I take it you've avoided watching any nature documentaries these last 40 years then? Attenborough is always mentioning proboscis this and proboscis that...
Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution
by KateWild 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
bohm
Kate: I could not accept a dog and a wolf would mate, much less a chicken and an elephant. But same species mating and changing slowly over time "small adaptations" is very logical.
I have not read the rat-study, but I also found the fox experiment very interesting and surprising. If you are interested in more details on demestication of dogs, foxes, etc. you can start at the wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox . I must say what I found most surprising about the chapter was the cabbage; I like to cook but it never occured to me the cabbage-like things you find in the supermarket is all related, much less to some insignificant little plant that look like grass! So much for my own ability to be a good scientist!
To answer your question re. bias, I think I should say I grew up in circumstances different than yours, and my attitude towards evolution was it was true like any other well-established and widely accepted scientific theory such as the big-bang theory; in other words it never occured to me to ask if it could be false and I had never met a person who thought so.
This ofcourse changed and so I read amongst other things Dawkins book. You could say Dawkins book confirmed my bias, but I would properly phrase it like it confirmed what I already thought was true. For instance before going to university I certainly thought Einsteins theory of relativity was true, but understanding more of the relevant physics and the experiments that support it I am now even more certain. I would not say this process was one of confirming a bias.
If you want to know what really put the nail in the coffin in terms of concluding the anti-evolution case was intellectually bunk, it was that I on several occations read anti-evolution books and litterature from what normally go as the "big thinkers" on the anti-evolution side (such as Icons of evolution by Meyer or anything by Dembski), and then when I encountered an argument which made me think "he might have a pretty good point here.. I never knew that" then simply going to the primary litterature that the authors themselves was referencing and reading what the studies and finds they were building their case on was actually saying would make me realize that (1) the data was cherry-picked, incorrectly summarized or contradicted by more recent observations (2) there was simply no case to be had (3) the author must either be delusional, dishonest or plain ignorant to give the summary and spin that they have put on it.
I have often tried to be sceptical and play the devils advocate in a similar way to pro-evolutionary claims, and I have never had an experience like the above. In fact, going to the primary litterature very often show the case to be even stronger and more well-developed than the simplified popular presentation.
-
KateWild
Cofty,
I promised you I would read this, and you haven't even commented TSK TSK!!!
Only joking cofty, you have probs had a fun weekend with your family. I love you really Kate xx
-
cofty
Hi Kate.
I'm sure you accept the fact of evolution really. You still seem to be confusing evolution with atheism but I suspect you are doing that for entertainment value.
If you still have some specific questions about evolution perhaps we could help you.
-
Flat_Accent
I think I remember reading this chapter a long time ago. Around the time I stopped being a dub. Somtimes I feel Dawkins doesn't keep your interest when writing. Nevertheless, there's some good examples of Macro-evolution in there. It just puts into perspective that if small changes happen over a 'small' time scale then there is nothing to stop big changes from happening over a larger time scale.
You mentioned a confirmation bias towards a Creator when reading this book, Kate. Which parts have stuck out to you?
Personally I had made my mind up before I read Dawkins'. I had already read through Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' (also an interesting read).
-
KateWild
entertainment value.-cofty
Spot on, I am not confused...totally pulling your leg. TBH evolution is a fact it does not support or refute, God or atheism. Its all seperate. I don't label people as either evolutionists or creationists. IMO there is no such thing, unless one chooses to label him/herself.
cofty, thanks for the challenge I enjoyed it for entertainment and knowledge.
I might even borrow the copy from the library, as I was naughty and read an electronic copy to see if it was worth putting in the effort.
Kate xx
-
KateWild
Which parts have stuck out to you?-FA
Good question. Mainly WT articles about the way Orchids and bee's interact and cleaner fish and larger fish interact. I suspect WT, took Dawkins facts and put their spin on it.
The fact that all nature has this equlibrium is truly awesome but complex at the same time, IMO it all had to be an intelligent Creator, but hey I am only a newbie out a few months, still some residual indoctrination possibly.
Kate xx
-
Flat_Accent
Equilibrium is awesome, very true!
You're right to say evolution doesn't say anything about the existence of God, unless it's JW's or other Biblical-Literalist Gods. Plenty of christians believe in a God that started evolution or something similar.
There are some explanations for the introduction and evolution of altruism, but the question you might ask is why God has made things this way. Is there a better way of doing things? Is this design perfect? I'll leave you to find your own answer to that. Carrying on with your research on evolution will probably help.
Best Wishes.
-
Anony Mous
The purpose of the book is not to teach the details of evolution:
“I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness”
It is intended to make you think about the alternatives. It gives some nice examples which are imho easy to understand but then again, I do work partially within the field of evolutionary biology (and I got the job when I was still a JW no-less).
You raise several questions: " I think that is sad, they are beautiful and harmless IMO, so I don't know why that is the case from a natural selection perspective or God's for that matter" - first of all, butterflies are not at all harmless, their offspring (caterpillars) consume huge amounts of plants (butterfly infestations are destructive) and the butterflies produce hundreds of eggs, their goal as an adult is to reproduce. Why certain things are the way they are is an area of research, there will be some explanations for some things and other things we just don't know (yet). My imagination tells me that if butterflies lived longer and reproduced slower, there would be more chance of them getting eaten by birds and thus less caterpillars (they would in a few generations go extinct), there may have been kinds of butterflies in the past that did so but they have since gone extinct, we don't know. If they reproduced at the same rate but longer periods of time, more caterpillars would eat all the food and thus the next generation would have less so next season there would be less butterflies as the caterpillars die of hunger. All of nature hangs in a fragile balance.
Things are the way they are, asking why is a bad question. Because even if it were different (imagine a parallel universe with more butterflies where half of them die of hunger), we wouldn't know it was different than what we know now, we would simply ask the same question, why this and not the other way but it doesn't matter, the Universe doesn't owe you an answer to that question, the Universe doesn't even care that you ask the question, it just is the way it is.
-
KateWild
All of nature hangs in a fragile balance.-AM
That's what strengthen's my belief in an intelligent Creator.
I am afraid I disagree with your point about asking Why?. IMO Why? is a very good question, for me it motivates inquiry and I gain more knowledge. If I am interested in finding out why, I will not give up, until the answers become to complex or I have discovered why. Kate xx