MIT students who don't accept evolution

[molliebatmit]

<p>

I said“no one challenge the fact that the Evolutionary Tree of Life is lacking of evidences to conclude that human and monkey has a common ancestor.”
Funny that there is still no one challenge that there is lacking of common ancestors in the Evolutionary Tree of Life. Mollibatmit was not addressing the issue at all but decided to go with other arguments.

I’m a neurobiologist who specializes in the genetics of human nervous system diseases, so I have the most familiarity with the genetics and genomics. </p>

<p>There are, of course, plenty of fossil primates, so it’s not clear to me what is “lacking” about the fossil evidence of primate evolution – paleontologists had deduced the relationships between humans and other living and extinct primates long before the genetic evidence was around to confirm those relationships. And, of course, more will continue to be discovered in the future.</p>

<p>

I like how mollibatmit stated “evolution by natural selection was the best model available”. It is a MODEL that you think is the best. But not for me.

All science is a model, and no one here thinks otherwise. But as collegealum mentioned a few posts ago, only naturalistic explanations are game for our models – miracles and God are not possible explanations for scientific phenomena. I have no problem with anyone who wants to claim that evolution by natural selection only appears totally naturalistic, and in fact was controlled by the hand of God or whoever, but of course that argument is completely non-falsifiable.</p>

<p>

When I mentioned “The genome sequencing comparison on Primates”, I was talking about the comparison between existing animals themselves and fossil records on their primate common ancestors and provide actual evidences on who comes first and who comes later; but since the fossil records of their common ancestors are totally lacking, it is nowhere to find the comparison.

Again, this is false: there are many fossil primates.</p>

<p>Further, the genetic information itself can serve to reconstruct the relationships – over long periods of time, DNA mutates at a relatively constant rate, so many modern evolutionary trees are constructed primarily from genetic data. Lidusha may be able to talk about this, if she’s around – it’s a computational exercise.</p>

<p>

The differences on Chimp and human are 1.37%, human and gorilla 1.75%, but did the gene deletions truly happened? (deletion is another topic, it is hard to define there was really deletions because they were lost in evolution or they never have existed for a new specie. That is a big question that no one addressed; and no one can address it because if it is the later than it is a new specie that didn’t come from previously existed species and not a product of evolution by natural selection.)

It is not clear to me what you mean here.</p>

<p>It’s not actually difficult to compare primate genomes in a meaningful way – there’s so much data to work with over an entire genome that it’s not actually that difficult to discern relationships between species. </p>

<p>

In the 2012 paper, the authors claimed humans and chimps went their separate ways only about 4.5 million years ago, but then some paleontologists argue for a split as far back as 7 million years ago. And all these years are estimated. Yes, estimated.

Scientific models are malleable, and change based on the available evidence, and there’s a strong culture of debate. This is not an argument against scientific validity – in fact, it’s one of the great strengths of science.</p>

[Much2learn]

<p>Dr. Mollie,</p>

<p>I find it amazing that the same people for whom no amount of evidence will suffice for evolution accept their faith with only anecdotes and largely unsourced writings and can not see the inconsistency. </p>

<p>From a Neurobiology perspective, what is it that causes so many people to fail to see how inconsistent they are? The people arguing here are not atypical at all, perhaps it is something about the structure, mechanisms, or development of the brain itself, that allows it?</p>

<p>What are your thoughts?</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>The human brain is a fantastic pattern-recognition machine, and its overarching goal is to keep you alive and fecund. As a result, there’s a heavy premium on trusting information that comes from one’s in-group, and distrusting information that comes from outside.</p>

<p>Skeptical reasoning doesn’t come naturally to humans, which is probably why it took so long for the scientific method to be worked out. And it’s always tempting to believe evidence that dovetails with what you want to believe, even for people who are ruthlessly trained otherwise. </p>

<p>As an example, right now there’s a big debate going on in my field. The topic is irrelevant, but it’s about the kinds of stem cells that produce different types of neurons in a particular part of the brain. The conventional model was based on data collected about twenty years ago, with significantly fewer tools and poorer methodology than we have available today. Last year, a paper came out that totally reversed the conventional view. And then last week, a different paper came out that supports the conventional view and suggests that the first paper is wrong. I really think the second paper should be right, and I don’t like the conclusions of the first paper. But looking at the quality of the approach and the data, I can’t shake the feeling that the second paper is just not as well-done.</p>

<p>:)</p>

[Findmoreinfo]

<p>Post #122 revealed that it was typed by a high schooler and the brain is (according to scientific studies on young adults) still under development. If you think people who don’t agree with natural human evolution don’t believe in evolution, you are na</p>

[PiperXP]

<p>^ Trying to have the last word, that’s cute.</p>

[Much2learn]

<p>Findingmoreinfo,</p>

<p>Your post (#124) is concerning at several points.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>In the first paragraph, you begin with an ad hominem attack. I do not think it is productive to belittle and discredit people you disagree with instead of using facts, evidence, and reason to support your position.</p></li>
<li><p>In the first paragraph, you suggest that I am “naive and wrong” for something that I did not say or imply, but that you imagined that I might believe. “If you think…, you are naive and wrong.” </p></li>
</ol>

<p>To clarify, no I do not believe that “…people who don’t agree with natural human evolution don’t believe in evolution…” I did not say that and do not believe that. You may imagine that my post #122 and Dr. Mollie’s reply #123 are pointed at you but they are not aimed at you at all. I am asking an expert for her thoughts about my observations regarding human behavior and how it may reveal something about the function of all human brains in general. It has nothing to do with you in particular.</p>

<ol>
<li>What are you implying when you say, “Molliebatmit, your identity is too easy to be exposed. Be careful! When time comes, don’t have identity chip implants on your right hand or forehead. Remember that!
”???</li>
</ol>

