Polling Friday: Do you believe in Evolution?

[Weeks]

My biggest problem with Darwinism is the fact that there is very little substantial long term, large scale evidence. I realize microevolution will eventually snowball into macroevolution, but since we haven't observed macroevolution, and I am at least not aware of a whole lot of factual evidence in favor of macroevolution I remain a bit skeptical. Additionally I personally wonder why in a world of survival of the fittest we still have the quote unquote unevolved animals still present today. I certaintly am no religious nutjob, I think its more likely that aliens seeded human life than that God did, but I have some problems with the specifics of darwinism. Again I agree with the concept, just question the specifics.

They aren't unevolved. They are further adapted to their current environmental niche, just as humans were.

Dawkins thinks that aliens as an explanation for the first cause is an okay explanation, so it may not be retarded as you think if mister dick-ihatereligion-dawkins thinks otherwise.

Not really. He says that may actually be the first source of life on this planet, which doesn't actually resolve anything, just making the question about the origin of life somewhere else. Ben Stein harped on this issue without understanding what Dawkins said in that idiotic documentary he made.

[Maguspk]

Ugh... just say you believe every word of the bible and at least retain some dignity. "Half" accepting evolution while still believing some god put humans here is just fucking retarded.

But, anyone who says they don't believe in evolution should look into permanent birth control. There's enough misguided, poorly educated dumb-asses roaming around the world as is. People who believe in utter shit that they cannot see over subtle, but observable adaptation and advancement should buy a gun and try to reach their paradise sooner.

I like how you either accept Darwinian evolution entirely or you are labeled a 'religious idiot'. Obviously the only reason you'd choose to not accept something is because you're one of those fucking dirty, religion-loving faggots, who we all love to ceaselessly hate. Nobody critiques anything scientific unless they are motivated by some stupid God-thing. Mmmhmm, boy do I love me the smell of angsty, socially maladjusted young adults.

Don't be hypocrites.

[Neosutra]

There is a difference between accepting the FACT that our species evolved, and arguing that we havent fully mapped the mechanics of that evolution.

And yes, if you "believe" that we didnt evolve, then you are an idiot. I can only hope that it comes from religion, and not an actual mental disorder. Psychosis is excusable, stupidity is not.

Arguing that the Earth isnt round because we havent mapped the specific orbital patterns that formed this planet is insane.

Arguing that Humans didnt evolve because we dont have a catalog stored of every cellular mutation ever produced for the last 5 billion years of this plant is also insane.

[Tristam]

Dawkins thinks that aliens as an explanation for the first cause is an okay explanation, so it may not be retarded as you think if mister dick-ihatereligion-dawkins thinks otherwise.

Dawkins' point, taken in context, was that even if extraterrestrial panspermia was responsible for the origin of life on earth, evolution would be a perfectly satisfactory theory for how life developed on earth. In fact, evolution is so powerful the same mechanisms would likely be responsible for the development of the alien life that predated us.

Creationists are masters of the ellipsis, except their omissions change the meaning of the phrase they quote. Dawkins does not think that alien panspermia is a satisfactory explanation, he feels it is a better explanation than any religious explanation as it is a naturalistic cause.

[ByeByeTasai]

To believe in something is to hold it true. The only thing I'm arguing is that my beliefs are based on what I can see (which throws the flat/round earth comment out of the picture because we can see that it is round). People who say that something is 100% true without it being proven 100% are retarded. I'm not saying that physical evolution is not a possibility, I'm just saying that I won't believe in it until we can see it. I believe in mental evolution because we've monitored the adaptation. Just because a part of Darwinism turns out to be true, it does not make every part of it true by default.

If you agree with the first page of a contract are you gonna skip reading the rest of it and just sign away?

[Tristam]

To clarify, I don't believe in a young planet. My basic point with Darwinism is that I don't believe that species evolve into another species, transmutation. I believe that man was always man, but primitive at one point in history.

I don't get it, you think in terms of transmutation yet you don't know how to define it properly. We have observed speciation, the generation of entirely new and never before seen species, multiple times in our own history. We will observe it again, we are so far beyond this point it's pretty amazing it's not general knowledge, consider it a failure of the communication of science by scientists.

