America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[TheFaithfulStone]

What about people who change religious creeds, philosophical thinking, political alignment? Have they mutated genetically?

 

No. It's not like there's a "Christian" allele on chromosome 19 or something, there is just a set of genes and environment that makes you compatible with a religious view point.

 

Like addictive personality types - it's not like you can't replace alcohol donuts, or running... or God.

 

TFS

[Freddy]

See I'm of the school that nature and nurture are separate entities. Too many times I hear people say that he is an alcholic because he is genetically predisposed to it. While I don't know conclusively one way or another whether there are alcoholism genes, I certainly don't believe it is possible to say that being around an alcoholic all your life had nothing to do with your becoming an alcoholic.

 

Do you think that there is such a thing as a passed down genetic memory, that people can access (if nothing else at least subconsciously) memories of their parent's, grandparent's, etc. lives. Is there any reasonable proof to support such an idea, as I must say I am unaware of any?

 

Has anyone here ever cited studies of adopted children and biological parents to see if their habits are genetic?

 

Here is some evidence for genetic and environmental factors in alcohol dependence.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/genetics/a/blacer040818.htm

http://www.hopenetworks.org/addiction/alcohol/Alcohol_Risks.htm

[Turtle]

Jon Miller, MSU,East Lansing, concludes in Science:

 

- "the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005."

 

- "The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."

 

- "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised. Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."

Dov

 

Returning to the origin of this thread - yet again - we see the issue is not the correctness of the current state of evolutionary theory, but the error in dogmatic religious views opposing science. Putting forward any facts about the current state of evolutionary theory is then pointless, both because it is not the issue and because the religious dogmatist/fundamentalist never fails to argue those facts on the basis of belief in some text irreproducibly claimed to come from a deity or deities.

Since here in the US this is an issue (much to my chagrin), the adversary is as clear as the need to confront it.:lol:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

To accept evolution or religion (or third choice, religions new copout intelligent design)... one must first believe that he (or she) is actually here...that existence itself exists...are you in my dream or I yours?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure you are all just figments of my imagination though:eek_big:

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03: What is it that you want to discuss about the content of these links? The purpose of posting them is to illustrate that the occurence of speciation, and interactions of society and biology, are established.

[InfiniteNow]

See I'm of the school that nature and nurture are separate entities.

This sounds to me like saying hot and cold are two separate entities... they are both measurements of heat though...

 

Any separation between the two is self-imposed, and is not an accurate representation of reality.

 

 

There are genetic predispostions toward alcoholism. There is also an influence from previous experience. The way those things interact is what determines if the person is or is not alcoholic.

 

Do you think that there is such a thing as a passed down genetic memory...Is there any reasonable proof to support such an idea, as I must say I am unaware of any?

I've always like the work of Carl Jung on the collective unconscious. While somewhat different from genetic memory, it's fun and rather interesting all the same.

 

Per genetic memory, why is a baby afraid of a cliff without ever having been taught to be? It's that it's ancestors who were afraid of cliffs survived, and the one's who were not afraid enough to back up fell off and didn't pass on their genes. The tendency to be afraid of cliffs provided an evolutionary advantage and was passed on.

 

Has anyone here ever cited studies of adopted children and biological parents to see if their habits are genetic?

Yes, and they found that typically both genes and upbringing play a role.

[InfiniteNow]

Returning to the origin of this thread - yet again - we see the issue is not the correctness of the current state of evolutionary theory, but the error in dogmatic religious views opposing science.

Turtle raises an excellent point, as did Dov when opening the thread. The theory is fine. It's solid. Yet, it's rejected.

 

In evolutionary terms, one can only hope that the blindness of people's faith causes them to fall off the evolutionary ladder. Faith is fine, but rejection of clear and repeated evidence is ignorant.

[learnin to learn]

Turtle raises an excellent point, as did Dov when opening the thread. The theory is fine. It's solid. Yet, it's rejected.

 

In evolutionary terms, one can only hope that the blindness of people's faith causes them to fall off the evolutionary ladder. Faith is fine, but rejection of clear and repeated evidence is ignorant.

 

But what you fail to realize is to these "people of faith" evolution is just a theory that could be true and could be totally fake! They have the same problem with you that you have with them. While you whole heartedly believe in evolution and are condemning them for not believing in it. They whole heartedly believe in their religion and condemn you for not believing in it. While they have faith in their god or gods, while you have faith in science.

[InfiniteNow]

While they have faith in their god or gods, while you have faith in science.

