question for those who reject biological evolution

[anotherneil]

Y would I?

I already stated the purpose or reason for doing so - to treat illnesses.

 

[Audie]

Not in my world, but in some others' worlds ... I guess so.

Ignorance and inattention is super expensive

 

[anotherneil]

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, etc. evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor. Humans are far beyond the thinking capacity of gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees. That, to me, is just realistic. You will never convince me that they are not. I know you do not have respect for the Bible which is why I am not quoting anything from it.
Nevertheless, the reality shows that humans are far beyond chimpanzees, etc., in thinking ability.

Humans having thinking capacity that's superior to other primates doesn't refute biological evolution; it only demonstrates that humans are distinct from other primates.

BTW, chimps have certain mental capabilities that are superior to humans: Chimps beat humans in these cognitive tests

 

[Audie]

Humans having thinking capacity that's superior to other primates doesn't refute biological evolution; it only demonstrates that humans are distinct from other primates.

BTW, chimps have certain mental capabilities that are superior to humans: Chimps beat humans in these cognitive tests

Note that all primates are very distinct from
eachother.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans having thinking capacity that's superior to other primates doesn't refute biological evolution; it only demonstrates that humans are distinct from other primates.

BTW, chimps have certain mental capabilities that are superior to humans: Chimps beat humans in these cognitive tests

I think I got the point of the link about cognitive ability of chimps, nevertheless, humans have developed reading and writing, chimps, to the best of my knowledge, have not. Maybe someone wants to provide a link showing that chimps have developed reading and writing skills without human intervention. Just wondering. Yes, animals have abilities that humans do not have. Which makes life all the more wonderful.

 

[F1fan]

My age aside, when I think about what's packed in a cell in the womb, I wonder if you can explain how it happened. Biologically speaking, of course. Which is certainly related to evolution. the theory of.

There are explanations on the internet. You work hard to avoid answers so you can maintain doubt that serves your religious beliefs.

 

[anotherneil]

The question really is not about evolution, because many people believe in that, and do not believe in God. Or are agnostic. But there are those who believe in the theory of evolution AND also God. So the question is why do such ones believe in God? They've given their reasons for believing in the theory of evolution, but so far have not explained why they also believe in God.

Off topic for my thread, but interesting question for another thread.

However, I'll just go ahead and give you my response to this right now - I was raised to believe in God, taken to Bible study classes & church every week. I was quite devoutly religious at that time in that I believed in God without question, but as I grew up and learned science, and compared how science involved showing nature, the universe, and reality through observation, experimentation, critical thinking - while religion didn't do any of that, it was not difficult for me to make the choice between religion and science. I chose science, and lost interest in having a belief in God, just like I did with the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, a jolly guy on a sled that flies who goes to every home delivering presents, etc.

Now I see religion as serving no good purpose for humanity & as something that today is only used control, manipulate, and brainwash people. It's one thing if someone wants to believe in things like the existence of an all-powerful being, but when their religious beliefs lead to the disruption, obstruction, and destruction of science, knowledge, truth, the technology that can help humanity, etc., that - obviously - is a problem for humanity.

I can understand how someone who believes in God would be totally fine with biological evolution as simply being a perfectly good explanation for the process that God used to create us, but I don't get it with someone who believes in God being driven to deny science and refuse a treatment for an illness. If a belief in God is causing someone to refuse a treatment for an illness, then it seems like it would be in their best interest to stop believing in God, or at least stop believing in God in that way.

 

[anotherneil]

Yeah, I don't want to hurt myself.

Then my OP question is perfect for you, if you reject biological evolution.

 

[anotherneil]

Ah thank you! So cell multiplication and differentiation have nothing to do with the process of evolution, you say. The procedures are just all packed into the first cell...lol ty. Nothing to do with evolution,you say. Ok.

I think what @Pogo means is that they're two different aspects of biology, just like mass and force are two different aspects of physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think what @Pogo means is that they're two different aspects of biology, just like mass and force are two different aspects of physics.

This is way beyond me. On the subject of believing that evolution and that of evolution starting with abiogenesis is the way life developed is not something I agree with, based on the amazing things I see around me. Just recognizing all the "information" within the first cell within the womb is too amazing for human thoughts in my opinion. I did not always believe this way. I believe now that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Pogo]

First of all, no-one here is denying that life is amazing in all it's form and complexity.
The discussion here is how it got to be that way.
Evolutionary Biology is just the study of the observed facts in the generational changes in life forms. It makes no claims positive or negative to ultimate causes. Not understanding the subject while finding it complex is not a good reason for denying what we do know, it is literally what is called the argument from ignorance.

Secondly, in your ignorance you are going down another rabbit hole and further confusing yourself about biological evolution by sidetracking into the field of embryology which is the study of development from fertilization of the egg to the fetal state. Evolution is how you get to the egg in the first place and what happens to produce future eggs. They are both biology, but concepts do not necessarily transfer. Stick with evolution for now, embryology is much more complicated and less well developed as yet.

As an example of the disconnection in terms of religious understanding, I rode the bus to and from work with a devout biblical literal Christian who denied evolution and "billions of years" and was up to 5 children on his way to 8. His job was as a PhD studying neural tube development which covers how our spine and nervous system develop. His take was that he was studying how God did this amazing thing.
It made for some interesting conversations.

 

[Astrophile]

My age aside, when I think about what's packed in a cell in the womb, I wonder if you can explain how it happened. Biologically speaking, of course. Which is certainly related to evolution. the theory of.

This does not answer my question. I asked what things you were taught in school as facts about evolution that were eventually changed. I did not ask what your reasons are for rejecting evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, no-one here is denying that life is amazing in all it's form and complexity.
The discussion here is how it got to be that way.
Evolutionary Biology is just the study of the observed facts in the generational changes in life forms. It makes no claims positive or negative to ultimate causes. Not understanding the subject while finding it complex is not a good reason for denying what we do know, it is literally what is called the argument from ignorance.

Secondly, in your ignorance you are going down another rabbit hole and further confusing yourself about biological evolution by sidetracking into the field of embryology which is the study of development from fertilization of the egg to the fetal state. Evolution is how you get to the egg in the first place and what happens to produce future eggs. They are both biology, but concepts do not necessarily transfer. Stick with evolution for now, embryology is much more complicated and less well developed as yet.

As an example of the disconnection in terms of religious understanding, I rode the bus to and from work with a devout biblical literal Christian who denied evolution and "billions of years" and was up to 5 children on his way to 8. His job was as a PhD studying neural tube development which covers how our spine and nervous system develop. His take was that he was studying how God did this amazing thing.
It made for some interesting conversations.

In your ignorance you do not really know what I believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

This does not answer my question. I asked what things you were taught in school as facts about evolution that were eventually changed. I did not ask what your reasons are for rejecting evolution.

I reject the theory as put forth by Darwinists. You don't need to really know anything else except read the books and concepts that have changed over the years.

 

[anotherneil]

I reject the theory as put forth by Darwinists. You don't need to really know anything else except read the books and concepts that have changed over the years.

You have posted well over a dozen times on this thread, yet - unless I somehow missed it, you have not yet answered the OP question.

Will you answer the question?

 

[YoursTrue]

You have posted well over a dozen times on this thread, yet - unless I somehow missed it, you have not yet answered the OP question.

Will you answer the question?

You are referring to your post at the beginning? If so, I must say I can't really comment in reference to that because I don't know how you figure "biological evolution."

 

[anotherneil]

You are referring to your post at the beginning?

Yes, of course.

If so, I must say I can't really comment in reference to that because I don't know how you figure "biological evolution."

There's nothing to figure (and BTW I'm not relevant to the topic).

It's a thought experiment - pretend you're in your doctor's office or the hospital because of an illness that you have:

There is a treatment that has been developed for it, and it was only made possible because of knowledge derived from biological evolution. There is no other treatment or way to deal with this illness. Let's also say that it has a greater than 99% rate of success & no known negative effects. It's also something the physician can administer on the spot, and it's not expensive at all (or all health insurance policies cover it).

You're on the spot at this moment - your physician is asking you whether or not you wish to choose to receive this treatment. One of two things will happen, you'll accept it and receive it, or you'll reject it and not receive it. When you leave the doctor's office or the hospital, one of those two things happened, for you. Which one happened?

If you left without receiving this treatment, then why did you reject it? (This is also asked in the OP.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, of course.


There's nothing to figure (and BTW I'm not relevant to the topic).

It's a thought experiment - pretend you're in your doctor's office or the hospital because of an illness that you have:

There is a treatment that has been developed for it, and it was only made possible because of knowledge derived from biological evolution. There is no other treatment or way to deal with this illness. Let's also say that it has a greater than 99% rate of success & no known negative effects. It's also something the physician can administer on the spot, and it's not expensive at all (or all health insurance policies cover it).

You're on the spot at this moment - your physician is asking you whether or not you wish to choose to receive this treatment. One of two things will happen, you'll accept it and receive it, or you'll reject it and not receive it. When you leave the doctor's office or the hospital, one of those two things happened, for you. Which one happened?