The genes responsible for speciation are being studied as we speak. You can make predictions about why populations become physiologically divergent and reproductively isolated and then study their genetics over long periods of time. Remarkably, evolution occurs faster than most of us think. Fish populations, once observed 50 years ago in one setting, were introduced (naturally, humans did nothing) into another setting, and besides the two populations looking quite different from one another, they have lost complete reproductive compatibility. They cannot interbreed with success. In an analogous experiment, slime molds kept in two separate populations lose genetic compatibility over time as well (and their genetics are easier to study).

We have a tendency to think in terms of our own anthropic principle, that we are more evolved than that which preceded us or coexists with us yet dosen't measure up to our standard. The truth is we are equally as evolved as anything else on earth, considering that the number of bacteria in your body is 10x the number of cells in your entire body, we can accurately say that we exist on earth because bacteria allow us to. We are covered in vestigial organs and remnants. Our tailbone is reduced because it serves little (if any) function, and is also a remnant of our one time tails. Our appendix is not entirely nonfunctional but it is clearly reduced in size and not at all necessary for surviva (this, by the way, is the definition of vestigial)l. Our genetics are littered with failed genes that were mutated into nonfunction for a variety of reasons. Clearly a ton of shit has happened to us over a very very large amount of time, and our DNA is a remarkable if not perfect record of it.

All of these predictions are based on our knowledge of evolution. If evolution were not the correct theory for the diversity of life on earth, literally NOTHING about genetics or molecular biology would make sense. In the time since Darwin, we have refined and validated the theory of evolution in ways he could never have imagined.

[Weeks]

You are retarded.

What he said.

Just drop it and I'll explain the way the world works to you at a later date.

[Tristam]

To believe in something is to hold it true. The only thing I'm arguing is that my beliefs are based on what I can see (which throws the flat/round earth comment out of the picture because we can see that it is round). People who say that something is 100% true without it being proven 100% are retarded. I'm not saying that physical evolution is not a possibility, I'm just saying that I won't believe in it until we can see it. I believe in mental evolution because we've monitored the adaptation. Just because a part of Darwinism turns out to be true, it does not make every part of it true by default.

If you agree with the first page of a contract are you gonna skip reading the rest of it and just sign away?

Darwin was wrong about tons of stuff, but he was right about a remarkable number of things. Evolution is not just the Origin of Species. It is a modern theory incorporating multiple lines of evidence, many of which were not developed until decades after Darwin's death.

By the way, a prediction of evolution (and validated by modern genetics and protein biochemistry) is that you won't see a cat mutate into a flying hippopotamus in a few generations. So the theory of evolution predicts (correctly) that successful changes will not occur and produce gigantic (by your standard) physiological differences within a human lifespan.

[Blarg]

Eventually the rock develops a need to create an advanced form of transportation, it doesn't grow feet.

'Macro' evolution HAS been observed many many times. The way creationists seem to slime their way around this is to talk about 'kinds' like a great dane and a poodle, while unable to interbreed, are still dogs and are hence the same 'kind' and evolution out of a kind is impossible. The problem with this is there has to be some barrier that will stop mutations and natural selection, because, again, if you have 'micro' evolution occur for long enough the changes will be so substantial that one creature will no longer belong to the same kind it used to. What possible barrier could there be in the dna to stop limbs from shortening (or creature growing feet as in the quote), hair/fur growing or dissapearing, necks growing/shrinking until something is a whole new species/kind? As far as I know no creationist has given a solid theory to what this barrier could be let alone be able to point it out scientifically.

If you really can't prove, or even conceive of what barrier could exist, then once again you have to admit that small changes over a long time will result in new kinds/species. I think you said you believe in an old earth and micro evolution so based on the above you should believe in macro evolution for these reasons as well as much much more.

[Eratosthenes]

The fossil record does a pretty excellent job of demonstrating how stuff changed physically over time. TalkOrigins has a great write-up of known vertebrate fossils. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any pretty pictures, and hasn't been updated in 12 years.