Perhaps, but my faith in science has been tested in more than a metaphorical way. I also will let go of my belief in evolution through natural selection if a better theory is proposed. How many blind practitioners of religion do you know that will let go of their faith if it's proven inaccurate?

[learnin to learn]

Perhaps, but my faith in science has been tested in more than a metaphorical way. I also will let go of my belief in evolution through natural selection if a better theory is proposed. How many blind practitioners of religion do you know that will let go of their faith if it's proven inaccurate?

 

Of course if someone told them that their religion was wrong that person would be a

heretic

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

But you know as well as I that scientific beliefs are prone to change over time. And we accept that and we have confidence in the theory until some other theory comes along that makes more sense, and can stand up to our "poking and prodding". while ones religion is set in stone.

[Edella]

While they have faith in their god or gods, while you have faith in science.

Science is based upon verifiable evidence.Faith in science is certainly different than religious faith in that(among other differences) it is not necessary to call on the supernatural. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

 

But what you fail to realize is to these "people of faith" evolution is just a theory

And it is a theory to evolutionary scientists as well.Of course the word theory in science is different than theory in its everyday usage.

[learnin to learn]

Science is based upon verifiable evidence.Faith in science is certainly different than religious faith in that(among other differences) it is not necessary to call on the supernatural. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

I realize this but many people in America and across the world could care less! They believe that their religion is fact! They believe that everyday workings are the evidence of their religion what they call (miracles). All I was doing is showing how someone motivated by science thinks and how someone motivated by religion thinks.

 

And it is a theory to evolutionary scientists as well.Of course the word theory in science is different than theory in its everyday usage.

sorry I should have said that many people of faith think that the evolution theory is a load of honky. why you ask? because it does not fit into the teachings of their religion!

[cwes99_03]

No. It's not like there's a "Christian" allele on chromosome 19 or something, there is just a set of genes and environment that makes you compatible with a religious view point.

TFS

 

Which genes are those that make you compatible with a religious viewpoint?

 

 

This sounds to me like saying hot and cold are two separate entities... they are both measurements of heat though...

 

Any separation between the two is self-imposed, and is not an accurate representation of reality.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, or right. I ask questions to see if you still think you are wrong or right after answering those questions.

1) Have you checked a psychology text book recently? Does it say that nature and nurture are completely intertwined, or does it believe that they are two separate entities? If it teaches they are separate, then what data/evidence do you have to support your theory that they are intertwined like hot and cold?

2) You say that the two are like hot and cold, both measurements of the same thing. I would agree hot and cold are measurements of the same thing. What does the term nature mean? What does the term nurture mean?

 

Nature - the natural, inborn/instinctual, way in which an animal/plant, do to its genetics/chromosomes, will react when presented with stimuli

 

Nurture - the learned response an animal/plant will take when presented with a stimuli

 

According to your definition, are these two things the same? Is everything we learn/are taught inborn and contained within our genes? This is new theory if it is real, at least within the last 8 years as I know for a fact that my psychology professor taught a lot about learned responses, pavlov's dogs and all.

[InfiniteNow]

Which genes are those that make you compatible with a religious viewpoint?

I think TFS meant it to be a rhetorical example, however, it's very possible that somebody is working on finding this as we type... :umno:

 

 

1) Have you checked a psychology text book recently? Does it say that nature and nurture are completely intertwined, or does it believe that they are two separate entities?

Depends on who wrote the textbook and what their position is. Also, textbooks don't "believe" anything. That is left to readers of said textbooks.

 

If it teaches they are separate, then what data/evidence do you have to support your theory that they are intertwined like hot and cold?

Hmmm... not sure why you'd ask such a question or approach it like they are completely separate. Genes impact what we are and what we are predisposed to. Experience impacts what we've experienced and what we think. It's the way the two come together that makes us what we are.

 

I know the rules ask not to use such arguments, but for lack of a better phrase, this is common sense.

 

 

Nature - the natural, inborn/instinctual, way in which an animal/plant, do to its genetics/chromosomes, will react when presented with stimuli

Nature - what we're born with. Stimuli not yet relevant.

 

Nurture - the learned response an animal/plant will take when presented with a stimuli

Nurture - what is learned. Response not yet relevant.

 

 

According to your definition, are these two things the same?

No.

 

Is everything we learn/are taught inborn and contained within our genes?

No, but some information we are born with. See previous example of baby and cliff.

 

This is new theory if it is real, at least within the last 8 years as I know for a fact that my psychology professor taught a lot about learned responses, pavlov's dogs and all.

Not really relevant since I answered no to the questions above.

 

Pavlov's dogs had the nature to be taught certain things in certain ways, and through nurture they learned those things.

