Do you believe in evolution?

[RendeR]

A study of Finches in the Galapagos islands might well be good reading for this as well. As the development of several distinct species of finch across the islands chain pretty much proves that evolutions of one species into another and in fact several HAS happened.

[RendeR]

Geographical isolation of finches on the Galápagos Islands produced over a dozen new species.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Geographical isolation of finches on the Galápagos Islands produced over a dozen new species.

What's this? The evolution of Louisville's helmet decal?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.

I think you're forgetting how long a time period we are talking about here. Hundreds of thousands of "mini evolutions" over an unimaginable period of time.

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

You could spend half your life in an operating room, and still choke to death on a piece of a food at dinner time.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

What's this? The evolution of Louisville's helmet decal?

Louisville's decal never evolved! It was created each time from nothing! HERETIC.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Louisville's decal never evolved! It was created each time from nothing! HERETIC.

Ok I laughed.

[JediKooter]

Michael Jackson evolved before our very eyes...




too soon?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Michael Jackson evolved before our very eyes...




too soon?

Not too soon, but evolving from circus freak to child molester I'm not sure equates to what we're discussing....

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Not too soon, but evolving from circus freak to child molester I'm not sure equates to what we're discussing....

Well, no one ever said that mutations always resulted in something useful.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, no one ever said that mutations always resulted in something useful.

Platypus.

[Mac Howard]

A point that may be worth mentioning here: both the Catholic and Anglican Churches accept that evolution, in its entirety, is an accurate description of the mechanism that has produced the range of life forms we see today. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to deny it any longer (only last year the Anglican church made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated). What they insist on, however, is that this refers to the biology of life forms but that man also has a soul put there by God.

That's the latest escape clause in their dogma

They have argued, though this is another idea that has become somewhat flimsy, that God created the evolutionary mechanism. The problem for Christian churches in particular however is that the Christian God of love, compassion etc sits very uncomfortably with the vicious, dog-eat-dog, one creature's survival is another's extinction process. It's difficult to argue that that is a process that would be created by the Christian God.

[Coder]

ok, that option was not what I intended..

[Dutch]

I love the way this poll is presented, btw. It's about damn time a liberal actually took the time to figure out that the TV people are over-generalising the evolution=liberal and creationism=conservative crap. So good for you, Kodos!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I love the way this poll is presented, btw. It's about damn time a liberal actually took the time to figure out that the TV people are over-generalising the evolution=liberal and creationism=conservative crap. So good for you, Kodos!

Virtually every poll shows a large gap between party affiliation and belief in evolution. Almost all the organizations pushing to get creationism into schools are convservative. It has been an issue pushed by those on the right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Re...eationism.aspx

Don't try and re-write reality because an unscientific poll from a message board points a different way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

For instance the femur (thigh bone) cannot be duplicated by any material in terms of relative weight to strength.
We are not even close to realizing how the brain works.
There are more than five hundred separate muscles in the body, with an equal number of nerves and blood-vessels.
The weight of the heart is about 12-14 ounces and it provides the power to run this machine.

In terms of engineering NOTHING comes close to the human body.

The sheer fact that we age would seem to contradict your belief. If we are designed so perfectly, why do we replicate our cells so poorly?

Facts are based on evidence. There is an immense amount of evidence from fossils to DNA that show species evolving from one to another. Closing your eyes to it and believing in fairy tales and pixie dust doesn't change reality. Although I won't blame you for missing it as I'm sure ignorance is an evolved trait.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Virtually every poll shows a large gap between party affiliation and belief in evolution. Almost all the organizations pushing to get creationism into schools are convservative. It has been an issue pushed by those on the right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Re...eationism.aspx

Don't try and re-write reality because an unscientific poll from a message board points a different way.

40% of Democrats believe in Creationism and 60% of Republicans??? Holy hell! Based on the last election that's like what? 60 million Democrats and 60 million Republicans????

