beyond persuasion

[pietillidie]

God created man and decides who dies and when. God created similarities between man and primates to give man a reason do doubt Him so that he knows who He takes to heaven and who rots in hell for eternity.

Apparently being an invisible trinity who kills people arbitrarily wasn't deemed a stern enough test of faith

[3.14159]

God created man and decides who dies and when.

So god killed Jesus, WOW!

God created similarities between man and primates to give man a reason do doubt Him.

What passage in the bible are you quoting?
...or are you paraphrasing?

he knows who He takes to heaven and who rots in hell for eternity

This God bloke knows bugger all about physics (and biology) or are you just paraphrasing...again.
.

[David]

WIAN is taking the piss, but my Dad has actually said that exact same thing about primates. Poe's Law, I think it's called.

[pietillidie]

WIAN is taking the piss, but my Dad has actually said that exact same thing about primates. Scary.

I pray to god that WIAN is taking the piss!

Yeah, I grew up hearing that kind of stuff, too.

[Wokko]

The only questions around evolution of humans are specifics such as Out of Africa vs multiregional theories. The fact that we evolved is not currently under question.

[pietillidie]

^IIRC another curious element concerns the potential of things like viruses to cause major changes in gene expression. But that's still not questioning evolution per se, only explaining how more radical mutations came about, and hence some gaps in the fossil record perhaps.

[Tannin]

^ OK, but we don't really need to explain gaps in the fossil record. The nature of fossil formation and preservation is so chancy that we have every right to expect gaps as routine.

In any case, evolution has nothing directly to do with mechanisms causing genetic change. Evolution simply rewards successful changes (from whatever cause) with continued survival and eliminates the unsuccessful. In order to function, it simply needs to be presented with some variety. Indeed, the ability to self-generate genetic variety itself is a very heavily selected evolutionary characteristic. Most species generate a moderate amount of variety. Species which generate a lot of variety (e.g., have naturally high mutation rates) tend to do well during times of rapid environmental change (because at least a few of them will be better fitted to the new circumstances than others) but less well during periods of stability (because too many young organisims are changed and thus less fit for survival). Some species are almost immune to mutation and change: the whole crocodile family, for example, barely varies from opne generation to the next. Crocodiles evolved to fit one particular niche and are really, really good at the niche. Any change, for a crocodile, is virtually certain to be a contra-survival change. The crocodiles of today got to be what they are by not changing enough to mention for more than 100 million years. When you are on a good thing, the crocodile genes say, stick to it!

Of course, one day there will be an environmental change which will require that crocodiles change to meet it, and they won't be able to. At that time, they will die out. Mind you, they have managed to survive around 100 times longer than we have so far, so we shouldn't sneer at their very conservative strategy: so far, it has served them well.

Most species, as I mentioned before, have a moderate variability, neither highly changeable like a fruit fly nor highly stable like a crocodile. In general, this is good enough to cope with stable times and still good enough to cope with fairly rapid change. One thing non-biologists nearly always get wrong is that they under-estimate the effect of evolutionary filtering at key change-points. Most species can evolve very, very rapidly when the selection pressures are strong. It is a big mistake to think that evolution is a very slow, steady process. Darwin thought it was, but Darwin lived 150 years ago and we have learned a very great deal since then. Evolution tends to work slowly or not at all for long periods, but can and does work very quickly indeed when circumstances require and permit it.

[HAL]

As a male that may not apply to me.

[pietillidie]

^IIRC another curious element concerns the potential of things like viruses to cause major changes in gene expression. But that's still not questioning evolution per se, only explaining how more radical mutations came about, and hence some gaps in the fossil record perhaps.

^ OK, but we don't really need to explain gaps in the fossil record. The nature of fossil formation and preservation is so chancy that we have every right to expect gaps as routine.

In any case, evolution has nothing directly to do with mechanisms causing genetic change. Evolution simply rewards successful changes (from whatever cause) with continued survival and eliminates the unsuccessful. In order to function, it simply needs to be presented with some variety. Indeed, the ability to self-generate genetic variety itself is a very heavily selected evolutionary characteristic. Most species generate a moderate amount of variety. Species which generate a lot of variety (e.g., have naturally high mutation rates) tend to do well during times of rapid environmental change (because at least a few of them will be better fitted to the new circumstances than others) but less well during periods of stability (because too many young organisims are changed and thus less fit for survival). Some species are almost immune to mutation and change: the whole crocodile family, for example, barely varies from opne generation to the next. Crocodiles evolved to fit one particular niche and are really, really good at the niche. Any change, for a crocodile, is virtually certain to be a contra-survival change. The crocodiles of today got to be what they are by not changing enough to mention for more than 100 million years. When you are on a good thing, the crocodile genes say, stick to it!

Of course, one day there will be an environmental change which will require that crocodiles change to meet it, and they won't be able to. At that time, they will die out. Mind you, they have managed to survive around 100 times longer than we have so far, so we shouldn't sneer at their very conservative strategy: so far, it has served them well.

Most species, as I mentioned before, have a moderate variability, neither highly changeable like a fruit fly nor highly stable like a crocodile. In general, this is good enough to cope with stable times and still good enough to cope with fairly rapid change. One thing non-biologists nearly always get wrong is that they under-estimate the effect of evolutionary filtering at key change-points. Most species can evolve very, very rapidly when the selection pressures are strong. It is a big mistake to think that evolution is a very slow, steady process. Darwin thought it was, but Darwin lived 150 years ago and we have learned a very great deal since then. Evolution tends to work slowly or not at all for long periods, but can and does work very quickly indeed when circumstances require and permit it.

Excellent information in its own right, to be sure, but please see the bolded bits. Rather than a "but", I'd have preferred a lead in more like:

"For all you fundamentalists out there who may misunderstand what PTID is referring to, let me reiterate that...."

[3.14159]

As a male that may not apply to me.

Your a male?

[sixpoints]

Um it's simple if we came from Chimps then why are Chimps still here?

The answer is simple. We didn't evolve from chimps.
Did you find Year 9 Science too big a challenge??

[1061]

I didn't make it to year 9(form 3 in my day).

[stui magpie]

Curious, isn't it. Four responses, and every single one of the four has chosen to respond to the (in relative terms) short-term and trivial form of ignorant denial of known facts - the form which only kills or injures a handful of people and has no great harmful long-term effect on humanity as a whole - as opposed to the far more serious and, in the long term, far, far more dangerous and harmful delusion.

Why is it so?

I my case because I ducked it because I didn't agree with the comparison.

Those who don't want to vaccinate their kids are a tiny minority of numbats while the vast majority accept the facts proven over decades. basically the data set would be a two category bar graph with the anti mob looking like a dog house next to the empire state building.

Climate change on the other hand, for most people, isn't as black and white. The science keeps changing, it's seen by many as "green scare campaign" and a realistic data set of people's opinions would look far more like a bell curve. So while you may see it as the same data set, or comparable notions, most wouldn't.

[Pies4shaw]

The science isn't 'changing' - its just becoming gradually more certain

[stui magpie]

^

Tomato, Tomahto.

But you acknowledge it's not certain yet and potentially more change in views is to come as it becomes more certain.