[Blarg]

Jesus planted those fossils with his bread shovel.

[ByeByeTasai]

... dropping it after this...

Belief - Any cognitive content held as true

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. Not that the organ is not needed for survivability.

Genetic changes in humanity have not changed us to another species. Therefore it is mutation, not transmutation. Speciation has not been witnessed. What has been witnessed is the discovery of undiscovered species. Not necessarily new species. Also, species losing their ability to reproduce are usually associated with hybrid breeding, which can also result in new species. Especially if two species are put together for the first time in history.

Slime molds feed on living organisms before reproduction is possible, so changing environments can influence this.

There is evidence of macro-evolution from observations, but no proof because we have not witnessed a species evolving into a new species. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen... I'm just saying show me the proof.

Once again, I only believe in what I know is fact. Believing in unproven theories just because related issues are true is still blind faith.

[Blarg]

... dropping it after this...

There is evidence of macro-evolution from observations, but no proof because we have not witnessed a species evolving into a new species. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen... I'm just saying show me the proof.

No need to drop this as long as no one is getting too angry.

Observed Instances of Speciation scroll down until 5.0, I haven't read it since it's rather long but it should talk about some of the actual OBSERVED instances of speciation. The observed cases which often involve creatures with very short lifespans so the evolution occurs relatively quickly.

[BRP]

220 people in this thread voted for the wrong choice.

[Seraphus]

I voted Yes

Strictly talking about evolution of the immune system for my example, so that the religitards can't try and say "NO YOU'RE WRONG, THE LORD CREATED IT AS SUCH!"

The biggest undeniable form of Evolution is the coming forth of retroviruses for cold and flu every single year, while the flu can in some rare cases be fatal (as can the cold in some absolutely extreme cases where the Immune System is hardly functioning at all), the cold generally cannot for the simple reason that it's a fight of two way evolution vs the human body and the bacterium itself.

The cold, as a virus, is in fact a living thing, and needs us to be alive for it to survive, and slowly over time it changes it's specific capabilities to do what it needs done without killing it's host, for lack of a better term. Just as the human immune system evolves to learn to fight the "Retro"viruses every certain cycle.

This explains why any new "Outbreak" disease the likes of which the human body has never had to defend itself from before, such as the Swine Flu** causing such a scare and causing a lot of attention drawn to it from the CDC and other health organizations, trying to find a solution for it.

**The Swine Flu is a strain of the Flu virus that has evolved it's characteristics through the contact of Pigs, Birds, and of course, Humans. Humans, naturally cannot get the specific strains of the flu that pigs can, but can get the strains of the Flu that birds can get (See Bird Flu). The interesting thing about this is that Birds can catch the strains of Flu that pigs have, and while maintaining the characteristics of Pig Flu, it also evolves and adapts to the bird giving it Bird Flu properties in addition to the already-existing Pig Flu properties (including the ability to transfer to humans).

Spark Notes Version:
*Bacteria can evolve to change its behavior/effects depending on the hosts.
*The hosts can evolve to fight off or subdue the bacteria in question.
*It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that Evolution doesn't exist, because if it didn't we wouldn't be here right now, the first wave of any form of sickness would have killed everyone.

[Andarvi]

Sigh...damn evolution threads. We are at, what, one a month, at this point?

People, especially Tristam, have done a fine enough job of outlining in varying detail why/how evolution is clearly in principle, or however you want to construe its definition and evidence, the most plausible explanation for how carbon based life forms on earth came to exist and continue to do so.

Claiming that there is a lack of evidence or that pretty much 90% of the details ByeByeTaisai and those who agree with him is true shows 2 scenarios: either you are not properly educated on the finer details of evolution, far beyond Darwin, or you are, and just choose to ignore or misinterpret them. Thats it. Period. Its 5:00 am, I would love to quote what I just read, but I am barely writing comprehensibly at this point. See you tom.