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

40% of Democrats believe in Creationism and 60% of Republicans??? Holy hell! Based on the last election that's like what? 60 million Democrats and 60 million Republicans????

Not even close. But if altering reality makes you feel better about having half your Presidential candidates raising their hand and stating they did not believe in basic science, then so be it.

I honestly don't care what people believe or what party they are behind. When it comes down to it, their beliefs aren't strong enough to be their life on it. I just have an issue with teaching fairy tale science like creationism in schools. Pressure to have that done is not coming from the left, it's coming from the right.

[Dutch]

Um, I took those #'s from your link. As for "Presidential candidates", McCain believes in evolution as well.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Platypus.

They don't really do much of anything.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Re...eationism.aspx.

Wow! Is it something in the water?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Wow! Is it something in the water?

His name is rainmaker, he MAKES his own water.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RendeR

His name is rainmaker, he MAKES his own water.

The astonishment I expressed, though, was not at Rainmaker but at the poll results - that approximately 40% of Americans reject the validity of evolution.

A week ago, as part of the dccumentary celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, I watched a documentary by a English Anglican priest titled "Did Darwin kill God?". The program began with the statement "to hear the arguments against evolution we have to go to America" and from then on the documentary interviewed Americans at various institutions both for and against the thesis.

There is no worthwhile objection to evolutionary theory in first world countries outside America. As I pointed out earlier both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church - and that, I suspect, means the dogma of a significant majority of the world's christians - have dropped their objections to the theory. The Anglican Church has even made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated. Here (and I can speak reasonably for Britain and Australia) objecting to evolution is like insisting the world is flat.

So it surprises me that around 40% of Americans still do. Such similarities in the cultures yet such differences.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The astonishment I expressed, though, was not at Rainmaker but at the poll results - that approximately 40% of Americans reject the validity of evolution.

A week ago, as part of the dccumentary celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, I watched a documentary by a English Anglican priest titled "Did Darwin kill God?". The program began with the statement "to hear the arguments against evolution we have to go to America" and from then on the documentary interviewed Americans at various institutions both for and against the thesis.

There is no worthwhile objection to evolutionary theory in first world countries outside America. As I pointed out earlier both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church - and that, I suspect, means the dogma of a significant majority of the world's christians - have dropped their objections to the theory. The Anglican Church has even made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated. Here (and I can speak reasonably for Britain and Australia) objecting to evolution is like insisting the world is flat.

So it surprises me that around 40% of Americans still do. Such similarities in the cultures yet such differences.

Oh, I don't think you realize the half of it on how bad it is here and it doesn't stop with evolution. The Discovery Institute being the biggest of the offenders in my opinion of spreading complete non science and lies. Look at the Dover vs Kitzmiller case, classic example of desperation of these people trying to get their crap taught in science classes in public schools here. The Discovery Institute also likes to regurgitate that there is a 'controversy' in the science community regarding evolution, when in truth, the only 'controversy' is the one that the D.I. and others of their ilk are making up. You also have the people here in America who don't have enough common since to know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

You mention the flat earth. Well, we have the Young Earth Creationists to deal with too. They believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs.

Of course, then there's this 'war' on christianity that's being waged here that always starts to pick up steam this time of year. In reality, the only 'war' is in the minds of the people making the acusation.

We also have to deal with the tripe that a lot of people think that America was founded on christian principles or is a 'christian' nation, which is bullshit too. A good portion of the founding fathers here were diests and and it is quite evident by how the constitution was written and in their personal writtings and a few of them actually were quite critical of the bible and its teachings.

I think America is a great country and even though it may be home of the free and the land of the brave, it is also home of many many stupid people who blindly follow their preacher, minister, World Nut Daily, etc, without questioning them or doing some research.

So with all of that, I'm actually surprised the percentage of people who reject evolution is not higher here.

The chart is from 2005 and it shows that America ranks second to last (in the countries surveyed) in the percentage of people that accept evolution.

