to any forum discussing the issue.

Don't people get taught about evolution in school? We certainly do in England, except in certain faith shcools.

Some recommended reading:

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/niklas.pdf

It is a fairly plain-language but very well written summary of evolution, evolutionary theory, and some of the evidence and concepts we're dealing with on the subject. I have found that the greatest frustration I am personally faced with whenever these debates begin is that I spend far more of my time correcting creationists wild misperceptions of what evolution and evolutionarey theory actually are then I do engaging in any real discussion of the evidence.

I've literally lost count of the number of times I've had to explain to someone triumphantly declaring that evolution doesn't have every single answer to life, the universe and everything and that it is therefore worthless that evolutionary theory is biology... and that it has nothing to do with theories of planetary formation, or the Big Bang, or why gravity exists... nor is it supposed to. Rather like we do not toss out the theory of gravity as inadequate because it can't tell you why you really like chocolate ice cream.

I am so, so tired of having certain people confidently inform me that they know evolution isn't true for a fact because anything with "half a wing" or "half an eye" would die and go extinct.

I'm sick to death of people declaring with the kind of certainty inspired by blissfully total ignorance that there is absolutely no evidence for evolution.

So I have a request.

If you're going to debate evolution... at least commit the absolute minimum time and effort required to learn what the heck you're talking about. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to expect. The link above is a very good place to start and only about 18-19 pages... including illustrations... and in large type... plus a bibliography. If you're entering a debate on evolution you are committing yourself to discussing findings in a scientific field that has entire libraries of research and supporting evidence... less than 20 pages is not asking much. And quite frankly, if that's too much for you you have absolutely no business whatsoever injecting an opinion on the subject into the debate.

None. I mean it. Just Go Away. You are wasting people's time, you are wasting people's energy, and quite possibly wasting oxygen as well if you insist on engaging in a discussion of this topic without at least doing that much prep work. If you just show up to ask honest questions that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all... in fact I encourage it. But to jump into a discussion on a scientific topic and immediately begin making authoritative declarations that a group of scientists is without a clue when you haven't even bothered to find out what those scientist's position is or what it is they're talking about is the height of stupidity, arrogance, or some staggering combination of the two.

My $0.02

Patronising little fucker ain't ya?

Patronising little fucker ain't ya?
Well if you are going to argue against something, you should at least know what the hell you are arguing against.

Well if you are going to argue against something, you should at least know what the hell you are arguing against.

I agree... still no reason to be patronising.

I agree... still no reason to be patronising.
Its as good a reason as any.

Patronising little fucker ain't ya?

A potty-mouth, ain't ya? Does not exactly reflect well on you.

Don't people get taught about evolution in school? We certainly do in England, except in certain faith shcools.

Evolution is in the public schools now, at least officially, but there are some areas of the country where christian groups are trying to force 'creation science' into the curriculum as well. They argue that teaching evolution is discrimination unless the 'competeing theory' is included.

Of course, 'creation science' is a misnomer and there's no scientific basis for it, but rumor has it that some rural districts are leaving evolution out of schools to avoid the issue.

A potty-mouth, ain't ya? Does not exactly reflect well on you.

Oh dear... my use of profanity has reflected badly on my good name

forsooth sire prithy pardon a poor squirrel for his hasty manner...


Git

Oh dear... my use of profanity has reflected badly on my good name

forsooth sire prithy pardon a poor squirrel for his hasty manner...


Git

How quickly the hypocrisy makes itself known.

Patronising little fucker ain't ya?

Towards people who can't be bothered to know enough about a theory to even be capable of describing what it IS and yet take it upon themselves to make sweeping declarations as to how they know all about why it's wrong?

Not so much patronizing as deriding I would say.

Towards people who can't be bothered to know enough about a theory to even be capable of describing what it IS and yet take it upon themselves to make sweeping declarations as to how they know all about why it's wrong?

Not so much patronizing as deriding I would say.

LOL fair enough...

More power to you (my $.01 worth, since i believe i share a majority of your opinion on this topic)
If i may .....
i've posted a few times on the ambulocetus natans and on anophales and Avida, so i'll just give those as point terms for anyone who bothers to read up on them. When i find my source disc again i'll probably ... et cetera.

More power to you (my $.01 worth, since i believe i share a majority of your opinion on this topic)
If i may .....
i've posted a few times on the ambulocetus natans and on anophales and Avida, so i'll just give those as point terms for anyone who bothers to read up on them. When i find my source disc again i'll probably ... et cetera.

Reminds me... a few weeks ago there was a Creationist who claimed that Ambulocetus would in fact be a crocodile. Obviously that guy had no idea about vertebrate anatomy, otherwise he would have known that statement is nonsense. :D

Bump for Ffc2, who appears to be in desperate need of the linked paper judging from his latest thread on what he somehow thinks is evolution.

Bump for Ffc2, who appears to be in desperate need of the linked paper judging from his latest thread on what he somehow thinks is evolution.


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Time waste.
You can't educate people with "faith".
They invert. Rather than start at evidence and come to a concluding theory they start at a theory andd force the evidence to fit throwing out the bits they don't like.
I know that's true cos I believe it :rolleyes: