Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Stretch said:
you are kidding right?

When you say she doesn't believe in evolution what does that men? She doesn't believe that "god" isn't somehow involved, or that she doesn't believe in the mechanics or process of evolution?

Tbh, I know many people with PhDs. They generally focus on such a narrow subject area that unless she studied something directly related to evolution I doubt she know much more about that you. If she did study evolution or genetics you really have to question why she's taken such an interest something she disen't believe in.
Click to expand...

She doesn't believe in the mechanics of evolution.

Well her masters would have covered a fair bit of evolutionary theory, but you're right about the PhD. Her's was relating to Alzheimers and nothing to do with evolution. Her experiences in the lab though have left her very skeptical about research in general though, lots of ignored results and people working towards what they want to be right.
 
yak.h'cir said:
She doesn't believe in the mechanics of evolution.

Well her masters would have covered a fair bit of evolutionary theory, but you're right about the PhD. Her's was relating to Alzheimers and nothing to do with evolution. Her experiences in the lab though have left her very skeptical about research in general though, lots of ignored results and people working towards what they want to be right.
Click to expand...

That does happen. There is a lot of external pressures on some areas of research. That's often part and parcel of a result-driven industry, it doesn't applies to all of science.

As for the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, the tree of life, evolution through natural selection and all that, I'm comfortable with the ideas. Especially with the mountain of evidence supporting them.

I'm also confident we'll eventually have demonstrable experimental evidence for all the stages of the origin and evolution of early life on earth. Something I feel not everyone is looking forward to.
 
doofer said:
WTF is this witchcraft!?

Edit: No one else sees this? :confused:
weirdness.jpg
Click to expand...

lol
 
yak.h'cir said:
She is very very lovely though so I find I'm able to overlook this issue! Hopefully she feels the same about me :)
Click to expand...

She'd better be bloody lovely because she's madder than worm with a backbone.

How ******* ridiculous. Phd in biochemistry and doesn't believe in evolution. I think she needs to read more books on the subject. Start at the beginning. and I don't mean ******* Genesis.
 
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

- Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting topic for GD, even more interesting that it hasn't descended into mud slinging within the first few posts.

I admit to not having more than a GCSE level of knowledge on evolution but from my understanding one of the arguments creationalists have always put forward is that evolutionists can't 'prove' evolution as you can't see it happening, it takes too long.

There has been an ongoing experiment using bacteria which has demonstrated evolutionary change and adaptation to the environment over generations, they are now well past 50,000 generations!

More information about it here.

Doesn't that conclusively prove evolution?
 
TheBigCheese said:
Doesn't that conclusively prove evolution?
Click to expand...

You don't even need to look that far. Mutations through evolution are how bacteria (and their associated diseases) become immune to old vaccines and medicines.

There was a story on my local news the other about so-called 'super rats' which told of how some business owners wanted to use stronger poisons as their local rat population aren't being killed by what current limits allow. That's natural selection right there, the few rats that didn't die as a result of eating the poison survive longer, so have more offspring which in turns means more rats capable of surviving rat poison.
 
i did biochem/molec biology at uni (i wish i didnt but anyhow)

to be fair a lot of people who believe it on here are just believing what they have been told...religion anyone :p

but you literally can see it in viruses/bacteria where the generational turnover is so high something is there after months that wasnt there in the beginning, especially resistances.
so to deny evolution you have to think humans are different from simple life.. but we are literally made up of the same stuff. plus theres archeology etc etc.
unless we are being amazingly hoodwinkedid id stake everything on it being true.

i can see how people believe that 'god' started life off originally.. i have no issue with that.. but to believe the whole adam and eve story as literal.. they are the loonys!
 
Last edited:
Jason2 said:
I don't believe in evolution. It's as simple as that.
[..]
Click to expand...

Do you believe in gravity? The evidence for gravity is no stronger than the evidence for evolution and the theory of gravity is far weaker than the theory of evolution. If you're at all interested in consistency, you certainly shouldn't believe in gravity. Or pretty much anything else.
 
yak.h'cir said:
[..]
My point is that if someone can have such an excellent grasp of Biology and scientific research as my girlfriend does and still not believe in evolution then maybe it's not so black and white.
Click to expand...

In this case, it is. Humans are not wholly rational entities and it is not uncommon for someone to put faith above all else. Denial of the existence of evolution is wholly irrational since it can be observed directly, it has profound effects on humanity (MRSA being the most famous example, but there are very many more) and it has been used as a tool by humans for well over 10,000 years (selective breeding is evolution by human selection - if evolution didn't exist, selective breeding couldn't exist).

The key phrase is "not believe in evolution". That is a faith position, not a rational one. It doesn't matter how well educated she is if her faith outweighs all else.
 
TheBigCheese said:
Doesn't that conclusively prove evolution?
Click to expand...

It's a great experiment! And I think it does show evolutionary change.

A creationist viewpoint would go along the following lines though; The experiment would be considered an example of micro evolution, which is the adaptation of a species to it's environment. But the changes are relatively small and you would not consider it a new species (i.e. orange butterflys that become brown would still be considered butterflys, giraffes that develop longer necks would still be giraffes...). Macro evolution being the transformation of one species into something that could be considered a new species (fish becoming land mammals) and they would say this experiment does not show that. I must stress though that's just my understanding of what creationists argue is true!

I don't think the majority of evolutionary scientists consider it in terms of micro/macro though. Just evolution!
 
al4x said:
i can see how people believe that 'god' started life off originally.. i have no issue with that.. but to believe the whole adam and eve story as literal.. they are the loonys!
Click to expand...

I know a few people that genuinely believe the world is only 4000 years old (they think the world was created old)! I don't mean to be rude to them but I struggled with that one!!!
 
yak.h'cir said:
I know a few people that genuinely believe the world is only 4000 years old (they think the world was created old)! I don't mean to be rude to them but I struggled with that one!!!
Click to expand...

i think your views are nicely balanced, need more religious people like you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom