I think that @Laroxe's point is important: there are lots of different people, with lots of different patterns of thinking, who fall into lots of different different groups, with respect to this issue.Either way a debate is pretty pointless. I still do it though. Sometimes
This is a way to attempt to rationalize an anti-evolution view by seeming to be scientific. (See I'm OK with adaptation.)there is no evidence for 'macro' evolution, adaptation is ok as they are still the same kind...
this argument has two problems:Evolution is still an unproven theory, a cell just didn't self assemble by chance.
These discussions were on YouTube posts on talks from Jerry Coyne, Michael Russel, Nick Lane, Tim White, Donald Johansson and Dawkins (obviously) Usually lectures or debates.I think that @Laroxe's point is important: there are lots of different people, with lots of different patterns of thinking, who fall into lots of different different groups, with respect to this issue.
Some are certainly worth talking about controversial issues with, others are the scientific (or rational) equivalent of lost souls.
Another thing that I think of as significant are claims like this:
This is a way to attempt to rationalize an anti-evolution view by seeming to be scientific. (See I'm OK with adaptation.)
There are good examples of macroevolution (like the evolution of particular groups (like horses, or there are probably even better examples now) or of particular functional parts (the evolution of eyes is often used to refute evolution, but it is in fact worked out in pretty good detail), but it would take a lot time to get to the detailed point and that's not going to happen in a lot of these kinds of discussions.
This approach holds hope for success in those not beholding to some intellectual lock on their thinking.
Even after a long discussion of some issue, they often just move on to what about this other thing. In the real world, it would be a never-ending endeavor to do this with the stridently anti-evolution.
this argument has two problems:
Frequently, not all of one's communications on this subject is meant for the interrogating anti-scientist, more importantly, it is about informing bystanders to the exchange.
- Evolution has different meanings scientifically. The issue should be more clearly stated for a scientific discussion. However, it this quoted context it is being used in a more biblical overall genesis kind of way, like what God did. Nothing to people in seven days (beat that scientists!).
The issue under discussion would have to be broken down into different parts to discuss scientifically.
- the "A cell didn't self assemble by chance" argument is a common creationist argument, probably due to its pseudo-scientific patina (statistics!).
This kind of argument overlooks from what stage the self assemble by chance of a cell would have started (nothing?, atoms?, a collection of molecules?).
This oversight reflects a big difference in how science and those committed to particular contrasting views would think about things. Some of these concepts might be outside of their conceptual universe.
The scientific argument would say:
a) Yes, a cell (or more likely a population of them) did self-assemble by chance, but in an environment where that was a thermodynamically favored event. that would be an environment with a high enough concentration of molecules amphiphilic (molecules with hydrophilic and lipophilic parts), that the formation of vesicles (like primitive cells) is favored for free energy reasons.
b) There is a complex multi-step process, possibly extending over millions years, that sets up the formation of the first cells. This is a required element of any scientifically realistic origin of life scenario.
Right. A study, I am going to ask, intelligent hard working people who I respect the following.Obviously some adults are like kids in this way.
The proportions vary among different populations.
Well, Webb was a person, just not as famous as his telescope (like Hubble).She said, 'Oh god who is that?'
I think this is interesting, but I wonder if it goes anywhere, it is the nature of ill-defined terms to allow a wide range of answers and these answers often change even from the same person. As new information becomes available we have to be able to fit this into a coherent framework, if we start from a position that unclear this can be very difficult.Right. A study, I am going to ask, intelligent hard working people who I respect the following.
What is a Scientific theory?
What is Evolution?
What is the Theory of Evolution? Is that different to Evolution?
I will report back.
I appreciate that people can be intelligent, hard working AND not be interested in Science and a lot of other stuff that does not affect their lives.
Two anecdotes, one today. I told a co worker that a meteor had hit Webb (I didn't want to use the word micrometeoroid as I had just learned that term)
She said, 'Oh god who is that?'
The other was from a few years ago, again a hard working tax paying mother. A good person.
World war one and two, what is the difference? Her son who was 8 at the time was learning at school and asked her questions she didn't know so asked me.
WW1 trenches, mustard gas, Somme, Gallipoli. Yanks, The great war.
WW2 Dunkirk, Hitler, Churchill, the Blitz, D day the bomb and Yanks again.
This person manipulates spread sheets that would twist me into knots.
Is Evolution just a theory would generate two questions.
What is Evolution?
What is a theory?
I am going to do this
And from what I've seen from layman debates, this tends to be the crux of the issue. You can't even begin to debate if you don't know the definitions, but then again, how could layman know that it's different?The word 'theory' in a scientific context has a different meaning than the ordinary defintion of the word.
Your fixation on water (as expressed here and in other threads) is not helpful and is NOT the reason that evolution is considered a theory (the reasons for which have been explained in this thread and have nothing to do with water). Also, what do you mean "still considered a theory" ? It will ALWAYS be considered a theory.One of the reasons evolution is still considered a theory is it still leaves out the importance of water as an active matrix for life.