What convinced you of Evolution?

Let me just start off by saying that evolution has about the same amount of evidence as any other religion does (maybe even less)... So, what convinced you of evolution over any other religion? Were you just brought up with the theory of evolution? Does it just make sense to you? Were you forced into it because you refused to believe in a deity? Or are you just one of those, "Scientists thought of it...It must be true" kind of people? Please post your response, because I am honestly quite curious.Now, I, by no means am trying to come off as mean or disrespectful here, I am just honestly curious in what would convince someone that a theory with an extremely insignificant amount of evidence could be true.

For myself the more I understood the easier it was to see how much sense it made.You should head off to the other thread discussing evidence for evolution. Your statments such as: are very wrong. If you think otherwise you could go to the appropriate threads and demonstrate how much you know about available evidence.

And evolution is NOT a religion -- people who believe in variety of different religions have been able to accept it. All that is necessary is not to be too literal-minded about one's favorite sacred books.

quote:

---

And evolution is NOT a religion -- people who believe in variety of different religions have been able to accept it. All that is necessary is not to be too literal-minded about one's favorite sacred books.

---

Evolution isn't a religion?Definition of Religion- A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith.let's break it down...A cause, principle, or system of beliefs
Most Definitely
held to with ardor or faith.
See belowNow you may think the part about ardor is unlike evolution. But when you think about it, Evolution really is held together by faith in. For if it weren't, nobody would be here right now, for it would have to be the truth.So call it what you want, but I'm going to continue calling it a religion, because it sure fits the definition...

I accept evolution because it makes sense of a vast array of biological data, and because no other explanation even attempts to do so. If someone comes up with an alternative that explains the data as well as evolution, I will consider it seriously; if someone comes up with one that does a better job, I'll adopt it. Until then, I'll keep using what works.As for the religion bit, it's complete nonsense. I have a religion, and evolution isn't anything like it. My religion has a founder whom we revere, and whom we quote and discuss every week. It has a set of scriptures, ancient rituals, and a wide range of ethical teachings and philosophical positions. Evolution has none of that. Practicing biologists almost never quote Darwin professionally (I've never read any of his books, come to think of it) and couldn't care less what you think of hiim, no holy writings or rituals (other than drinking beer), and no ethical or philosophical teachings. Evolution is just science, indistinguishable in its main features from any other science I've encountered.

quote:

---

Now, I, by no means am trying to come off as mean or disrespectful here

---

Guess what? You succeeded without even trying.

quote:

---

I am just honestly curious in what would convince someone that a theory with an extremely insignificant amount of evidence could be true.

---

There are two possibilities here. One is that you are actually familiar with the tens of thousands of papers in genetics, paleontology, microbiology, comparative anatomy and all of the other fields of biology that support (and are supported by) evolution, and that you have evaluated all of the evidence in those papers and concluded that it doesn't hold up. The other is that you are not in a position to make the judgment you just made. Which is it?

You are now starting to wander off your own topic. I think there are thread appropriate for that. Go the the "Is it Science" forum perhaps. When you repost there we can talk about it.

quote:

---

Definition of Religion- A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith.

---

Interesting. You quoted the fourth definition from Merriam-Webster. Would you care to post the first three definitions, and see how well evolution fits them? This definition is an extended, figurative meaning -- lots of words have them. By this definition, the Republican Party, stamp-collecting, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and free speech are all religions. Such a broad definition says just about nothing about the subject.

quote:

---

Now you may think the part about ardor is unlike evolution. But when you think about it, Evolution really is held together by faith in. For if it weren't, nobody would be here right now, for it would have to be the truth.

---

Could you clarify? I don't know what you mean by the last sentence.

quote:

---

Interesting. You quoted the fourth definition from Merriam-Webster. Would you care to post the first three definitions, and see how well evolution fits them?

---

I'd love to. You see, the first couple were either too brief or too descriptive to describe a religion...1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observanceThis is way too descriptive for any religion. Buddaism, Taoism, and many others could not exist within this definition. You would agree those are religions, correct?2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practicesThis one uses the word religious inside it, one reason I didn't want to use it (then I would have to define religious). But I think Evolution could fit this one, also...3 archaic : scrupulous conformityThis one was too brief to categorize anything...

quote:

---

quote:

---

For if it weren't, nobody would be here right now, for it would have to be the truth.

