For instance we have evolved brains to resist the idea of evolution. This thread goes into the matter. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/seven-evolutionary-reasons-people-deny-evolution
I think you're trying to go in two directions at once. Science as a way of thinking is very probably abnormal, requires a LOT of training, and even with that training scientists revert to non-scientific thinking outside their own fields. Science demands that people be humble, that they admit error, that they publish hypotheses that are usually incorrect knowing they'll be wrong (and publicly wrong) far more often than they're right. Science requires logical thinking, science works against the human tendency to see purpose in everything, whereas science sees such purpose in nothing. Evolution is kind of a different story, because evolutionary theory conflicts with a common religious doctrine AND because evolution attacks man's ego, saying that we are contingent, temporary accidents of a directionless process. And that's so insulting and offensive all by itself, that when combined with religious indoctrination, it prevents most people from ever understanding (or even coming reasonably close) what evolution IS.
First of all I am scientist and atheist. I do not believe in creation but I am not sure if the theory of evolution is the right one or if there could be another explanation far from "evolution" or "creation". What is disturbing to me in the theory of evolution is that it seems to be frozen. We neither see algue develop into protozoae or amphibiae into mammals nor can we repeat it experimentally. In addition the theory seems to assume a kind of "step-by-step-evolution" in spite of all processes occurring in parallel. There is no logic reason when some higher species devlops from a lower one for the process to stop. Secondly the "survival of the fittest" theory assumes that a higher and better adapted species by natural selection replaces the older one. In reality however humans exist with apes, crocodiles with fish. The so called "lower" species are perfectly suited to live under our present conditions. If this is the case, how can "selection" have been occurred? Most disturbing to me is the influence of politics on sciences. For "Political Correctness now the first human being is assumed to have been female and Black African. Besides the fact that "Africa" possibly was "Pangae" and what today is Africa at the tiime being was Europe: how can anybody know at which steps politics has injected more propaganda material. A science not being capable to fight that influence is not worth to be trusted. My summary is: "Creation": possible but very unlikely, "Evolution" possible and very likely, "Theory X": possible and very likely. I'll keep my eyes open and do not bend to the dogma.
What kind of scientist are you....your lack of understanding of evolution and science in general is stunning.
Pangaea was long gone before the rise of mammals...africa has been separate from europe for about 200 million yrs, the family/ancestors of apes as it is now is only about 5 million years old...these aren't obscure science facts so I question whether you are a scientist...
Then debunk me instead of your silly infantile ad hominem attacks. "Ad hominem attacks" are unscientific and signs for those defending fabricated tall tales. The good ones fight with facts.
Then debunk me instead of your silly infantile ad hominem attacks. "Ad hominem attacks" are unscientific and signs for those defending fabricated tall tales. The good ones fight with facts. 1. "Pangea" broke apart some 150 -300 Million years ago. The precise date is irrelevant. What counts is the margin of error, which amounts 150 Million years. After breaking apart its parts didn't form new continents with the speed of ocean liners. I do not know exactly the speed of continental drift, but its in the range of a few centimeters or inches per year. Making a pit stop over Laurasia and Godwana the plates slowly with the speed of the US Mail Service moved to the place they have today, on their way significantly changing shape and size. So at which year exactly was a tectonic plate broken away from Pangea or Godswana worth to be called "Africa". Just when it broke off? After having its present form? Its present position? Task 1: Tell me EXACTLY the year when "Africa" was born 2. Mammals developed 260 Million years ago, primates accrued around 100 Million years ago, hominidae some 20 Million years ago. Anthropologists are not so self critical lilke geologists to give at least rough margins of uncertainity. Assuming it is +/- a few Million years, means that the first primates jumped around when the American continent just broke off from Gondwana. The plate today known as "Africa" approximately 75 Million years ago collided with young "Europe", the collision leading to the formation of the "Alps". I do not know exactly after how many Million years after the collision the plate arrived in its present position. The tectonic conglomerate of the African/European plates however certainly was not what we can call "Africa". This means we arrive now at 50 Million years ago (+/- 150 Million from the error margin of the Pangea age estimation) when posibly something was standing in the middle of the ocean at least roughly looking like Africa. On this peace of land since the time it was connected with America, since 50 Million years and 25 Million years before it collided with Europe Primates jumped around which somewhen around 30 Million years developed into "hominidae". This is known to ourselves because it is the oldest trace of a living form we define as "hominidae". And even if "Lucy" was female that does not say that the first homindae was a woman. The chances are 50:50 that the next one we find is a man. Because the transition from "Primate" to "Hominidae" is "floating" and nobody knows if the oldest one being found is the oldest one which existed the best guess is that some kind of "mankind" developed in the time when the African tectonic "boat" sailed from America to Europe and docked on the European "boat". How can anybody say that the passengers on that "boat" were "domestic" African products or if they "boarded" in the USA or 25 Millions later in Europe? How can anybody who is not deeply infected by political correctness honestly trumpet around that the first human being was a black African female? Give me a scientific answer please. No ad hominem b.u.l.,l.s.h.i.t. Then we can move on to the next points being idiotic in your distinguished scientific view.
