Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

[w1z4rd]

If we dont even know its an event then we cant conclude that the habitat was actually even changed.So maybe at that point in time there was no need for evolution to be the thing that saved them.

We know habitats have changed many times over in most places. We have had several ice-ages, meteorite impacts, etc. Evolution doesnt save anything. You keep see`ing it as a force. Its more a result.

Let me try simplify the concept.

You have 100 birds on an island. They all get a virus. All but perhaps 5 die. The offspring of those remaining birds will all be immune to the virus. Soon there will be 100 birds again, but all immune to a specific virus. On the island next door where the virus did not get to.... they have the same type of bird, except without the evolutionary change.
You have 100 birds on an island. They eat all the fruit. They start starving. Most of them die, a couple of others manage to survive by eating insects. Their offspring will more easily be able to eat insects and survive.
You have 100 birds on an island. Aliens come down and blow up most of the red and blue birds. A couple survive by hiding. The offspring of those hiders will be better able to survive a future with aliens as they inherited the ability to hide from aliens. Dude, even if aliens come down, evolution still plays its part If the birds are not able to find a way to survive the aliens then they become extinct. As with the dinosaurs.

There is no magical force that comes downs and makes them all able to eat bugs or to be immune to that virus. Its those that survive whatever event are more likely to have offspring that are better able to survive that event.

 

[w1z4rd]

How do you guys feel about the theory of irreducible complexity, for example that the eye is too complex to have evolved by slight genetic variations and mutations from eyeless ancestors?

Its pretty debunked already. Otherwise known as the "peanut butter" experiment

 

[Nicodeamus]

Why do people who do not believe in mainstream scientific theories always try to go out of their way to prove that their ignorance is right. They usually get another theory or article written by someone who pretty much doesn't understand say evolution of the big bang and then attribute that to being the ultimate de facto truth. I find this very common.

 

[porchrat]

Which is what you said the other day that evidence of the same virus was found in lots of different species,so maybe there was a virus that could infect multiple different species?Possible right?

Not likely no. Viruses don't really work that way. They are pretty specific. Even infecting 2 species at the same time is a monumental thing. Infecting many different species all at once then leaving identical bits of genetic evidence? No.

Hey maybe it was aliens that came down and hunted the "red and blue" ones and left the rest alone in which case evolution did not have any hand in it lol while ridiculous sounding we cant say for sure as we don't know...its a big question mark...thats all im saying.Correct?

We don't know and can never disprove it. So it isn't science. Also you have no evidence. No evidence of these aliens. Show the scientific community some evidence and solid predictions that can be disproven and then they will pay attention. Standing around going "evolution could be bullschit because ALIENS!!!" is not going to get you anywhere, you need evidence.

Science is not here to entertain all weird and wacky possibilities. It is here to interpret observations. No observations, no science. Start behaving otherwise and you open the door to stories of vampires, lerprechauns, unicorns etc. total messy waste of time

 

[copacetic]

How do you guys feel about the theory of irreducible complexity, for example that the eye is too complex to have evolved by slight genetic variations and mutations from eyeless ancestors?

I feel about this, the same way I feel about Kent Hovind.

 

[porchrat]

I feel about this, the same way I feel about Kent Hovind.

ROFLMAO @ Irreducible complexity. What a crock.

 

[w1z4rd]

Why?

I've asked a few people about how the eye could have evolved from eyeless creatures by only minor genetic changes from generation to generation.

My question is always dismissed without a clear answer.

I saw a video wherein Richard Dawkins claims to debunk the idea by arguing that the eye evolved from light-sensitive skin. It was a video targeted at laypeople so it was not very technical but as is always the case in science, the devil lies in the detail, and I found the arguments presented far from conclusive.

I looked up the Peanut Butter Experiment referred to by ghoti. It seems to argue against abiogenesis by pointing out that new life does not originate in a sealed peanut butter jar. I do not understand how it relates to the question of irreducible complexity and the evolution of the eye.

The following are my opinions:

• I suspect most medical students probably don't critically evaluate what they are taught. They believe what they are taught because the textbook reads so and the lecturer says so and because that's what they need to answer in a test to get the marks they need to pass.
• Many doctors go into medicine not because they have any real interest in the field but because it is a lucrative and prestigious career.
• Some of the best doctors rely on talent, instinct and compassion rather than a technical understanding of the theory in order to treat patients.
• The pass mark at universities in South Africa is 50 %. A doctor can have been wrong about half the time and still have graduated.