 

Conditioning (whether that be classical, modern, first order, second order, operant, etc.) requires a substrate for that information to be stored... something which can change to make information storage possible. Nature is what provides that first substrate, that storage medium which changes.

[cwes99_03]

Here is some evidence for genetic and environmental factors in alcohol dependence.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/genetics/a/blacer040818.htm

http://www.hopenetworks.org/addiction/alcohol/Alcohol_Risks.htm

 

Regarding the first article. I recognize it is well written and from a reliable source. That they don't provide the raw data is a little measure that one can't drawn complete conclusions without taking their word for it. However, some deeper thought brought on by comments made in the article can still help one to see why there is skepticism about the conclusions.

 

Results indicate that variation in long-term average alcohol intake is almost entirely due to genetic differences, and that some genes affect both intake and dependence while others affect only dependence.

There is no direct support from data for this, however a description of what data was collected is present.

Alcohol consumption is about how much a person drinks at some particular time, whereas alcohol dependence is more about the effects that alcohol has, or has had, on a person – their behaviour, their neurophysiology, and their relationships with other people.

 

So the particular study here is going to try and draw a connection between how much one drinks and their genes, verses the effect that a particular quantity of alcohol has on a particular person.

 

"We have known for some years that there are genetic influences on risk of alcohol dependence, but it has been challenging to separate out the extent of influence of a person's genes from the influence of their childhood environment," added Kate Conigrave, associate professor and staff specialist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. "For example, if a person has an alcoholic parent, their childhood may be traumatic, and this may place them at increased risk of later alcohol dependence themselves. Up until now, most research on the genetics of drinking has focused on alcohol dependence rather than the genetics of alcohol consumption levels."

 

Infinite, you may note that the article here points to a difference between ones experiences growing up (nurture) and ones genes (nature).

 

Now this next quote is where I start to see problems in the article.

Problems Not Confined to 'Alcoholics'

However, problems related to alcohol aren't confined to dependent drinkers. Many alcohol-related problems like road trauma and high blood pressure occur in those who are drinking above recommended limits, but are still in control of their drinking."

Maybe I'm not quite reading this right, but does it say, "You don't have to be an alcoholic to suffer from the effects of overdrinking."?

 

In the people we studied, alcohol intake was reasonably constant across time – and this was expected – as a person who reports high intake at one time is likely to report high intake at other times," said Whitfield.

Okay sounds reasonable. If you drink heavy now, you will probably continue to drink heavily throughout life, or at least on a regular basis for some period of your life.

 

"However, we were able to show, by using twins as the subjects of our study, that variation between people in their long-term average intake is almost entirely due to genetic differences between people.

I don't see any data, or explanation of what type of data they used to verify this.

Secondly, we found that higher reported alcohol intake, at any of the three times studied, was associated with a higher probability of alcohol dependence at some time in a person's life.

As far as I can tell this is just restating the obvious. That you don't become dependent upon alcohol unless you at some time drink it, and if you drink it in large quantities you are at higher risk of becoming dependent. But then the very next sentence says:

The association was mainly due to genetic effects on both alcohol intake and alcohol dependence, but our results also show that while some genes affect both intake and dependence, others affect only dependence."

The first part of that statement is still unsubstantiated, but the second (alcohol dependence) is the obvious part already mentioned above. That is it linked to the genetics I can draw a pretty obvious link to. Genetics determine how our cells will act, and in some part our metabolism. Thus they determine how our body will metabolize alcohol. Note the next paragraph:

"These findings do not mean individuals are predetermined to have an alcohol problem," said Conigrave. "The situation is similar to that of coronary heart disease, where genes influence lipid levels and tendency to high blood pressure, and so increase risk of heart attack. Individuals can make decisions about their lifestyle which can improve their health and reduce their risk of harm. Similarly, individuals with a family history of heavy drinking or alcoholism can be aware that they may be at increased risk themselves, and can avoid situations that lead to heavy drinking, or can seek help early if problems emerge."

So, there are ways in which we can fight the natural tendency to become easily dependent upon alcohol, and these are learned by observing our family's history of alcoholism and making a decision to have different habits than they had. Thus how much you drink, isn't genetic, because you can make a choice not to drink at all.

So, which is it? The same article says both, it's genetic, but its not (zero is a quantity after all isn't it?). Perhaps they meant that if you choose to drink, how much you will then drink at a sitting is determined by genes. Well, let's go back to dependence and the earlier statement:

Secondly, we found that higher reported alcohol intake, at any of the three times studied, was associated with a higher probability of alcohol dependence at some time in a person's life.

