Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[Ehav4Ever]

Just one comment. You have a flawed understanding of "repeatability". It is not the events that have to repeatable. It is the evidence.

Greetings. My statement was, "The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab." In this case, I am talking about what takes place in a lab. Thus, a lab experiment where the results are the same each time the experiment is performed is dealing with that data as well as what it took to get there each time. i.e. the results and the events.

What you stated was something that takes place outside of the lab. Thus, what you are describing is something different than what I wrote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Greetings. My statement was, "The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab." In this case, I am talking about what takes place in a lab. Thus, a lab experiment where the results are the same each time the experiment is performed is dealing with that data as well as what it took to get there each time. i.e. the results and the events.

What you stated was something that takes place outside of the lab. Thus, what you are describing is something different than what I wrote.

No, even in the lab there are many examples of where the exact same results do not occur. You may be misled by high school level science labs where simple known events are highly reproducible. The real world is more complicated so it is the general evidence that needs to be reproducible. Even in the lab one cannot force an organism to evolve in exactly the same manner. There is a whole area of study called "chaos theory" where specific results are never repeatable.

 

[firedragon]

Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?​

@anotherneil

This would depend on which theory of evolution you are referring to. If it's the darwinian theory, then there are many atheists who reject it. And they have other theories that goes against the darwinian theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@anotherneil

This would depend on which theory of evolution you are referring to. If it's the darwinian theory, then there are many atheists who reject it. And they have other theories that goes against the darwinian theory of evolution.

"Darwinian" evolution is an outmoded term. It is not even well defined anymore since people are rarely clear about what they mean by it. If you mean a general theory of evolution through modification with descent and universal common ancestor that is almost universally accepted among scientists. Atheist or theist it makes no difference. The percentage of "creationists" in the sciences is extremely low.

Darwin, of course, had a limited knowledge of biology compared to what we know today, so of course he was wrong in quite a few aspects. But I do not know of any scientists in the field that reject his core beliefs.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

No, even in the lab there are many examples of where the exact same results do not occur. You may be misled by high school level science labs where simple known events are highly reproducible. The real world is more complicated so it is the general evidence that needs to be reproducible. Even in the lab one cannot force an organism to evolve in exactly the same manner. There is a whole area of study called "chaos theory" where specific results are never repeatable.

Actually, no that is not the case. I am not misled by high school level science. I actually work in RF/EMC/EMI research when when performed in the lab has a high level of repeatability when done correctly.

Of course the real world is more complicated, that is a part of what one accounts for in an experiment, and the complications are a part of how one interprets the results of an experiment. That is also why one includes a measure of uncertainty as a part of the experiment. It also depends on what the experiment even is. In general, there are differences between dramitcally different results and similar results, or even results that require further experimentaiton and potentially the expansion of the considerations taken into the experiment.

Besides, not all lab experiments in relation to evolution in the lab involve oranisms evolving. There are other areas of study which deal with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reaction. Also, not all experiments have results that don't repeat, at least outside of the measurement uncertainty established that particular area of study. When dealing with Chaos Theory examples of that area of study can involve nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.

Thus, as I stated - The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, no that is not the case. I am not misled by high school level science. I actually work in RF/EMC/EMI research when when performed in the lab has a high level of repeatability when done correctly.

Of course the real world is more complicated, that is a part of what one accounts for in an experiment, and the complications are a part of how one interprets the results of an experiment. That is also why one includes a measure of uncertainty as a part of the experiment. It also depends on what the experiment even is. In general, there are differences between dramitcally different results and similar results, or even results that require further experimentaiton and potentially the expansion of the considerations taken into the experiment.

Besides, not all lab experiments in relation to evolution in the lab involve oranisms evolving. There are other areas of study which deal with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reaction. Also, not all experiments have results that don't repeat, at least outside of the measurement uncertainty established that particular area of study. When dealing with Chaos Theory examples of that area of study can involve nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.

Thus, as I stated - The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab.

Sorry, you work with what appears to be Newtonian physics. That is very reproducible, but you cannot judge all sciences by referring to only one group. Just because one particular science is highly reproducible in results does not mean that all of them are.

 

[Tomef]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

Pique, maybe. I’m rather annoyed that regular bathing has not led to gills or webbed feet.

 

[anotherneil]

People can reject evolution because they don't understand it, or because they don't trust the people who are explaining it.

Interesting - 2 reasons & each one a good or valid reason for rejecting the science of evolution.