[Rammses]

In addition to that, I don't 100% believe everything I hear or read about no matter how credible the source, unless I can see 100% that it is true. That's the same kind of blind faith that keeps religion's lingering. My personal belief's are based on what we physically see changing around us and influenced by great mind's, not set in stone by them. There are an infinite amount of undetermined variables when it comes to everything in science that can cause theories to crumble at any moment.

[...]

To believe in something is to hold it true. The only thing I'm arguing is that my beliefs are based on what I can see (which throws the flat/round earth comment out of the picture because we can see that it is round). People who say that something is 100% true without it being proven 100% are retarded.

[...]

Once again, I only believe in what I know is fact. Believing in unproven theories just because related issues are true is still blind faith.

Do you worship your eyes? Do you call your left pupil Jesus, or is that Mohammed?

Seems like you're letting (linguistic) semantics affect your worldview...

[heartslaught]

It's those linguistic semantics that allow us to properly define what we see, and lay the ground rules of how it works or proceeds.

I agree with Tasai's statements full heartly, as our science is not blind faith. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is what we have, based on our fundamental observations about the world around us (That mass, space, time, and charge are the indefinable properties of our universe, that the random statistical changes in dna can cause mutations and variations throughout the history of life giving rise to complex forms, that the laws of physics are invariant in all reference frames, and that our scientific method with the obedience of the principles laid forth by it to properly understand what we observe from the realms of mathematics to the realms theories that can be then put into simple syntax then explained to the youngest of children and uneducated in these models) are mountains of evidence that we are just part of some tiny spec of the universe that even now still amazes us with grand stories and grand surprises.

And while our knowledge of the universe is still small, the knowledge of religion about it is none. That's why we trust science. Because it doesn't give us hope or faith. It gives us reason and knowledge, for which mankind can do something for itself. Rather than religion, which is based off of hope and faith and wishful thinking, which has proven time and time again that it can do nothing for mankind outside of delude humanity if they ignore it's true purpose.

So we are not grasping at straws. Our rules are rigid and inmalliable because they must be. As the laws of this universe are also rigid and inmalliable (to our current knowledge) and require that the former be true to test and derive them! It is you all who are grasping at straws trying to hang onto what little faith you have left, and willfully arrogant of that world around to onto childish believes.

Lesson: science and religion are incompatible. If you want to have faith and hope and reason in what cannot be answer as said questions are outside the realms of science and reason, I am fine with that. Those philosophical debates are just that and have no place in the realms of science and reason.

The second that you try to inject such questions into our realm and try to pass off your childish and unreasonable ways as sound science? "Thy gauntlet hath been throw down before me. I pick it up, and proceed defeat thy in one solid blow," holds well here to the ass-whopping you shall receive. We stay out of your realm, and now respectfully stay out of ours.

[Takedown3]

god does not exist but in the minds of small children influenced by the fears of their parents that were caused by the multitude of sin they are responsible for

[ByeByeTasai]

I don't believe in god, so if your gonna come at me with some stupid fucking jesus/mohommad comment go stick your head up your ass and breathe deeply for a few minutes.

People keep talking about evolution as if it is a law when its thoery. I believe in evolution, but I do bot believe in every last detail of what many people do. Even the most prestigious evolution researcher will tell you that the main concepts of evolution itself change all of the time as they find new evidence to support each change.

There is NO proof of any of this shit people have been spewing on this forum, there is little evidence but it actually "proves" nothing. Everyone who thinks they know that this is the way it is one way or the other is a fucking retard, end of story. You cannot state any theory as fact until it becomes law. If all of this shit was "proven" as people say then it would be well known and stated as such. Most of the documentation, interviews, and lectures about this so called proof is riddled with "could be", "may have", and "possibly" for a fucking reason. And no it isn't because the crispies would complain, or the south might start an uprising. It's because the scientists and researchers.... DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

And that's all I've been trying to communicate is that I don't know, and that's why I'm not going to buy into every bit of evolution. I'll continue to believe in what I know, the rest of you can continue to believe in what you think is known. Show me hard evidence that species evolve from one to the next and I'll believe it. Until then, I'll just take it into consideration... I was raised with this crazy notion called thinking for yourself.