Global warming and the zombie apocalypse

[Tannin]

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

[thebaldfacts]

[Pa Marmo]

[David]

My parents are young-earth creationists, and if there's anything that's taught me it's that these arguments never get very far. Still, I'm always happy to debate it respectfully and see if we can reach some common ground.

For me, the first step is to throw away all the scientific research and look at it with a layman's eyes (not being an expert on either climate change or evolution, that's pretty much where I'm at anyway).

Generally, there are two dominant accounts in these arguments. One is that the Earth, universe and all its life-forms were created spontaneously 6,000 years ago by a divine being or force who is beyond the realm of human science. The only means of discerning that this was the case is reading one of many religions' holy books (which, all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Ancient Greeks and Scientologists would agree are almost always wrong�the only right one is theirs) and believing that it is divinely inspired truth (and intended literally to boot).

The other position is one that, like every other scientific discovery in the history of humankind, began from a desire to resolve a question that was then unanswered through the scientific method: how did we as a species originate? Only people who think that the answer was already provided by the holy book could think that this isn't a question worth pursuing through any means possible.

Like many complex scientific theories, evolution doesn't always seem to be intuitively true. The same could be said for many other fields of science: does the moon really control the tides? Is it really possible that quantum particles are affected by 'observation'? Can mountain ranges really be caused by tectonic plates? But these things have been accepted by the scientific community and nobody much questions them because there is no motivation to do so. Nobody thinks that there is a conspiracy to make everybody believe that Neptune is made of gas instead of rock. We trust the scientific method to teach us about us, the world and the universe, and it rarely lets us down.

I don't always understand every aspect of the evolutionary process. I struggle with the idea that a wingless species can transform into a winged species over the course of a million years. But I think I understand the basic principle of mutation and natural selection, and to me when we're dealing with such vast periods it seems inevitable that changes will occur. I also understand the concept of a life-form so basic that it has more in common with a mineral than an amoeba. If I were around in the early 19th century and someone came up and told me this theory, I'd think "yeah, that actually seems possible".

Of course, it's much more than a mere theory these days, and�as much as there are arguments about how it has occurred�the vast majority of scientists these days accept that we have evolved. Likewise, the nature of quantum particles is debated, but not their existence. The jury is in.

Personally, unless I believe in God to begin with, the idea of spontaneous creation just doesn't seem credible to me. It requires belief in miracles, and my empirical understanding of the world is that miracles do not occur. Neither does it point to the existence of a creator that is at all interested in the affairs of human beings. Neither does it point to an ancient text full of myths and legends�written at a time when myths and legends were the norm�being a faultless historical account of human civilisation. Those can never be scientific conclusions; they are articles of faith. I do not think that faith is sufficient for resolving matters of science.

I know that every Creationist argument against evolution will always have an ulterior motive underlying it�that is, a desire to prove that Biblical testimony is infallible. That's not a scientific process; it's an exercise in confirmation bias. You could say the same about the scientific establishment, only it's not true�new scientific research disproves old scientific presumptions all the time. It is a field that accepts criticism and rejection of established ideas. Adherence to the Biblical narrative of creation by its very nature doesn't. One could choose to be an agnostic and claim "we just don't know", but an unbiased reading of scientific research suggests we actually do.

[David]

[Pa Marmo]

Excellent post David, and I enjoyed reading it, but still no empirical proof.

[pietillidie]

[thebaldfacts]

David,

Thanks for your response. Basically I think we agree. It depends on your belief. If you don't believe in God, then you MUST believe naturalistic processes are the only explanation. Think you refer to confirmation bias and that is just as applicable to atheists as it is to creationists. Each side modifies their theories to accommodate new discoveries without changing the underlying premise of their belief.

You state a life form so basic that it has more in common with a mineral than an amoeba. We know from molecular biology that the simplest life form based on DNA analysis is the equivalent of a 500 page book. That is enormous in terms of difference.

Your faith in vast periods of time that changes will occur is commendable. I too agree that changes will occur, but will not result in microbes changing to every living thing on this planet with the complex machinery associated.

It seems to me that your belief requires a miracle for life to start from inorganic matter, and then a multitude of miracles to get to where we are now. Yet you state you do not believe in miracles. Your belief system requires a multitude of miracles. Just because it does not involve a creator, it does not make it any less a miracle.

The reason why this debate will never be settled, is that one must believe what the other believes to change their view. We all have the same evidence, but we all start from a different belief system.

[Tannin]

^ Rubbish. Any first year biology student can conclusively demonstrate the action of evolution through experiment in a couple of weeks using nothing more than a small wire cage and a few fruit flies, or by observational methods over just a couple of years. Anyone at all - you don't even need specialist training or tools for this one - can see the record of evolution in action by examining old rocks. Any dog breeder knows all about it as he (artificially) manipulates the process in order to achieve the desired conformation. Any economist sees it and describes it as naturally as breathing. And so on.

Evolution is as well evidenced as gravity, better evidenced than nuclear fission, and much better evidenced than the quantum mechanical natural laws which make the computer you read this on work. All three, however, have been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt, many times over. Our understanding of all three will be refined and improved further as we learn more about the world around us, though we are unlikely now to see any major, revolutionary change - even quantum physics, long a deeply controversial and murky field, seems to have more-or-less settled on the Standard Model now, particularly in light of the conclusive new evidence being provided by the Large Hadron Collider.

[thebaldfacts]

[sixpoints]

^
Some people struggle with the distinction between the biochemical and morphological bases to natural selection. The oft used morphological examples eg long fur is better in the cold etc are used as they are simple to understand, but that is not the key to natural selection.
Natural selection works in terms of the relative breeding successes of phenotypical different members of a population. However if there is no genotypical basis to that phenotypical difference then how on earth does that phenotype pass those features on to the next generation?
Long hair does not get passed to the next generation. The allele of the gene
for the production of long hair does. You don't give your hair to your offspring, you give either a sperm or an egg with genetic their allelic versions of your species genes. Alleles can only arise by mutation (random insertions, deletions, repetitions, reversals). Nothing else causes changes in inheritable DNA.
Hence inheritable shifts in allele frequency in a population is the quantifiable measure of natural selection occurring. Without variation (and that can only mean variation with a genetic basis) within populations no allele frequency shifts (evolution by natural selection) can occur.
So natural selection acting selectively upon the phenotypical variations caused by genotypical mutations unites all species. It's what they've all been through (and will continue to do).
What is also undeniable evidence for the commonality of life is again at the biochemical level. There are a set of key metabolic pathways that have been found to occur in all life forms. These pathways could occur in innumerable ways. Yet they do not differ. Not in any known organism, not even in any known cell of any known organism. They are the stuff of life that unites every cell on the planet. - no common ancestor?
Haven't even touched upon the fields of analogy, homology, vestigial structures, comparative DNA analysis etc

[pietillidie]

Pa Marmo, just to check you're not talking at cross-purposes to Tannin and David here, I'd be very interested to know what you think the following terms mean in the context of the present discussion:

1. evidence
2. theory
3. knowledge

Science has certain definitions in mind here.

[Tannin]