If you left without receiving this treatment, then why did you reject it? (This is also asked in the OP.)

When I receive a medication from a doctor I do not ask for studies regarding the effectiveness of the medication. I hope the prescribing doctor knows what he's doing. On the other hand, I might look up more about the medication later, but not usually. I just accept it. It's not the same with me and evolution since I studied the Bible and believe what it says about creation. Biologics do not prove evolution (and by prove I mean demonstrate without question the truth of the theory, but that's me now and I don't expect or believe everyone will agree). What it does show is that entrenched codes such as DNA are passed on from individuals and can make changes in that individual to which it is passed. This does not prove or demonstrate the theory of evolution as said from the first cell onward. One may theorize or fantasize about it, but that does not mean the theory is true. It may look like it's true in some people's minds, but again -- that does not mean it's true. Also, some people get well supposedly from taking a medication, while others do not.

 

[anotherneil]

When I receive a medication from a doctor I do not ask for studies regarding the effectiveness of the medication. I hope the prescribing doctor knows what he's doing. On the other hand, I might look up more about the medication later, but not usually. I just accept it. It's not the same with me and evolution since I studied the Bible and believe what it says about creation. Biologics do not prove evolution (and by prove I mean demonstrate without question the truth of the theory, but that's me now and I don't expect or believe everyone will agree). What it does show is that entrenched codes such as DNA are passed on from individuals and can make changes in that individual to which it is passed. This does not prove or demonstrate the theory of evolution as said from the first cell onward. One may theorize or fantasize about it, but that does not mean the theory is true. It may look like it's true in some people's minds, but again -- that does not mean it's true. Also, some people get well supposedly from taking a medication, while others do not.

You're attacking a straw man. This thread isn't about claims pertaining to things that "prove evolution."

The underlying premise of this thread's topic is this: a scientific generalization made by geologists and biologists that was derived from findings, observations, discoveries, and inductive reasoning pertaining to things like the fossil record and DNA led to the theory of evolution; this generalization was then used to find and develop treatments for some illnesses.

There are some out there who say that it's just a theory, and with the sentiment that it therefore is simply to be dismissed and discarded like an empty wrapper, but they don't provide a valid rebuttal or reason for such a sentiment.

That's actually fine with me. I do not support the imposition of scientific knowledge on anyone; to me that's not science. Science does not involve telling anyone to believe anything. If there's any sort of coercion involved in getting anyone to believe something (even if it's widely accepted by the scientific community), that's not science; that would be indoctrination.

When I went to college and took natural science course labs, I was required to document what I did and observed with the experiments I conducted in the past tense, in order to get a good grade. I even recall, on at least one occasion, a natural science course professor starting off a sentence during lecture by saying "if you accept (a conclusion based on an experiment)...", and that's exactly what science education is about.

The same applies with things covered in science textbooks or anything else (the news, what politicians say in stump speeches, etc.); the critical thinker and responsible reader or audience member is one who's skeptical of anything they come across.

That includes accepting or rejecting any treatment for an illness. Just as I do not support the imposition of scientific knowledge on anyone, I also oppose forcing anyone to take a treatment for an illness if they do not wish to accept it.

If someone who rejects biological evolution would choose to reject a treatment for an illness that was developed with the help of that generalization about evolution, then they're being consistent - which I can respect and appreciate.

However, if someone who rejects biological evolution would choose to accept such a treatment for an illness, then it seems to me like they're perhaps being a hypocrite, or perhaps they're not being serious about their rejection of biological evolution - and if the basis for rejecting biological evolution is their religious beliefs or training, then doesn't that mean they're not taking their religion seriously?

I'm curious to know why someone who rejects biological evolution would accept a treatment for an illness that was made possible and developed because of biological evolution - that's what this thread's about.

Unless I somehow missed others, you are the only one so far who seems to be providing a response to why not, although in a rather round-about way. Please let me know whether or not this is a correct summary and assessment of your answer: basically you don't accept biological evolution, but you would be fine with receiving a treatment for an illness based on it because you didn't look into the background of the treatment. Is this correct, or am I off?

If that is correct, then I'd like to ask you a follow-up question: suppose that by chance you had found out that the treatment for the illness was founded on and developed from the generalization of biological evolution, from a friend who talked about it, a documentary you watched recently, a newspaper article you read earlier, etc. - then would you reject it? If not, why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My age aside, when I think about what's packed in a cell in the womb, I wonder if you can explain how it happened.

Your argument from incredulity, is noted.

Biologically speaking, of course. Which is certainly related to evolution. the theory of.

Yes, embryology in context of evolution is pretty well understood - and has been for quite a while now.