Atheism = Belief in Evolutionary Theory = Atheism

[nonbeliever_92]

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the theory about how evolution goes about happening and is not a fact.

 

[monta]

To be perfectly blunt, if you don’t even know what the word ‘theory’ means in a scientific concept then you probably need to learn a bit more about science. Does that help?

I know what the word theory means in both the lay and scientific context. I also know that we are at a point where it evolutionary theory is the most likely explanation of life on earth, but the theory is a work in progress there are gaps in our knowledge . Assuming it as a fait accompli is as abhorrent to me as assuming 7 day creationism is a valid possible explaination of life on this planet.

Once again we are dragged into an argument about the validity of evolution, the concepts of law and theory and hypothesis when my question is, when did belief in evolution becoming the main tenant of atheism?

 

[themadhair]

I know what the word theory means in both the lay and scientific context.

I do not believe this to be the case, and I present the following comment from yourself as evidence:

In rl I have had arguments with people who think because I purport that evolution has not yet been proven conclusively I must not believe it is true.

When you make comments like this you are demonstrating that you do not understand the word ‘theory’ in its scientific context.

Once again we are dragged into an argument about the validity of evolution, the concepts of law and theory and hypothesis when my question is, when did belief in evolution becoming the main tenant of atheism?

And as I pointed out to you, only people who know little about either atheism or evolution think they have anything to do with one another.

 

[Nepenthe]

Back to "when did belief in evolution becoming the main tenant of atheism?"...

Once again we are dragged into an argument about the validity of evolution, the concepts of law and theory and hypothesis when my question is, when did belief in evolution becoming the main tenant of atheism?

It's funny that when Darwin published On the Origin of Species it sparked some controversy but nothing like what we see currently. In fact, despite the stories of Huxley and the spirited debates, the public and religious community, though certainly divided, did not emphasize the schism between religion and science as sharply as it is today. It took the Scopes trial in the U.S. to really draw the battle lines.

The Scopes trial, and especially Bryans death, fanned the flames (if not actually sparking) the science vs. religion mentality. After Scopes lost the trial, anti-evolution legislature across the states lit up like a spleef at a Cypress Hill concert and less than two years later thirteen states had proposed anti-evolution laws. Granted, mmost of those laws were shot down, but there was no turning back after that and we can trace the modern fundamentalist anti-science movement to 1925.

 

[T-Dawg]

I know this can only sound incredibly condescending and I truly don't mean to be, but your current knowledge of evolution is just plain wrong. There's some solid threads here at RF on the subject, some great books for intros to evolutionary biology, and I'd also suggest sites like TalkOrigins that have tons of great essays written by those who actually work in the field.

Then tell me what you think evolution really is. And no, you don't sound condescending, or at least not nearly as condescending as many other atheists I've met.

Here's what I know about evolution:
I'll use my typical giraffe example: A long, long, time ago, probably before you were born (or before your great grandparents were born for that matter), giraffes probably once had short necks. However, one day, a "mutation" appeared in the genes of a baby giraffe that caused him to have a slightly longer neck. Because this giraffe had a slightly longer neck, he was able to reach up a bit higher into the trees to find food, and thus he got all the best meals. He lived to reproduce and pass on his longer neck. After a few generations of giraffes, the mutation appeared again, making the neck of one giraffe in particular even longer. The process repeated itself, and after a while, giraffes had very long necks indeed.
The End.
This makes perfect sense and does not contradict the creation story at all. However, some people believe that everything has a "common ancestor," that is, a single cell prokaryote that evolved into every living thing as we know it today. The problem with that? Earth has a time limit. Sure, earth could be a few billion years old, but the sun would have a few billion years on it too... and the sun doesn't remain the same throughout all eternity, it changes size. Seeing that mutations are sorta uncommon, it just strikes me as nigh-impossible that enough could have been accumulated to go from prokaryote to complex multicellular organism with completely specialized cells by the time the sun became a red giant and engulfed earth (and even if it didn't engulf earth, the temperature changes might end up killing off all the life, making the poor prokaryote have to start all over again from randomly thrown together chemicals D=). There's craploads of steps in between. You'd probably have to have a new mutation for every year at least to get that sort of change.

EDIT: Gee, you guys talk fast... I'll go get the quote I was replying to to avoid confusion...

 

[monta]

Back to "when did belief in evolution becoming the main tenant of atheism?"...

It's funny that when Darwin published On the Origin of Species it sparked some controversy but nothing like what we see currently. In fact, despite the stories of Huxley and the spirited debates, the public and religious community, though certainly divided, did not emphasize the schism between religion and science as sharply as it is today. It took the Scopes trial in the U.S. to really draw the battle lines.