---

​

Could you clarify? I don't know what you mean by the last sentence.

---

Yep, I can clarify. What I meant was nobody would be here, in the forum, if the theory of evolution were the truth. I mean, to put this in a different perspective, if the definition of triangle was untrue or incomplete there would probably be many people arguing over it.

DaVxOrI am going to test if you are certain of the things you take for granted.You state. What is the definition of a triangle old man?------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

Edit to remove double[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-01-2003]

No, there are a number of reasons why people are here.Myself, I'm here to learn about the enemies of reason.This has proved to be useful a number of times already. I, now and then, run into people who think that maybe this "equal time" thing is fair. That he creation "scientists" should have a say in school as a balance kind of thing.However, a short exposure to the level of reason shown by creationists and the complete lack of any evidence for their postition pretty quickly produces more laughter than any sympathy for the position. If it is a friend of mine taking the "equal time" position I don't have to say anything myself, just let them read over material here.

quote:

---

Yep, I can clarify. What I meant was nobody would be here, in the forum, if the theory of evolution were the truth. I mean, to put this in a different perspective, if the definition of triangle was untrue or incomplete there would probably be many people arguing over it.

---

Ok, I see. I'm afraid you're wrong, however. Lots of people firmly believe things that aren't true, and are quite happy to argue about them. People believe there were no moon landings, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical documents. Mostly I ignore beliefs like that, but when the belief in question threatens my country's schools, my church and my livelihood, I start to pay attention.

quote:

---

1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

​

This is way too descriptive for any religion. Buddaism, Taoism, and many others could not exist within this definition. You would agree those are religions, correct?

---

Yup. Kind of makes you think that just blindly applying dictionary definitions isn't going to lead to clear thinking about what constitutes a religion, doesn't it?

It would appear that we need to explore the meanings among ourselves. Clearly people use the word "religious" in a number of different ways.If I say someone is "religious" about their fitness classes. I would hardly be meaning the same thing as when I say the Pope is a deeply "religious" man, would I?If we take it as simply being something that a person pays a lot of attention to then to someone (as has been said earlier), somewhere, everything is a religion.If that is the meaning you want, DaVx0r, the answer is so what? Sure it is a religion. However, the separation of church and state did not intend to separate football, now did it?Is Christianity just as important as football? Is that all it is because it is just another religion like football is?If it isn't just like football then please offer a definition which separates them.You initial definition has the word "faith" in there. I'm sure some fans have "faith" that their team will win, in spite of all evidence. Or is that not the kind of faith you meant?And, while we are at it, where does faith enter into the ToE? It seems to me that one doesn't get away with taking something on faith in science. You need data and/or darn good logical reasonig to support your conjectures.

DaVx0r writes:

quote:

---

Evolution isn't a religion?

​

Definition of Religion- A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith.

---

Logical error: Equivocation.The use of the term "religion" in the sentence "Evolution isn't a religion" is not the same use of "religion" in the definition you provide later.By the definition you provide, football is a "religion."Somehow, I don't think we'd manage to equate Christianity to football.Evolution is not a cause, a principle, or a system of beliefs.It is a theory based upon observation.

quote:

---

Evolution really is held together by faith in.

---

You mean we cannot see it happening? That's strange....Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.So why is it we can see evolution happening right before our very eyes if it is something that is only "held together by faith"?

quote:

---

So call it what you want, but I'm going to continue calling it a religion, because it sure fits the definition...

---

Then you must be a polytheist since I am sure you have many "causes, principles, or systems of belief held to with ardor or faith." Love your family? That's "religion." Have a favorite sport? That's "religion." Happen to be one of those that treats your car like a person? That's "religion."Are you seriously trying to say that somebody who finds cooking an elegant meal to be one of the most supreme things a person can do is the same as a Christian?Perhaps, rather than using definition 4 from Merriam-Webster, you should use the first one: How does evolution fit into this defintion?

​

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!