If I were to see behavior from such individuals consistently applied to other well-known concepts from science, such as Cell Theory, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Pythagorean Theorem, Euler's Identity, Plate Tectonics, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Coulomb's Law, and the Periodic Law (the trend pertaining to chemical elements), then I would consider it to be fair, reasonable, and objective on their part to reject other concepts from science & I'd be fine with that. However, if they were cherry picking to accept everything else from science that they don't understand, with cherry-picked exceptions that they reject, then I reject their rejection as a double standard.

Trust is important; it has to be earned & even then, there are traitors out there. Science, unlike religion, is not about being told to believe anything; part of it is about individuals being able to observe phenomena for themselves.

If someone wants to be an intellectual hermit - they want to reject information & knowledge for whatever reason, I personally think they have that right, but if a religious individual wishes to demand that I ignore observable, well-studied, and well-documented things like the fossil record and DNA, and instead want me to accept some literal interpretation of some book of fairy tales, myths, etc., then I seriously want to ask them if they're high or something.

 

[GoodAttention]

Interesting - 2 reasons & each one a good or valid reason for rejecting the science of evolution.

If I were to see behavior from such individuals consistently applied to other well-known concepts from science, such as Cell Theory, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Pythagorean Theorem, Euler's Identity, Plate Tectonics, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Coulomb's Law, and the Periodic Law (the trend pertaining to chemical elements), then I would consider it to be fair, reasonable, and objective on their part to reject other concepts from science & I'd be fine with that. However, if they were cherry picking to accept everything else from science that they don't understand, with cherry-picked exceptions that they reject, then I reject their rejection as a double standard.

Trust is important; it has to be earned & even then, there are traitors out there. Science, unlike religion, is not about being told to believe anything; part of it is about individuals being able to observe phenomena for themselves.

If someone wants to be an intellectual hermit - they want to reject information & knowledge for whatever reason, I personally think they have that right, but if a religious individual wishes to demand that I ignore observable, well-studied, and well-documented things like the fossil record and DNA, and instead want me to accept some literal interpretation of some book of fairy tales, myths, etc., then I seriously want to ask them if they're high or something.

Reminds me of parents who won’t vaccinate their children but will hate on those in society who want to deny climate change.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Sorry, you work with what appears to be Newtonian physics. That is very reproducible, but you cannot judge all sciences by referring to only one group. Just because one particular science is highly reproducible in results does not mean that all of them are.

Greetings,

Again, I never claimed that all elements of scientific research was repeatable. I was also not judging all areas of sciences - I don't know where you are getting that from.

Besides, I clearly stated it depends on what the experiment is in the first place. I never claimed that all experiements and all areas of science have repeatable results. Again, my statement was, "The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab."

 

[Audie]

Greetings,

Again, I never claimed that all elements of scientific research was repeatable. I was also not judging all areas of sciences - I don't know where you are getting that from.

Besides, I clearly stated it depends on what the experiment is in the first place. I never claimed that all experiements and all areas of science have repeatable results. Again, my statement was, "The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab."

So what deep significance do you attach to
this?
And do you have examples of " theorizing"
about things for which no relevant lab work has
been done or is even possible?

 

[Audie]

Interesting - 2 reasons & each one a good or valid reason for rejecting the science of evolution.

If I were to see behavior from such individuals consistently applied to other well-known concepts from science, such as Cell Theory, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Pythagorean Theorem, Euler's Identity, Plate Tectonics, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Coulomb's Law, and the Periodic Law (the trend pertaining to chemical elements), then I would consider it to be fair, reasonable, and objective on their part to reject other concepts from science & I'd be fine with that. However, if they were cherry picking to accept everything else from science that they don't understand, with cherry-picked exceptions that they reject, then I reject their rejection as a double standard.

Trust is important; it has to be earned & even then, there are traitors out there. Science, unlike religion, is not about being told to believe anything; part of it is about individuals being able to observe phenomena for themselves.

If someone wants to be an intellectual hermit - they want to reject information & knowledge for whatever reason, I personally think they have that right, but if a religious individual wishes to demand that I ignore observable, well-studied, and well-documented things like the fossil record and DNA, and instead want me to accept some literal interpretation of some book of fairy tales, myths, etc., then I seriously want to ask them if they're high or something.

Neither good nor valid.

 

[YoursTrue]

Greetings,

Again, I never claimed that all elements of scientific research was repeatable. I was also not judging all areas of sciences - I don't know where you are getting that from.