<p>To me this sounds like your frustration when presented with facts that are contrary to your position are leading you to make a threat. I see this as implying that, “Dr. Mollie, you need to be careful about disagreeing with me, because I can find out who you are, and then you will be in danger.” Is that what you are saying? </p>

<p>If so, I think that it is completely inappropriate to make any threat or attempt to bully anyone on these forums.</p>

<p>If you can not manage to have a discussion without threatening people with whom you disagree, in my opinion, you should not come here.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>A metaphor for this thread:</p>

<p>[Photo</a> - Volume 133, Issue 58 - The Tech](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N58/graphics/naturefood-2.html]Photo”>http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N58/graphics/naturefood-2.html)</p>

[undefined123]

<p>Let’s sway from the tangible things. Move away from biology and neurology for a second.
Do you think that an animal can ever be as psychologically advanced as a human? Yes? Show me just how many monkeys are spending their time inventing something, and not just spend their days looking for food. No? Darwinism is wrong.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>^How many things have you invented?</p>

<p>No? Then you are an animal.</p>

[undefined123]

<p>@collegealum314 I have technically invented things. I programmed applications to facilitate things I had to do.
And you’re missing my point. Purposely. You just don’t want to acknowledge that psychologically humans are much superior than animals. This is why we rule this world and they don’t. This is why we have houses that we built, why we have countries that we formed, why we invented things to make everything entertaining or easy. Animals don’t, because of the huge difference between our minds. Stop denying it.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>But we didn’t have those things until very recently in human history, did we? </p>

<p>We are sort of at a fortunate spot in evolutionary history for that line of thinking at the moment, because our closest relatives (Neanderthals, the recently discovered Denisovans, perhaps others) have died out. But at some time in the future, or in an alternate reality where our closest hominid relatives were still alive, perhaps it would be more difficult to justify human exceptionalism.</p>

<p>It’s also potentially problematic to set the goalposts for “superiority” using things that humans happen to have and other animals don’t. Many other animals have brains roughly as large and complex (relative to their body size) as humans do (see [url=<a href=“http://www.brainmuseum.org%5Dhere%5B/url”>http://www.brainmuseum.org]here[/url</a>] for lots of cool pictures), and we don’t have really good ways of assessing the content of their minds. When we do try to, we tend to use very primate-centric methods of assessment, which may be inappropriate for interrogating the psychology and sociology of ocean mammals, for example.</p>

<p>

@Findingmoreinfo

Molliebatmit, your identity is too easy to be exposed. Be careful!

My identity actually isn’t hidden at all. It’s quite trivial to identify my real name and real-life history, which is by design. If I were trying to hide my identity, I would do a better job of it.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>Opposable thumbs also have something to do with humans’ superior capabilities.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>Who has two thumbs and a really gyrified cerebral cortex? </p>

<p>This guy!</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>Is that a course 9 joke?</p>

[undefined123]

<p>You’re completely missing the point behind what I’m saying. And I’m guessing you do this purposely. Why I’m still arguing with you - I don’t know. It’s futile because you won’t accept any “heretical” belief. That wouldn’t make you “smart” or a “scientist.” Farewell.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>Cognitive superiority of humans does not obviously disprove the theory of common descent, otherwise known as Darwinism. End of Story.</p>

[RMIBstudent]

<p>…the poster who is contesting Evolutionary Theory did not get into MIT, right? I’m still in the process of filling out my application, and my follow through might hinge on the answer.</p>

[Much2learn]

<p>Undefined123,</p>

<p>I think that what you are trying to say is that it is not possible for a common ancestor to give birth to two children, one that is a chimpanzee, and one that is human. </p>

<p>That is correct. Evolution does not work like that and no one thinks that it does. This can be confusing initially because we often say things like Homo Sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years. That could give the impression that at that point in time some amazing moment occurred where the last member of the prior species gave birth to the first member of a new and improved species. That is not the case, and evolution does not work that way at all. In reality nothing special is happening at the point where those lines are drawn. Each set of parents and their offspring are no more different than I am from my children. All parents and children are clearly from the same species. It is only in retrospect that scientists draw somewhat arbitrary lines to roughly group species on a timeline. </p>

<p>The implication is that the difference between people and chimps or bonobos are significant, but are the result of small improvements over many generations. If our last common ancestor with chimps was 7 million years ago, at 20 years per generation that would be 350,000 generations to go back to our common ancestor. Imagine a line of your ancestor with you holding hands with your mother, and she is holding her mothers hand and so on for 350,000 generations. Then you would have to do the same for the chimp, so there would be about 700,000 generations separating a person from a chimp. I think when you think of it that way, you can see that small genetic improvements from one generation to the next could add up to significant changes eventually.</p>

<p>Does that address your question?</p>

[undefined123]

<p>@Much2learn No, it doesn’t. My point is that an animal’s lifestyle is:
-Go find food.
-Sleep.
-Go find food.
What does that remind you of? A baby human. 0 ambition, 0 fatigue from repetitiveness, 0 creativity, 0 desire to seek knowledge. No animal is “disturbed by its nakedness,” just like a baby. No animal ever went ahead and made clothes to itself, but humans did. This is what makes humans superior and different from animals. This is something that “studies” or “genetics” can’t show.
There’s a monkey in the wild right now, and he’s eating bananas. Tomorrow he’ll eat more bananas. The next day, he will eat bananas and feed bananas to his babies. And the cycle will repeat, forever.</p>

[undefined123]

<p>@marjansiklic “Afterlife” doesn’t necessarily means heaven/hell. It means that your soul doesn’t just die and instead goes somewhere else. That can either be to the skies, can be to a newborn, or it can be somewhere else.</p>