The Scopes trial, and especially Bryans death, fanned the flames (if not actually sparking) the science vs. religion mentality. After Scopes lost the trial, anti-evolution legislature across the states lit up like a spleef at a Cypress Hill concert and less than two years later thirteen states had proposed anti-evolution laws. Granted, mmost of those laws were shot down, but there was no turning back after that and we can trace the modern fundamentalist anti-science movement to 1925.

This is what I was trying to get at, it has become a standoff in some peoples minds, if you believe in evolution you are against god. Most of the people I know who believe in a god also believe in evolution.

 

[monta]

I do not believe this to be the case, and I present the following comment from yourself as evidence:

When you make comments like this you are demonstrating that you do not understand the word ‘theory’ in its scientific context.


And as I pointed out to you, only people who know little about either atheism or evolution think they have anything to do with one another.

I can't defend against this accusation, it would be easy to cut and paste some definitions from the copious volumes on the subject, but really what would be the point.

When I say that evolution is not yet been proven conclusively ,I mean that while the proponderance of the evidence indicates that evolution is correct, untile the gaps in our knowledge are filled, we do well to keep a little bit of room for the unexpected. And by unexpected I don't mean a god but rather the possiblity of evidence we are not yet aware of that will alter or enhance our perspective.

If we are too invested in our ideas being unassailable we are not scientifically inclined

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have never met a christian who does not believe in evolution.
Those that don't believe in it must all have grown fins and swum across the pond to the USA.

 

[Father Heathen]

I have never met a christian who does not believe in evolution.
Those that don't believe in it must all have grown fins and swum across the pond to the USA.

Perhaps we should deport a good portion of our fundamentalists/biblical literalists/creationists over to Europe.

 

[linwood]

.......when my question is, when did belief in evolution becoming the main tenant of atheism?

It didn`t.

One can be an atheist while "disbelieving" evolution.

I don`t know of any such atheists but the concepts aren`t inherently exclusive.

 

[Nepenthe]

Then tell me what you think evolution really is.

Evolution, at its bare bones definition is a change of alleles over time. Cumulative changes result in phenotypic differences (changes in traits) in populations. Natural selection "selects" those hereditable traits that statistically favor the population's ability to reproduce. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for the variations of life to have appeared on Earth.

Here's what I know about evolution:
I'll use my typical giraffe example: A long, long, time ago, probably before you were born (or before your great grandparents were born for that matter)

I hope so! Giraffids were around in Africa about 50 million years ago! I'm not even half that old.

giraffes probably once had short necks. However, one day, a "mutation" appeared in the genes of a baby giraffe that caused him to have a slightly longer neck. Because this giraffe had a slightly longer neck, he was able to reach up a bit higher into the trees to find food, and thus he got all the best meals. He lived to reproduce and pass on his longer neck. After a few generations of giraffes, the mutation appeared again, making the neck of one giraffe in particular even longer. The process repeated itself, and after a while, giraffes had very long necks indeed.

Not bad. I was afraid some kind of Lamarkianism was gonna creep into your example but I was pleasantly surprised. I like the explanation of the length of the giraffes necks being due to sexual selection (though the evidence tends to leans towards grazing habits), though the end result is the same: a mutation favored the reproductive success of a longer neck and this was passed on through millions of generations of successively longer necks. And more specifically, it was the Climacocerus, the predecessor to the giraffe, that led to the longer neck.

This makes perfect sense and does not contradict the creation story at all. However, some people believe that everything has a "common ancestor," that is, a single cell prokaryote that evolved into every living thing as we know it today. The problem with that? Earth has a time limit. Sure, earth could be a few billion years old, but the sun would have a few billion years on it too... and the sun doesn't remain the same throughout all eternity, it changes size. Seeing that mutations are sorta uncommon

There's been plenty of time actually. And mutations are extremely common. In fact, mutations are guaranteed to occur when cells divide, though neutral mutations are most common.

it just strikes me as nigh-impossible that enough could have been accumulated to go from prokaryote to complex multicellular organism with completely specialized cells by the time the sun became a red giant and engulfed earth (and even if it didn't engulf earth, the temperature changes might end up killing off all the life, making the poor prokaryote have to start all over again from randomly thrown together chemicals D=). There's craploads of steps in between. You'd probably have to have a new mutation for every year at least to get that sort of change.

As I mentioned above, mutations are commonplace. And evolution can occur much quicker (geologically speaking) than many think. It's all about the power of incremental change over deep time. 4.5 billion years of geological time.

 

[T-Dawg]

Evolution, at its bare bones definition is a change of alleles over time. Cumulative changes result in phenotypic differences (changes in traits) in populations. Natural selection "selects" those hereditable traits that statistically favor the population's ability to reproduce. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for the variations of life to have appeared on Earth.

