Your arguments are invalid

[burntcopper]

For the blondes : Has anyone noticed any actual difference to your hair colour when using shampoo/conditioner marketed as 'for blondes'? (normally advertised as containing camomile). I use it, but I've never really noticed much difference in colour between that and the normal stuff, even though I know camomile has been used as a hair lightener for millennia.

Boss told us to stop having a science debate. Boss MEAN.

...I just found out someone at work doesn't believe in evolution but... does believe in adaptation to environment? Whut? How does that reconcile? Genetic adaptation to environment *is* evolution.

Why is it samphire is bloody impossible to find in supermarkets?

Comments

[be-themoon.livejournal.com]

...I just found out someone at work doesn't believe in evolution but... does believe in adaptation to environment? Whut? How does that reconcile? Genetic adaptation to environment *is* evolution.

They probably weren't phrasing it well - I know many people who will distinguish the types of evolution they believe in, which actually does make sense. They probably meant they believe in micro-evolution, the ability of animals and organism to adapt to their environment, which has been proved multiple times, but that they don't believe in macro-evolution, basically Darwin's theory and which has species changing. It's a fairly basic and common distinction among Christian circles, but a lot of people don't actually know what they're distinguishing between.

[mrslant]

It's still like not believing in gravity, though...

[be-themoon.livejournal.com]

*shrugs* While there's loads of evidence for micro-evolution, the evidence for macro-evolution is a bit sketchy, several different pieces of evidence have been exposed as frauds, which tends to make you worry about the rest, and there's no recorded evidence of a species changing. Not to mention Darwin himself disparaged his theory multiple times and stated that if more conclusive evidence wasn't found quite quickly, it would probably be because it wasn't true. (Don't ask me to find that quote - I'd have to go back through my whole biology book and that thing is really thick and I never want to look at it again. *dies*)

I guess you could say it's a matter of viewpoint - they've been taught macro-evolution is false and goes against their religion, you've probably been taught that macro-evolution is definitely true. View-point, I've always found, is really important.

[burntcopper.livejournal.com]

Maybe we should point them towards al the stuff on dna and protein synthesiser correlations.

[be-themoon.livejournal.com]

? What stuff on DNA and protein synthesiser?

(Also, something to keep in mind - this is religion we're talking about for many of them. Macro-evolution has to be false for them, or it tilts their entire world off-balance.

[burntcopper.livejournal.com]

I'm so happy I was raised as atheist, and that evolution was taught as standard in schools.

[be-themoon.livejournal.com]

I was raised homeschooled and Christian. :D

to make matters clearer - I'm not arguing for either side (and by the way, thanks to everyone who's responded to me for being so fabulously polite!), I don't like either side, and I'm not a Christian or an atheist. or, um, any defined religion actually.

I do think that people on both sides need to have a little more grace for the fact that the people on the other side have generally been taught only the facts which bolster their viewpoint, and that for both sides it's often a matter of religion, which is probably what makes it so volatile.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

'there's no recorded evidence of a species changing.'

- there are actually quite a few - although they mainly deal with plants, bugs and worms, which aren't terribly exciting to the majority of non-specialists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html discusses this at some length, but not too technically.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - really goes into the subject at quite comprehensive length and with diagrams.

[burntcopper.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's totally what she said and she did make the distinction, my jaw just pretty much hit the floor.

I just.... how the fuck do you make the distinction? is it like putting your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalala' every time a new stage of the genetic tree is uncovered?

[be-themoon.livejournal.com]

Pretty easily - like I said above, the distinction is actually pretty important. It's a matter of view-point, finding what bolsters your view-point (for both sides, mind, I'm not letting either side off easily), and everyone's so goddamn convinced they're right it turns into a heated argument that doesn't get anywhere faster than you can say Darwin.

[mrslant]

It's like saying you believe in magnetic fields but not electric fields...

[aeshna_uk]

Ah, a dimwit. I'm suddenly reminded of the "Intelligent Falling" article we had stuck to the door at work until recently (must find out where the painters put it) regarding those who didn't want any truck with the "Theory" of gravity.... ;)

Yes, it is evolution. Mutations happen and those that prove beneficial tend to pass through the population over time. Given enough time, and enough mutations, the end result(s) may be quite different to the starting point (though the concept of a "species" is a human construct and tends to be fuzzier in nature than many would like!). In my employed meanderings through the NHM, I've ended up in all the life science departments bar Botany at one time or other and have seen and worked with more than enough to satisfy me on the subject. :)

But if it's a religious thing then there's probably not much point in trying to argue the point, to be honest! Just nod, smile, and back away slowly....

Evolution

[nineworlds.livejournal.com]

Adaptation by genetic mutation is well-proven, for example with the case of moths/butterflies around the time of the industrial revolution changing from light to dark due to the soot making it easier for predators to spot them. The same species changed back to light when the factories became cleaner and their habitats again became less sooty.

What's still disputed by people who believe in "survival of the fittest", but not all of the evolution package, is usually that speciation can occur by general adaptation.

How's tricks?

- Iain.