So, if you choose to drink, and you have the genetic predisposition that a little bit of alcohol will affect you more than others, and alcohol impairs judgement, then yes, you will likely drink a bit more than others who aren't likewise affected. Furthermore, this will more quickly lead to dependence and thus the downward spiral.

Sounds to me like genes do affect how easily you become an alcoholic, but how well you are taught to avoid over-drinking (or drinking in any quantity that will affect your judgement) will affect how much you drink and thus whether or not you allow yourself to become an alcoholic.

Haven't had a chance to read the second article, yet.

[cwes99_03]

Ug, I will get back to your question when I return, and I see Infinite just responded too, so I will have to attend to it as well. Sorry but I have to run again, and I'm on vacation again next week, so things may have to wait if I don't get back to them before then. Meantime, you guys can discuss too, but I'll have to work harder to get caught back up.

[cwes99_03]

Actually I have a bit more time I guess. Ug.

The point of the speciation articles was to engage you (and others) back in the conversation about why scientists choose to define a species (such as a poodle or a labrador.) These two animals obviously do have different traits, this much I am aware of. However, they are capable of mating and producing offspring. The result is yet another new species called a Labradoodle. Is this new "species" a result of evolution? The reason this is important is the definition of evolution. See previous posts for the definition, or if you can't find it, I'll dig it up again. Obviously, I'm saying that evolution has something to do with new species.

 

 

I think TFS meant it to be a rhetorical example, however, it's very possible that somebody is working on finding this as we type...

Well, then we are in agreement that you nor I know of any such data to draw such a conclusion. Many Christians say someday their viewpoints will come true, and people will say that they only have faith. However, they have evidence recorded in the Bible to say that what they believe is real, which we don't seem to have regarding the question of religion and genetics.

 

Quote:

1) Have you checked a psychology text book recently? Does it say that nature and nurture are completely intertwined, or does it believe that they are two separate entities?

 

Depends on who wrote the textbook and what their position is. Also, textbooks don't "believe" anything. That is left to readers of said textbooks.

I would agree that those who write the textbooks input their positions, but their positions should be based on data otherwise the textbook will probably not be used. The textbooks don't believe (they're inanimate) but as you pointed out the authors believe, so please answer the question. What do today's psychology textbooks say about whether nature and nurture are the same or different?

 

Quote:

Nature - the natural, inborn/instinctual, way in which an animal/plant, do to its genetics/chromosomes, will react when presented with stimuli

 

Nature - what we're born with. Stimuli not yet relevant.

 

 

Quote:

Nurture - the learned response an animal/plant will take when presented with a stimuli

 

Nurture - what is learned. Response not yet relevant.

Hmm, gonna have to just call you wrong here. Both are only measured (defined) by the stimuli and response. The stimuli being the catalyst and the response being the collectible data.

 

Hmmm... not sure why you'd ask such a question or approach it like they are completely separate. Genes impact what we are and what we are predisposed to. Experience impacts what we've experienced and what we think. It's the way the two come together that makes us what we are.

Yes, it is an interaction of the two that defines us. However, your statements thus far have said that they are measurements of the same thing (hot an cold). You have been saying, or at least it appears you have, that both nature and nurture are related to our genes, where I have said nurture is not related at all to our genes.

 

Quote:

Is everything we learn/are taught inborn and contained within our genes?

 

No, but some information we are born with. See previous example of baby and cliff.

I have not denied some things are instinctual. A whale immediately swims after birth. A child cries and breathes air when it is born. These are instinctual. By the way, you've never seen a baby fall off of a couch, fall down a flight of stairs?

 

Quote:

This is new theory if it is real, at least within the last 8 years as I know for a fact that my psychology professor taught a lot about learned responses, pavlov's dogs and all.

 

Not really relevant since I answered no to the questions above.

 

Pavlov's dogs had the nature to be taught certain things in certain ways, and through nurture they learned those things.

 

Conditioning (whether that be classical, modern, first order, second order, operant, etc.) requires a substrate for that information to be stored... something which can change to make information storage possible. Nature is what provides that first substrate, that storage medium which changes.

As I have said you need to reexaming the questions that you answered no too, I will also have you reexamine this one.

But I'm a bit confused as to what you are hung up on. I've never denied that nature creates the brain matter. But nurture creates the memories stored therein. Nature and nurture are two different things. One is genetic one is learned. The learned part has nothing directly to do with evolution. The beginning of religion is not caused by evolution, changes in society are not caused by evolution, and I have not yet seen someone provide the data that a particular gene caused the first man to begin worshipping.