So I do not believe that the average doctor has a critical understanding of the theory of evolution. There is a difference between medicine and medical science.

My bad Jamal. I confused the peanut butter argument. I thought they both were along the lines of "too complex to have evolved". I remembered incorrectly. Sorry about that. Thank you for correcting me.

There is good information here on the evolution of the eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye It is an area of study we need to understand better, but one well studied.

Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale, and the slightly older Emu Bay Shale. [4]

I wonder what happened during the Cambrian period that life evolved so much so quickly.

 

[copacetic]

Why?

I've asked a few people about how the eye could have evolved from eyeless creatures by only minor genetic changes from generation to generation.

My question is always dismissed without a clear answer.

I saw a video wherein Richard Dawkins claims to debunk the idea by arguing that the eye evolved from light-sensitive skin. It was a video targeted at laypeople so it was not very technical but as is always the case in science, the devil lies in the detail, and I found the arguments presented far from conclusive.

I looked up the Peanut Butter Experiment referred to by ghoti. It seems to argue against abiogenesis by pointing out that new life does not originate in a sealed peanut butter jar. I do not understand how it relates to the question of irreducible complexity and the evolution of the eye.

The following are my opinions:

• I suspect most medical students probably don't critically evaluate what they are taught. They believe what they are taught because the textbook reads so and the lecturer says so and because that's what they need to answer in a test to get the marks they need to pass.
• Many doctors go into medicine not because they have any real interest in the field but because it is a lucrative and prestigious career.
• Some of the best doctors rely on talent, instinct and compassion rather than a technical understanding of the theory in order to treat patients.
• The pass mark at universities in South Africa is 50 %. A doctor can have been wrong about half the time and still have graduated.

So I do not believe that the average doctor has a critical understanding of the theory of evolution. There is a difference between medicine and medical science.

1 minute on google, provides a wealth of information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.abstract

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://labs.eemb.ucsb.edu/oakley/todd/research/arthropod-eyes/

http://therelativelyinterestingblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/irreducible-complexity-intelligent.html

There are thousands of articles to choose from.

 

[porchrat]

Why?

I've asked a few people about how the eye could have evolved from eyeless creatures by only minor genetic changes from generation to generation.

My question is always dismissed without a clear answer.

Probably because people aren't prepared to bother addressing something that could be answered with a few minutes of googling. Even Wikipedia has an article on the evolution of the eye. Not indecipherable science journals... WIKIPEDIA... for Odin's sake.

 

[Keeper]

How do you guys feel about the theory of irreducible complexity, for example that the eye is too complex to have evolved by slight genetic variations and mutations from eyeless ancestors?

There are plenty of creatures out there with varying types of eyes, from the very basic all the way to the advanced.
They are all out there for everybody to see, right here, right now.



but let me ask you a quick question...
Why does an ostrich who can't fly have hollow bones, yet a bat that can fly, has solid bones?

 

[porchrat]

I don't know how reliable Wikipedia is, especially on emotive issues like evolution.

Just check the Discussion page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye to see the two sides fighting it out. The Discussion page is longer than the actual article.

The following citation caught my eye:



The citation [32] refers to the following quotation:



Now Michael Shermer is a historian and Christopher Hitchens is a journalist. Why is this being cited in what is supposed to be a scientific article?

Frankly that particular bit of information is by now common knowledge. It doesn't have to come from a scientific source at this point.

but I agree it is always best to find a scientific source.

 

[copacetic]

I don't know how reliable Wikipedia is, especially on emotive issues like evolution.

Just check the Discussion page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye to see the two sides fighting it out. The Discussion page is longer than the actual article.

The following citation caught my eye:



The citation [32] refers to the following quotation:



Now Michael Shermer is a historian and Christopher Hitchens is a journalist. Why is this being cited in what is supposed to be a scientific article?

There are plenty of academic articles, in peer-reviewed science journals, they generally need a sub though, which is why I didn't link to any of them. If it's important to you, you will make the effort to obtain the information further than youtube videos, wikipedia and asking on arb internet forums (not that these are necessarily bad sources of info, but you don't seem satisfied with what you are getting).

 

[copacetic]

It would only be meaningful for me to do this if I had the knowledge of biology to truly understand what the articles were saying, and to be able to critically evaluate their claims, which I don't. In this case I submit to the opinion of scientists who have the knowledge of biology to critically evaluate the claims made by the theory of evolution.

I'm just saying that as a layperson I find it hard to understand how the eye could have evolved from eyeless ancestors, or how mammals have consciousness.