To stay at the OP evolution has nothing to do with the way modern man thinks of himself , the human exceptionalism was cultivated by religious and state institutions . They say that big brains , specialization , forward thinking and complex societies are proofs of human superiority but then an asteroid falls and everything over the size of 1 kilo dies , how having a big brain will be something to brag about then? *I cried laughing with "observing algae evolve into a mammal" comment made by a "scientist" , homo sapient (us) is around for like 200.000 years , it took 100's of millions of years of even more for single cell organisms to become multicellular .
Though it may very well be you are a scientist, it doubtful your field of study encompasses that which you are delving into. Expecting even the most learned geologist to give an "Exact" date for the "Birth" of the African continent clearly shows a somewhat limited understanding of both plate tectonics and continental drift...though we could likely tell you when humankind decided to name it such. The process of this drifting geology does not lend itself to accurate dating or anything remotely close to precise estimate. Your understanding of "Lucy" is also quite confused, as placing a race on ANY ancient fossil is simply not something a scientist would do. Also, it is very clearly understood that there could not be a female found without the automatic assumption there were males available for its production. The fact you seem to believe hominids developed while the Supercontinent was "Floating Around" (quite humorous in itself). makes it clear your understanding of Geological timescales and primate evolution are wanting. IF you are a scientist....I would recommend you either stick to your field of expertise, or avoid the pretense that you are skilled in the ones being discussed here.
Maybe.... I read the article. Seems to me lots of people have the kind of thinking the author describes and they do not all disbelieve evolution. Overall it seemed like a stretch to ascribe childlike ways of thinking to anti-evolutionist, and to at the same time try to link modern spiritualistic thinking to the anti-scientific community. The article did a good job of being neutral in tone but the information in it seemed highly speculative and slanted.
IF you are a "scientist" it falls under the same heading as when someone does a gee-whiz demo for grade school kids and says "you are all scientists". You might like to look up what "ad hom" actually means, Your misuse of that term, as well as your awkward and incorrect word usage and grammar suggest a generally low level of education. Credibility! I might as well expect to be credible if I went to a football after-game show, said I was a football expert, then went on about goals and the rink. Oh, I could cry AD HOM if people booed and laughed at me!
I minor correction : races can be and are defined through fossils , Heidelbergensis and Rhodesiensis are different races of the same species and same goes for Ergaster and Asian Erectus .
science doesn't discredit the existence of a god all it does is discredit the literal interpretation of genesis the first book of the bible you can be a Christian and be a firm believer of science, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory
Unless your field of scientific inquiry and expertise is Baking.....I doubt very much you are indeed scientifically endowed, of minded. One will never understand Evolution without incorporating time. The process is not at a standstill, and is occurring as I type this (see virus), but as species adaptation takes place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years we can only note those changes from the past...fortunately there are many to view. The idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest) does not mean one species "Replaces" another, instead indicating that over time a species changes to adapt and we will note the difference much later in comparison. The fact you need to ask why crocodilians and fish co-exist, or Apes an ourselves makes it painfully clear you are little more than a very poorly disguised creationist troll attempting to play with intellectual matches.
even the time line you provide makes claims of africa not being a separate continent at the time of the rise of Hominidae absurd...you don't need to be a scientist to know africa was a separate continent 30 million years bp the big issue you appear to have is black ancestry from africa... - - - Updated - - - in light of recent discoveries all of which are now in question and need to be reexamined...
I'm all pro science. I think that right now many fields of science are suffering from an ethics problem. Its all about getting published no matter how. A picture is worth a thousand words. Right now the AGU(American Geophysical Union) is having their fall meeting. Here is a picture from their ethics seminar.
Your belief is based on a photo taken ostensibly at an ethics seminar, which if it even is, could have been taken before, after, or during an intermission? There is a fair amount of pseudo science and nonsense in the "soft sciences" like psychology, and fraud or shoddy work is common enough in medical research. Could you be specific about why you think what you do?
and races isn't a biological term, you won't find it in Taxonomy... the recent research/discoveries in Georgia cast a doubt over how classifications are done by morphology alone in determining sub-species, DNA would appear to be the only method that's trustworthy...
Well the first glaring one would be that the chairman of the "new task force on scientific ethics and integrity" at AGU stole documents from a conservative think tank through wire and identity fraud and still has a job.
