99.9% Of a People Who Believe In Evolution Don't Understand It.

by Space Madness 89 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Space Madness

  @snare&racket

  It appears you haven't read my post. You keep telling me to pick up a textbook but the majority of my OP is quotations from a textbook. Also I explicitly stated that it is impossible for DNA and bacteria to think, as some people suggest with adaptation to an environment and bacterial resistance.

  @cofty

  I'm honored by your response. I've seen many evolution threads and you always rip people to shreads who question or express any doubt in evolution. The fact you showed respect to my opinion and even gave me a compliment is encouraging. Not surprisingly I find your response to be the most insightful. Perhaps the majority of confusion stems from using short handed language, or maybe I'm just being too technical.
• 

  Ruby456

  space - I have had to go back to textbooks too if only to understand what agendas are being played out. Snares you cannot deny that there is an agenda involved when science is packaged in non literal language and and then denies that there is any appeal to be taken literally at the same time.

  At least my text book comes out and says very clearly that science does not endorse atheism signalling to me to look out for such agendas. So I did not have to do as much thinking for myself as space madness has and especially since he has taken the trouble to write it all out for us. Not everyone is or wants to be goal oriented but they can be carried along against what works for them not knowing that they are being deceived and that their better judgement is not at fault at all. Snares have you heard the expression horses for courses in your line of work - I'm willing to bet you haven't
• 

  cofty

  SM - I am sure the confusion does come from the shorthand language that is necessay in order to have a sensible conversation about evolution. Unfortunately many don't have the basics so they misunderstand.

  I would encourage you to reconsider your criticism of the term "natural selection" and even the less helpful "survival of the fittest". They are the bedrock of understanding one of the main driving forces of evolution. Dawkins is an exceptionally talented teacher of evolutionary biology and his books along with Sean B Carroll and Nick Lane would add a lot to your college course. The concept of the "selfish gene" remains one of the most useful models to grasp what is going on.
• 

  cofty

  Ruby - I can't work out what your point is. Can you clarify please?
• 

  Pacopoolio

  I don't find much fault with the premise of the thread, and don't understand why some people are jumping on it.

  A large portions of laymen understand evolution as "animals adapted to survive in their environment over time" and "animals evolve to get better." School books for children were often phrased badly where you got that drilled into your head in school, and a lot of creation-apologists frame it in this manner as a strawman to make an easier argument against it. Heck, the Creation book frames it in this manner several times to the point where the majority of JWs probably think that's what evolution actually is.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Space, it's responded to its environment in the sense that the current population has only come into existence within the conditions of its environment.

  Again, population versus organism is an important distinction. When I say species, I mean the total population of a particular species.

  You'll get there. Keep reading and thinking.
• 

  Ruby456

  cofty it isn't just about the basics it is also about motives. Once we acknowledge what our motives are we can then have a conversation or discussion about what it is about science that helps one to negotiate ordinary life. For example we have been having a convo about responsibilities (on another thread) and one vital gem that came out it was that when it comes to responsibilities a parent can act on behalf of a child without having to first get an okay from an elder or from a publishing co.

  just saw your request cofty

  Ruby - I can't work out what your point is. Can you clarify please?

  its pretty complicated to clarify - I'll give it some thought. (edit) does the above make it clearer?
• 

  snare&racket

  "as some people suggest"

  Who?
• 

  cofty

  No sorry Ruby I am still puzzled about what you are saying.

  The thread is about science not agendas and motives.
• 

  snare&racket

  Also SM I certainly did read your thread, you said ....

  "I never believed in evolution as I thought it didn't make sense and that what was proposed was simply impossible. How could an environment alter an organism's DNA? How could bacteria resist antibiotics if they can't "think"? After taking a college biology course, it turns out my suspicions were correct."

  Now you are claiming otherwise. The deceit leaves me uninterested in helping you find the information you are pretending to look for. Just so you know, science is NOT doing the same as you, it is not running from questions. Science, including the theory of evolution is NOT founded on lies. More than half of scientists are religious. There is no agenda, just a lot of things you have not taken the effort to understand.