The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[Walker]

Every now and then a gem will appear in a news blog:

As a biologist, I have sometimes been confronted with: "I guess you believe in evolution". The person is usually surprised when I say, no, I don't.

And I don't "believe" in evolution because science is not a belief-based system. The current scientific explanation of how all organisms came to be at this time on earth is based on an enormous body of knowledge developed through observation and experimentation. This explanation may change as further scientific evidence comes to light, but it is the best explanation for the knowledge we have at the moment.

If the person persists that evolution is nonsense, then I often ask them what their opinion is of quantum mechanics, to which they usually reply they have no opinion because they do not know anything about it. So I ask them to explain to me what evolution is, because logically they must therefore have knowledge of the concept of evolution in order to have an opinion about it. The conversation usually stops there.

Really? That’s a specious statement from a biologist since the theory is rather simple and easy to understand.*

He evidences a sort of old Catholic model, where the keys to the temple were for those with the proper qualifications to understand. With evolution, all that really varies is particulars about the details of the general theory, and the degree of eagerness in accepting the premise that how it all started is superfluous to the process.

He is correct that belief in science is a great oxymoron.
It’s also a significant tell in those who must slay all dragons.

* What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
https://www.livescience.com/474-controv ... works.html

[thedoc]

Really? That’s a specious statement from a biologist since the theory is rather simple and easy to understand.*

The theory might be easy to understand and accept, but there are many people who refuse to understand or accept it. They prefer the Mythology of the church. In the church I attend there is a person who states that 'Humans are not animals', and since he is well respected in that community I have not challenged him on that point. I have also not pressed him to explain further, I just didn't want to start an argument.

[PauloL]

Where did I claim that only 2 nucleotide's were needed to transport oxygen? The first links in the chain might have had an entirely different function, nature and evolution often takes a structure that is preforming one function and adapts it to preform some other unrelated function. I don't know how long the first chain was that carried oxygen but apparently evolution continued to make it longer to improve the efficiency.

I didn't say otherwise neither that a 2 nucleotide (*) would transport oxygen. I said that you can start with as many nucleotides as you like to create a model that overcomes virtual impossibility (10E190).

(*) By the way, you need a minimum of 3 nucleotides or a multiple of 3. Don't worry, I did that same mistake.

[PauloL]

... Evolutionauts ... Evolutionomics ...

What are these meant to mean?

They don't like evolutionism neither evolutionist, so I created these. Tell what to call this and I'll use it.

[Arising_uk]

They don't like evolutionism neither evolutionist, so I created these. Tell what to call this and I'll use it.

You made them up, what are they supposed to mean?

[PauloL]

Every now and then a gem will appear in a news blog:

As a biologist, I have sometimes been confronted with: "I guess you believe in evolution". The person is usually surprised when I say, no, I don't.

And I don't "believe" in evolution because science is not a belief-based system. The current scientific explanation of how all organisms came to be at this time on earth is based on an enormous body of knowledge developed through observation and experimentation. This explanation may change as further scientific evidence comes to light, but it is the best explanation for the knowledge we have at the moment.

If the person persists that evolution is nonsense, then I often ask them what their opinion is of quantum mechanics, to which they usually reply they have no opinion because they do not know anything about it. So I ask them to explain to me what evolution is, because logically they must therefore have knowledge of the concept of evolution in order to have an opinion about it. The conversation usually stops there.

I thought you were a musician. Your writings match more one.

Don't worry about Quantum Mechanics. I understand that, but it's off-topic and won't help solve the puzzle of Evolution.

[Harbal]

and won't help solve the puzzle of Evolution.

You seem to be the only one puzzled by it.

[PauloL]

Really? That’s a specious statement from a biologist since the theory is rather simple and easy to understand.*

The theory might be easy to understand and accept, but there are many people who refuse to understand or accept it.

Not me. I understand it, but it creates lots of doubts in me. I'm ready to accept it if plausible, but so far that seems quite hard to attain.

They prefer the Mythology of the church. In the church I attend there is a person who states that 'Humans are not animals', and since he is well respected in that community I have not challenged him on that point. I have also not pressed him to explain further, I just didn't want to start an argument.

I prefer neither of those. I'm not a religious person, much less mythologist or the like.

I'm not committed to any line of thought, unlike many people here, most notably Davidm, who is afraid of rejection by his peers.

I only search one thing:

TRUTH.

[PauloL]

They don't like evolutionism neither evolutionist, so I created these. Tell what to call this and I'll use it.

You made them up, what are they supposed to mean?

I think their meaning is self-evident and you can propose better terms for me to use, as I told you before.

[PauloL]

I haven't offered evidence so far but from reliable sources and authors, like Nature, Scientific American, Thomas Morgan and Isaac Asimov.

Still, people here insist I'm a religious, mythologist, creationist, mormon, and whatever.

Maybe I'll disappoint you, but I'm neither.

If I had to choose between Mythology and Religion, I'd choose Religion as less bad.

Likewise, if I had to choose between Evolutionism and Creationism, I'd choose Evolutionism, but I wouldn't be happy again.

Thankfully, I'm free. Something not all of you can say.

I ask people how Evolution can explain some perplexing things and they seem so perplexing indeed people can't explain them in light of natural selection. To compose that, they use all types of manipulative rhetoric instead.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I haven't offered evidence so far but from reliable sources and authors, like Nature, Scientific American, Thomas Morgan and Isaac Asimov.

Still, people here insist I'm a religious, mythologist, creationist, mormon, and whatever.

Maybe I'll disappoint you, but I'm neither.

If I had to choose between Mythology and Religion, I'd choose Religion as less bad.

Likewise, if I had to choose between Evolutionism and Creationism, I'd choose Evolutionism, but I wouldn't be happy again.

Thankfully, I'm free. Something not all of you can say.

I ask people how Evolution can explain some perplexing things and they seem so perplexing indeed people can't explain them in light of natural selection. To compose that, they use all types of manipulative rhetoric instead.

What is your point exactly? No one's disputing that we don't know everything there is to know about how the process of evolutionary change happens in every instance, but that's not the same as saying evolution (change over time) doesn't happen. Your sneering references to 'evolutionauts' and 'evolutionism' are straight out of the 'creationist's handbook'. So what IS your point?
ps. If you don't answer then we will know you are just a troll.

[PauloL]

ps. If you don't answer then we will know you are just a troll.

Look at the subtle (or not so much) manipulation here. They decide I'm a creationist under argumentation not deserving any credit and say they're right if I don't do what they want me to.

[PauloL]

What I seek here is Dialectics, but I can accept rational rhetoric.

Instead, with a few exceptions, what you get here is manipulative rhetoric at best.

I'm not that surprised except for the dimension one sees here and I wasn't counting.

[Harbal]

They decide I'm a creationist under argumentation not deserving any credit and say they're right if I don't do what they want me to.

So what's wrong with that?

[PauloL]

Ps. It's 'haemoglobin' you philistine.

It seems you need checking an English dictionary.