Isn't this cute?

[metis]

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that life forms have and will continue to evolve? This should be just old-fashion common sense. And religious beliefs should be enlightening, not an exercise in blindness to reality.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's not speculation. It's based on analysis of the fossil's features. The Taung child is pretty much identical to other fossils of Australopithecus Africanus. It's not a like all other great ape since it's fully bipedal, possess a larger cranial capacity and has evidence of living in a largely matriarchal group (which is very rare in great apes) all of which are hominid characteristics, but possess a lot of great ape characteristics like hands with fingers all the same size, strong bone crest, strong jaw, etc.

Sure thats one theory, but the theories about it have been over the place, from a descendant of Australopithecus afarensis, others deciding it is a Australopithecus sediba, and others calling it an ordinary ape.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that life forms have and will continue to evolve? This should be just old-fashion common sense. And religious beliefs should be enlightening, not an exercise in blindness to reality.

Life forms adapt. I can observe this.
I can not observe one kind becoming another. Should I assume that happened on blind faith in human reasoning?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that life forms have and will continue to evolve? This should be just old-fashion common sense. And religious beliefs should be enlightening, not an exercise in blindness to reality.

According to a study from 2006, evolution denialism in the US is rooted in three main factors (in order of importance): 1) fundamentalist religious beliefs, 2) Republican Party politics, and 3) lack of knowledge of science.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~kaufmann/biol190/Miller_et_al_2006.pdf

 

[Jose Fly]

The good thing is, fundamentalist Christianity is in serious decline in the US, the GOP has generally moved away from advocating for creationism, and science literacy is increasing. All of that has resulted in younger generations of Americans being pretty much in line with the rest of the world when it comes to accepting the reality of evolution.

That's why these "debates" (I hesitate to call most of them actual debates) are about in the same league as "debates" with flat-earthers. In both cases the anti-science, anti-reality side isn't really relevant and is largely relegated to arguing their nonsense in old message boards and forums.

 

[metis]

According to a study from 2006, evolution denialism in the US is rooted in three main factors (in order of importance): 1) fundamentalist religious beliefs, 2) Republican Party politics, and 3) lack of knowledge of science.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~kaufmann/biol190/Miller_et_al_2006.pdf

Exactly, and I ran across this a lot, let me tell ya.

As you may remember, I taught an Intro to Anthro course for 30 years, and at the end of each semester I had my students fill out confidential surveys about evolution at both the beginning and the end of the course. The beginning survey was generally a three-way draw between "believe*", "don't believe", or "unsure" in regards to the evolution of life forms. At the end of the course, this same survey results were overwhelmingly "believe*", maybe 1 or 2 "unsure", and pretty much 0 "don't believe" with one exception. In all my years of doing this, I only had one student who said he/she didn't believe, and then (s)he added that (s)he was going to go into teaching within her/his Baptist denomination.

Now, either the overwhelming evidence for evolution speaks for itself or I'm the world's greatest salesman, and I highly suggest that it isn't the latter.

 

[Astrophile]

Not a small furry four legged land dweller the size of a dog. My guess is that they were probably whales......since all living things reproduce according to their "kinds", ancestors of whales, had to be whales.....isn't that logical?

There are no Mesozoic or Palaeozoic fossil whales. Unless you believe in spontaneous generation, modern whales must have had Mesozoic and Palaeozoic ancestors, therefore they must have evolved from animals that were not whales.

That's easy...I believe that they were a direct creation of a highly Intelligent Creator, whose power science cannot measure or even imagine.

What reasons do you have for believing in the existence of this highly intelligent and powerful Creator? All the supposed reasons that I know of either beg the question or use circular arguments.

 

[Jose Fly]

Exactly, and I ran across this a lot, let me tell ya.

As you may remember, I taught an Intro to Anthro course for 30 years, and at the end of each semester I had my students fill out confidential surveys about evolution at both the beginning and the end of the course. The beginning survey was generally a three-way draw between "believe*", "don't believe", or "unsure" in regards to the evolution of life forms. At the end of the course, this same survey results were overwhelmingly "believe*", maybe 1 or 2 "unsure", and pretty much 0 "don't believe" with one exception. In all my years of doing this, I only had one student who said he/she didn't believe, and then (s)he added that (s)he was going to go into teaching within her/his Baptist denomination.

Now, either the overwhelming evidence for evolution speaks for itself or I'm the world's greatest salesman, and I highly suggest that it isn't the latter.

That's pretty cool! Maybe it's both...you were a great teacher who had good material.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Exactly, and I ran across this a lot, let me tell ya.