Besides, I clearly stated it depends on what the experiment is in the first place. I never claimed that all experiements and all areas of science have repeatable results. Again, my statement was, "The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab."

As I have been reading more about the Miller-Urey experiments I see that they are evidently repeatable. But my question is: what happens after the initial growth from the ingredients (I don't want to use the word elements) involved? Do these blossom, grow, evolve, to something more than whatever resulted from the experiments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have been reading more about the Miller-Urey experiments I see that they are evidently repeatable. But my question is: what happens after the initial growth from the ingredients (I don't want to use the word elements) involved? Do these blossom, grow, evolve, to something more than whatever resulted from the experiments?

Okay, what that experiment showed is that amino acids can form naturally. Since then we have found other sources for those chemicals. And yes, they will naturally form some fairly complex molecules themselves. It has not been shown how RNA can become self replicating yet, but they have shown that RNA is self forming. Baby steps. Every year they learn more and more. So far nothing that they have learned indicates that abiogenesis is impossible in fact it looks more and more likely as time goes by.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, what that experiment showed is that amino acids can form naturally. Since then we have found other sources for those chemicals. And yes, they will naturally form some fairly complex molecules themselves. It has not been shown how RNA can become self replicating yet, but they have shown that RNA is self forming. Baby steps. Every year they learn more and more. So far nothing that they have learned indicates that abiogenesis is impossible in fact it looks more and more likely as time goes by.

I understand. But the elements had to be introduced and set up by scientists. And I have a further question, which is: what did any of that mess evolve to after the fuzz or foam developed? That simply anyway does not prove-demonstrate-or evidence what is said to be the theory of -- evolution, in this case, abiogenesis. The elements were there. They were introduced by scientists. Oh yes, I realize you may say abiogenesis is not evolution. (Uh-huh is what I have to say to that.)

 

[Audie]

As I have been reading more about the Miller-Urey experiments I see that they are evidently repeatable. But my question is: what happens after the initial growth from the ingredients (I don't want to use the word elements) involved? Do these blossom, grow, evolve, to something more than whatever resulted from the experiments?

Why on earth do creos get so hung up on Miller Urey?
72 years ago!!!
Organic chemistry has actually progressed some since tgen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. But the elements had to be introduced and set up by scientists. And I have a further question, which is: what did any of that mess evolve to after the fuzz or foam developed? That simply anyway does not prove-demonstrate-or evidence what is said to be the theory of -- evolution, in this case, abiogenesis. The elements were there. They were introduced by scientists.

That is incorrect. The elements that they used were ones that were found on the Early Earth in the Miller-Urey experiment. When there were doubts about the atmosphere that was used they replicated other possibilities and still got amino acids. Plus we have found amino acids in meteorites since then and even more important in what is now thought to be the most likely environment it can be shown that amino acids naturally form today. All of this has been pointed out to you with sources many times. How can you repeatedly forget this?

 

[Jimmy]

Last Thursdayism

 

[YoursTrue]

That is incorrect. The elements that they used were ones that were found on the Early Earth in the Miller-Urey experiment. When there were doubts about the atmosphere that was used they replicated other possibilities and still got amino acids. Plus we have found amino acids in meteorites since then and even more important in what is now thought to be the most likely environment it can be shown that amino acids naturally form today. All of this has been pointed out to you with sources many times. How can you repeatedly forget this?

Nonsense. The elements were put together in testtubes by scientists. They had to be catalyzed by electric. It does not prove-demonstrate-verify abiogenesis. Which is more miraculous than its name. Meaning the concept as claimed by some scientists is more miraculous than the claim by scientists that there was a natural thing called abiogenesis that started the process. The fact that the combustible situation has been repeated in no way accurately points to abiogenesis. That these elements can react only means that they can react and that the "causes" for the reaction was introduced by -- men. It cannot be verified as to the beginning of life by putting these elements together in a testtube with electricity running through it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. The elements were put together in testtubes by scientists. They had to be catalyzed by electric. It does not prove-demonstrate-verify abiogenesis. Which is more miraculous than its name. Meaning the concept as claimed by some scientists is more miraculous than the claim by scientists that there was a natural thing called abiogenesis that started the process. The fact that the combustible situation has been repeated in no way accurately points to abiogenesis. That these elements can react only means that they can react and that the "causes" for the reaction was introduced by -- men. It cannot be verified as to the beginning of life by putting these elements together in a testtube with electricity running through it.

No, once again you demonstrate that you do not even understand the simplest of science. Please reread my post.