There are plenty of articles, books, and documentaries that are more than accessible to the lay-person.

*edit*

By your own admission here, the issue is your ability to comprehend, not with the available information, which makes it strange then, that you are surprised when people can't easily address what is a complex issue with you in general conversation.

 

[w1z4rd]

This seems to be a more in depth (well cited) article on the evolution of the eye.
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.full

 

[copacetic]

This seems to be a more in depth (well cited) article on the evolution of the eye.
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.full

Already linked to it. It was ignored.

 

[porchrat]

I'm just saying that as a layperson I find it hard to understand how the eye could have evolved from eyeless ancestors, or how mammals have consciousness.

Then if the subject truly interests you keep reading until you do.

 

[porn$tar]

In my opinion it would actually make the most sense for birds to have a cartilagenous skeleton rather than a bony skeleton.

Cartilage is denser than bone, and thus heavier for the same volume. Also cartilage is flexible and wouldn't be able to support the birds body during flight.

So a bony skeleton actually does make the most sense.

 

[CoolBug]

Why?

I've asked a few people about how the eye could have evolved from eyeless creatures by only minor genetic changes from generation to generation.

My question is always dismissed without a clear answer.

I saw a video wherein Richard Dawkins claims to debunk the idea by arguing that the eye evolved from light-sensitive skin. It was a video targeted at laypeople so it was not very technical but as is always the case in science, the devil lies in the detail, and I found the arguments presented far from conclusive.

I looked up the Peanut Butter Experiment referred to by ghoti. It seems to argue against abiogenesis by pointing out that new life does not originate in a sealed peanut butter jar. I do not understand how it relates to the question of irreducible complexity and the evolution of the eye.

The following are my opinions:

• I suspect most medical students probably don't critically evaluate what they are taught. They believe what they are taught because the textbook reads so and the lecturer says so and because that's what they need to answer in a test to get the marks they need to pass.
• Many doctors go into medicine not because they have any real interest in the field but because it is a lucrative and prestigious career.
• Some of the best doctors rely on talent, instinct and compassion rather than a technical understanding of the theory in order to treat patients.
• The pass mark at universities in South Africa is 50 %. A doctor can have been wrong about half the time and still have graduated.

So I do not believe that the average doctor has a critical understanding of the theory of evolution. There is a difference between medicine and medical science.

if you are asking about the eye then you certainly dont know enough about evolution to dismiss it, why not research a little? there are so many amazing resources out there.

yes the eye is complex but we can see a definitive progression from light sensitive cells to slightly more comlex eyes like a snail untill eventually you get to the human eye but it doesn't stop there, there are many other species that have much better eyesight than humans, owls, eagles and octopusses have better eyes than humans, would a creater seriously favor an ANIMAL over a human when it comes to the most important sense, eyesight?

seriously, google evolution of the eye, the more you read the more you'll understand, here is the first link in the google search results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Sent from my ASUS Transformer, rooted with Revolver ROM, 1.6GHz

 

[CoolBug]

Then if the subject truly interests you keep reading until you do.

true, if someone does unbias, honest research, it's easy to separate the truth from the bs.

you'll very quickly find out if the author has some sort of an agenda

me, as an extreme skeptic, my agenda is to promote doubt.

doubt everything! the more you doubt, the more questions you'll have, the more answers you'll get.

sometimes however, there is no answers, yet. Untill then be humble enough to say: I don't know.

but with evolution there really is so many answers, if you live in SA and doubt evoution you owe it to yourself to visit the cradle of humankind, go check out marapeng. Go look at hominids currently being dug out, go look at some of the awesome fossils they have on display like the Archeopterix which has avian (bird) traits as well as reptillian traits. It has feathers, claws, wings a long tail and teeth just to name a few.

I am proud that Sterkfontein alone has produced more than a third of early hominid fossils ever found.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/15/sterkfontein-caves-south-africa

Sent from my ASUS Transformer, rooted with Revolver ROM, 1.6GHz

 

[falcon786]

would a creater seriously favor an ANIMAL over a human when it comes to the most important sense, eyesight?

Yeah sure why not,humans have free will and high intelligence to keep us going,animals have speed,strength,agility,claws,teeth,hell some even have built in spears and other abilities to help them survive.

All those you mentioned(owl,eagle,octopus) use it for hunting their food which is important for their survival so sorry MR atheist but proving evolution doesn't disprove the existence of GOD.

Try again.