As you may remember, I taught an Intro to Anthro course for 30 years, and at the end of each semester I had my students fill out confidential surveys about evolution at both the beginning and the end of the course. The beginning survey was generally a three-way draw between "believe*", "don't believe", or "unsure" in regards to the evolution of life forms. At the end of the course, this same survey results were overwhelmingly "believe*", maybe 1 or 2 "unsure", and pretty much 0 "don't believe" with one exception. In all my years of doing this, I only had one student who said he/she didn't believe, and then (s)he added that (s)he was going to go into teaching within her/his Baptist denomination.

Now, either the overwhelming evidence for evolution speaks for itself or I'm the world's greatest salesman, and I highly suggest that it isn't the latter.

Sad how easily people are indoctrinated.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sad how easily people are indoctrinated.

So tell me.....why do you think the world's life scientists have all generally agreed for more than a century that evolution occurs and all life on earth shares a common ancestry (humans and other primates included)?

Do you think they're all just really, really bad at their jobs? Are they involved in the largest and longest-running conspiracy of all time? Something else?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So tell me.....why do you think the world's life scientists have all generally agreed for more than a century that evolution occurs and all life on earth shares a common ancestry (humans and other primates included)?

Do you think they're all just really, really bad at their jobs? Are they involved in the largest and longest-running conspiracy of all time? Something else?

So you are saying if the majority believe something it must be true? How has that worked out historically?

 

[Jose Fly]

So you are saying if the majority believe something it must be true? How has that worked out historically?

I didn't say that at all. I'm asking what your explanation is for the long-running agreement regarding evolution among the world's life scientists.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I didn't say that at all. I'm asking what your explanation is for the long-running agreement regarding evolution among the world's life scientists.

The explanation was just given. It's what they are taught in college, so they incorporate whatever evidence they find into that worldview. And of those who do question it, how many have the courage to come out and stand against the tide? If they do they are ostracized and possibly lose their job.
But there are those who have spoken out.

 

[Jose Fly]

The explanation was just given. It's what they are taught in college, so they incorporate whatever evidence they find into that worldview.

Ah, so you believe the world's life scientists for the last 100+ years have all been kinda dumb and easily to manipulate.

And of those who do question it, how many have the courage to come out and stand against the tide? If they do they are ostracized and possibly lose their job.
But there are those who have spoken out.

There seems to be a disconnect here. On one hand you paint scientists as empty-headed dupes who just mindlessly go along with whatever they're taught, but then you contradict that by saying they're also strong dogmatists who are quick to aggressively suppress any dissent.

Fascinating.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ah, so you believe the world's life scientists for the last 100+ years have all been kinda dumb and easily to manipulate.


There seems to be a disconnect here. On one hand you paint scientists as empty-headed dupes who just mindlessly go along with whatever they're taught, but then you contradict that by saying they're also strong dogmatists who are quick to aggressively suppress any dissent.

Fascinating.

Lol, okay however you want to spin it!
Most people are rather easy to manipulate when they're young, and once they have an opinion, most people aren't happy with those who think differently than they do. So, I'm not seeing a contradiction.

 

[Jose Fly]

Lol, okay however you want to spin it!
Most people are rather easy to manipulate when they're young, and once they have an opinion, most people aren't happy with those who think differently than they do. So, I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Seems pretty obvious (not spin). You believe the reason the worlds life scientists have agreed on evolution and common ancestry is because they just mindlessly went along with whatever they were taught in college.

That makes me wonder....have you ever taken any higher level (i.e., graduate level) biology, genetics, or evolutionary biology courses?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Seems pretty obvious (not spin). You believe the reason the worlds life scientists have agreed on evolution and common ancestry is because they just mindlessly went along with whatever they were taught in college.

Which was just confirmed by a teacher of evolution, presumably from a college.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which was just confirmed by a teacher of evolution, presumably from a college.

As I described.

So again, have you ever taken a higher-level course in biology, genetics, or evolutionary biology?

Also, why do you believe professors have been doing this across the world for well over 100 years? Do you think it's a big conspiracy?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Also, why do you believe professors have been doing this across the world for well over 100 years?

Because they have been taught what to teach. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because they have been taught what to teach. It's not that hard to understand.

So no one ever actually plotted to "indoctrinate" the world's biology majors into evolution, it just kinda happened, eh?

And I'll take your repeated dodging of my question about whether you've taken higher-level biology courses as an indication that you haven't. And that makes me wonder just how you know so much about what goes on in biology classrooms, when you've never actually been in one?