|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Indeed, I haven't. But I think it's important within the science community to have these debates and misconceptions fiercely debated because it show what the possibles misunderstandings could be and how to fix them.
Like I said before, hell breaks loose when journalists try to see what is going on and get it all wrong. |
Wholeheartedly agree. However, a serious problem is created when these debates arise just for the sake of debating and not out of a real, factual, fresh, and healthy need for it.
You see, I was one of the people that had a problem with evolutionary theory because it seemed like a fantastic tale in the same way that Adam, Eve, and the talking snake reeks of mythology. However, I have always had a scientific-oriented mind that I believe was partly inherited from my father's side of the family (my grandfather was a scientist, you can read about him HERE if you are interested) and partly due to my father's teaching me to have a scientific approach to things (that is, to question everything I was told and withholding opinion until I learned the facts or lack of them).
I did not attribute the things that I did not make sense about evolution at the time to the theory being wrong, but rather to my lack of knowledge and understanding of it. That was why I decided to do my own research through books, scientific articles, asking questions to knowledgeable people, videos, etc. and learned that what I was taught in school about evolution was either wrong or poorly explained. Chimpanzees, and orangutans are not our "parents", but are rather our cousins stemming from a common ancestor. Living things don't suddenly mutate at random, but rather adapt to environmental conditions or don't and those who do are the ones that leave more offspring and therefore are more likely to survive, etc, etc, etc.
I don't, however, get your comment about journalists. Is it about my earlier post or is it just a separate comment? You might have misunderstood the post about Wells as a journalist saying stuff about him, because that paper I quoted was actually written by himself. But if it's just a separate comment it does make sense and I tend to agree. :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Living things don't suddenly mutate at random, but rather adapt to environmental conditions or don't and those who do are the ones that leave more offspring and therefore are more likely to survive, etc, etc, etc. |
Well, the mutations themselves are random in the statistical sense -- they are not usually caused in a predictable way by factors in the environment -- but the differential reproduction is not. "Adaptation" is just another way of saying "mutation + some mutants reproduce more than others." Adaptation occurs at the level of the clade rather than that of the individual.
Just a clarification. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Well, the mutations themselves are random in the statistical sense -- they are not usually caused in a predictable way by factors in the environment -- but the differential reproduction is not. "Adaptation" is just another way of saying "mutation + some mutants reproduce more than others." Adaptation occurs at the level of the clade rather than that of the individual.
Just a clarification. |
Yeah, thanks for clarifying. That was exactly my point though; that the way that it is generally taught in schools makes the uninformed student grasp the notion of "randomness" in a more conventional way than what is intended by Darwin and modern evolutionary biology. It almost makes no distinction between random and spontaneous.
Richard Dawkins's books on evolution and biology explain the theory brilliantly to the general public. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Yeah, some people seem to have the idea that evolution means something like those "chimpanzee gives birth to human being!" stories you see in tabloid magazines.
:wtf: |
|
|
| woscar |
Yeah, lol. If I had a nickel for every person who has asked me "Well, if humans are descended from chimps then why are there still chimps? huh? Huh? HUH?".
:stongue: |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Do you know what percentage of people believe in evolution in Guatemala? I think here it is like 40% or 50%. |
|
|
| woscar |
I have no idea, and you just sparked my curiosity to do some research. :D
I don't see how it could even come close to 25%, let alone 40% or 50%. |
|
|
| woscar |
I've made some rough calculations based on some known racial demographics and the number would have to be somewhere between 10% - 15%.
:( |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I've made some rough calculations based on some known racial demographics and the number would have to be somewhere between 10% - 15%.
:( |
What are the demographics you based this on? |
|
|
| woscar |
In a country of roughly 13 million inhabitants, only 2-3 million live in big cities. That's about 19% of the overall population, which is the one that actually has a chance of getting a proper education. However, out of this 19%, only half actually get a proper education which brings the total to around 10% if you round up.
Like I said, it is a very rough estimation only. The number could be way off but I wouldn't be very optimistic. The chances diminish significantly when you take into account that about 50% of the population claims to be Roman Catholic, 40% are from any sort of protestant religion, 1% practices an ancient mayan cult, and 9% choose not to answer. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
In a country of roughly 13 million inhabitants, only 2-3 million live in big cities. That's about 19% of the overall population, which is the one that actually has a chance of getting a proper education. However, out of this 19%, only half actually get a proper education which brings the total to around 10% if you round up.
Like I said, it is a very rough estimation only. The number could be way off but I wouldn't be very optimistic. The chances diminish significantly when you take into account that about 50% of the population claims to be Roman Catholic, 40% are from any sort of protestant religion, 1% practices an ancient mayan cult, and 9% choose not to answer. |
Pretty decent deduction with the educational assessment; although, it is based on a great deal of assumption. I'd be willing to believe you're close to the right number though.
I'd put less stock on the religious demographics in this regard though. The RC church actually endorces evolution as probable (although this is not doctrine by any means) and most protestant churches view the creation myth as entirely allagorical. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I've made some rough calculations based on some known racial demographics and the number would have to be somewhere between 10% - 15%.
:( |
If those assumptions are true then
CONGRTULATIONS!!!
Youre about on the same level as peoplein america.
1982 to 2004: Gallup polls:
The Gallup Organizations periodically asks randomly selected American adults about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults on at least six occasions between 1982 and 2004. By keeping the wording of their questions identical, each year's results are comparable to the others. This facilitates the detection of trends. 10
Belief system> Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Beliefs-->
Year
Column 1:God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. (not evolution)
Column 2:Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. (close but no, still not evolution)
Column 3:Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. (thats the one)
1982-JUL 44% 38% 9%
1993-JUN 47 35 11
1997-NOV 44 39 10
1999-AUG 47 40 9
2001-FEB 45 37 12
2004-NOV 45 38 13
Source
Arent you proud.
1982 to 2004: Gallup polls: |
|
|
|
|