I understand that, but I still don't think it could happen so quickly. Not to mention that assuming a no-creator stance, the chemicals that made up the first prokaryote would have to be randomly thrown together. If I remember correctly, it takes something like 500 DNA molecules put in EXACTLY the right combination to make a tiny little single celled organism. Depending on how often these chemicals were thrown together, it may have taken a while. Then there's the occassional climate change. Poor single celled prokaryotes, it must have been incredibly frustrating... they had finally gotten the mutation for eukaryotic life (eukaryote = has a nucleus, prokaryote = no nucleus)... and then the asteroid (or whatever it was) that created the moon crashed into the earth and killed them all. That was a sad day, it's a surprise that it didn't make it as a national holiday D=.
(See, I have a sense of humor too! )

I hope so! Giraffids were around in Africa about 50 million years ago! I'm not even half that old.

50 million? I figured that something so simple as a neck lengthening could happen in a few hundred years. Guess my estimates are a bit off XD.

Not bad. I was afraid some kind of Lamarkianism was gonna creep into your example but I was pleasantly surprised.

Lamkarkianism? You mean like how the ancestors of birds flapped their arms and jumped off cliffs until they were finally able to fly? I thought that theory was discredited?

the giraffes necks being due to sexual selection (though the evidence tends to leans towards grazing habits),

EVERYTHING is about sexual selection. If a trait isn't considered to be "sexy," those with that trait won't get mates, and therefore won't pass the gene, no matter how beneficial it is. Why do you think humans are so stupid? Stupidity is sexually attractive to most, thus it lives on .

There's been plenty of time actually. And mutations are extremely common. In fact, mutations are guaranteed to occur when cells divide, though neutral mutations are most common.

Biology class taught me that mutations were very rare . I liked my biology teacher too... are all the biology classes in Missouri crap?
Bleh, if a mutation is guaranteed to occur when a cell divides, then why is evolution so slow? If mutations can occur so rapidly, then would it theoretically be possible, if all the mutations hit just right, to evolve an entirely new species in one generation (perhaps this is where Asperger's Syndrome comes from?)?
Neutral mutations are the ones that don't do anything, right? So it's still unlikely that a change will take place... it would have taken a while. Especially with all the signifigant climate changes (most people seem to agree that earth was highly volcanic and was covered in a primordial soup. Obviously, something changed along the way, how did life adapt to this?), like the sun changing, the earth's magnetic field diminishing (or is it increasing? I forget...), the world constantly going through weird temperature changes, etc... if I'm not mistaken, prokaryotes (or any single celled creatures for that matter) are not very adaptable... D=

 

[Nepenthe]

I understand that, but I still don't think it could happen so quickly. Not to mention that assuming a no-creator stance, the chemicals that made up the first prokaryote would have to be randomly thrown together.

There's nothing random about it; the very nature of the organic molecules involved meant the necessary cominations would occur. Molecules didn't randomly collide, form proteins, then randomly poof into prokaryotes. Organic molecules like amino acids and nucleotides formed polymers which can act as replicators of other polynucleotides by nature of them being a template.
There's an origin of life thread started by Storm where JoseFly explains the RNA world hypothesis. You might find more info. there, or I can attempt to elaborate here as we go along.

If I remember correctly, it takes something like 500 DNA molecules put in EXACTLY the right combination to make a tiny little single celled organism.

Bacteria only have one large circular DNA molecule, some have smaller ones called plasmids. Complex, but not catastrophically so.

Depending on how often these chemicals were thrown together, it may have taken a while.

Deep time is vast- plenty of time to cover what was needed for molecular replication.

Then there's the occassional climate change. Poor single celled prokaryotes, it must have been incredibly frustrating... they had finally gotten the mutation for eukaryotic life (eukaryote = has a nucleus, prokaryote = no nucleus)... and then the asteroid (or whatever it was) that created the moon crashed into the earth and killed them all. That was a sad day, it's a surprise that it didn't make it as a national holiday D=.
(See, I have a sense of humor too! )

No question that it was a lotta work! Life likely started a few times, was wiped out, then managed to gain a foothold after several molecular combinations.

50 million? I figured that something so simple as a neck lengthening could happen in a few hundred years. Guess my estimates are a bit off XD.

Subtle neck lengthening could certainly appear in one generation, but it'd take many to result in the giraffe we know today (as distinct from their evolutionary cousins).

Lamkarkianism? You mean like how the ancestors of birds flapped their arms and jumped off cliffs until they were finally able to fly? I thought that theory was discredited?

Yep, or like the giraffe stretching it's neck to reach leaves in the tops of trees, thereby lengthening the vertebrae, and passing that on to its offspring. Discredited.

EVERYTHING is about sexual selection. If a trait isn't considered to be "sexy," those with that trait won't get mates, and therefore won't pass the gene, no matter how beneficial it is. Why do you think humans are so stupid? Stupidity is sexually attractive to most, thus it lives on .

True! Evolution is all about ****ing and havin' babies! I meant the distinction between natural selection producing organisms that are adapted to their environment as opposed to sexual selection being selected by secondary sexual characteristics.
That's a hard sentence to say aloud...

Biology class taught me that mutations were very rare . I liked my biology teacher too... are all the biology classes in Missouri crap?

Missouri. Maybe... :sarcastic

Bleh, if a mutation is guaranteed to occur when a cell divides, then why is evolution so slow? If mutations can occur so rapidly, then would it theoretically be possible, if all the mutations hit just right, to evolve an entirely new species in one generation (perhaps this is where Asperger's Syndrome comes from?)?

New species couldn't pop into existence- that'd be good evidence that evolution is false. Hopeful monsters just don't occur that way. Sure mutations can result in impressive phenotypes, but functional wings just don't appear on a kitty as some creationists satirically portray evolution.

Neutral mutations are the ones that don't do anything, right?

Usually. But if the environment changes a once neutral or inconsequential mutation could aid the population in survival and reproduction.

So it's still unlikely that a change will take place... it would have taken a while. Especially with all the signifigant climate changes (most people seem to agree that earth was highly volcanic and was covered in a primordial soup. Obviously, something changed along the way, how did life adapt to this?), like the sun changing, the earth's magnetic field diminishing (or is it increasing? I forget...), the world constantly going through weird temperature changes, etc... if I'm not mistaken, prokaryotes (or any single celled creatures for that matter) are not very adaptable... D=

Again, there's no question time is required, but there was plenty of time in the planet's long history.

 

[T-Dawg]

If the earth is billions of years old, that means the sun is even older... how much longer does the sun have before it ends up dying? I thought the average star's lifespan was about 14 billion...

Sure is great knowing that everything I can think or do is directly determined by my genetics D=. Then there's the fact that God has everything planned out and everything. Both ideas invariably lead to the conclusion that human beings have no free will D=. And they don't, when you think about it. Hmm, maybe I should make a new thread on how depressing everything is these days.

 

[themadhair]

When I say that evolution is not [SIZE=+5]yet[/SIZE]been proven conclusively ,I mean that while the proponderance of the evidence indicates that evolution is correct, untile the gaps in our knowledge are filled, we do well to keep a little bit of room for the unexpected.

See the above. There are two things involved here:
1) The phenomenon of evolution. This is the observed varying of allelic frequency across generations. Observations are facts.
2) The theory of evolution which explains the phenomenon and its mechanisms.

We are concerned with the theory here. Why you use the word ‘yet’ as you do above you are indicating your belief that, at some point in the future, the theory could be proven. This makes absolutely no sense when the word ‘theory’ is being used in its scientific context.

As I keep saying, the only folks who are asserting an equivalence between evolution and atheism are people who don’t know about one or other of those two topics.

 

[S-word]

Evolution is proven. It is fact. There is nothing left to faith. There are theoretical aspects to how evolution happened along the way but I don't need to believe in it like I don't need to believe in the internal combustion engine.

And how do you think evolution works? Is it not the gathering of the strongest preferred attributes of one species in the creation of a new species?

Do you believe that a species that could dominate all other earthly life forms, for some three million years, did not evolve some form of intelligence, and that the intelligence produced in that species was not passed down to future species that may have evolved from the then upright walking reptilian ruler of this world?

And do you believe that Mankind who has gained dominion over the animal kingdom from which he evolved and is the Lord of Creatures and the most high in the known creation, is the end of the process of evolution. If another species of life, even if it be Artifical Intelligence created by man which learns to be independant of its creator and is able to move, not only through space, but also through time and is in fact capable of recreating all physical life forms including its own creator mankind, would you classify such an intellect as God?

 

[yearningknight]

As you stated in your thread atheism is simply not believing an any god or goddess correct. I agree with you on that. I also know many Christians that believe in evolution but only guided through their god's hands. However I know many atheist that beieve in science and the theory of evolution. For me atheism is simply not believing in a god or goddess and it is up to the atheist whether they believe the alternatives which are science and philosphy. I truly don't care about philosphy or science simply because to me they are similar to religion because all three try to answer the three main questions where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going if we are going anywhere after death? I am currently learning about science to protect myself as an atheist however I have studied many different religions and know how they work. Atheism put simply is a belief in the nonbelief of a god or goddess and a belief that you are your own god you deem what is right and what is wrong.

 

[whereismynotecard]

The only requirement for being an atheist is not believing in god(s).

 

[themadhair]

I did mention my atheistic Raelian friend didn't I?

 

[whereismynotecard]

I did mention my atheistic Raelian friend didn't I?

What is Raelian?