[RainMaker]

I was surprised by the numbers as well. I guess I just don't know a ton of people who don't believe in evolution so I assumed it wasn't that bad.

The whole thing is sad and I'm not sure what can be done. I already think it's a travesty that science teachers have to tip-toe around this topic in class. It would be an even bigger one if we started teaching our students this. Just allows other countries to continue to gain and surpass us in science and technology.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I love the way this poll is presented, btw. It's about damn time a liberal actually took the time to figure out that the TV people are over-generalising the evolution=liberal and creationism=conservative crap. So good for you, Kodos!

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

I fall into this category as well.. I believe in Evolution but clicked the wrong radiobutton.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The astonishment I expressed, though, was not at Rainmaker but at the poll results - that approximately 40% of Americans reject the validity of evolution.

A week ago, as part of the dccumentary celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, I watched a documentary by a English Anglican priest titled "Did Darwin kill God?". The program began with the statement "to hear the arguments against evolution we have to go to America" and from then on the documentary interviewed Americans at various institutions both for and against the thesis.

There is no worthwhile objection to evolutionary theory in first world countries outside America. As I pointed out earlier both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church - and that, I suspect, means the dogma of a significant majority of the world's christians - have dropped their objections to the theory. The Anglican Church has even made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated. Here (and I can speak reasonably for Britain and Australia) objecting to evolution is like insisting the world is flat.

So it surprises me that around 40% of Americans still do. Such similarities in the cultures yet such differences.

40% of this country is ignorant (to be polite)...does seem a bit shocking - until you spend a significant amount of time here.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

I voted. But I am choosing to refrain from debating the minority position in an openly hostile environment. Sorry, guys, I just don't have the time right now.

(Although the reference to World Nut Daily did just about draw me in - snicker, snicker - but I still refrain)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by revrew

I voted. But I am choosing to refrain from debating the minority position in an openly hostile environment. Sorry, guys, I just don't have the time right now.

(Although the reference to World Nut Daily did just about draw me in - snicker, snicker - but I still refrain)

i'm not sure the environment is hostilet hough revrew. i think the environment would be hostile if you came to the discussion in an aggressive stance...but if you came in with thoughtful points in a civil manner I think by-and-large everyone would respond in a civil fashion.

we tend to have an okay track record discussing these "hot button" issues with the exception of a few folks on either side who tend to "go off the deep end" and should just be ignored or not responded to or whatever.

if you don't have the time right now though that is a different matter entirely.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

I believe Evolution is the recipe, but it will never be able to tell us if there was or was not a chef, and I'm libertarian mostly, so I was a libertarian yes. I really consider myself a classsic conservative, but since teh modern conservativism has moved faaaaaar away from that.....

[Kodos]

FWIW, I was thinking of JonInMiddleGA, not Rev. Since he voted already anyhow.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I believe Evolution is the recipe, but it will never be able to tell us if there was or was not a chef.....

Two different things. Abiogenesis is the study on how life could have come to be here on earth and would be closer to the 'recipe' that you speak of. Attributing evolution to how life began is a very common misconception, just like when people try to attribute evolution to how the universe began.

[kenparker23]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Facts are based on evidence. There is an immense amount of evidence from fossils to DNA that show species evolving from one to another. Closing your eyes to it and believing in fairy tales and pixie dust doesn't change reality. Although I won't blame you for missing it as I'm sure ignorance is an evolved trait.

Please,give me evidence. Show me this "immense amount of evidence". I stand by my statement. The finch populations that were previously mentioned are not groundbreaking. Taxonomists are still debating classification these birds. There are proteins that result in different skeletal features of the beak.

Like I said, I DO believe in evolution within species. It is based on environment and natural selection.

However, I do not believe that every living animal in this world evolved from a single cell.

You can criticize the "fairy tale" all you want and you have made it very clear where you stand on this issue. Yes, I am a Christian and I believe in God. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it. I will take my chances.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

Please,give me evidence. Show me this "immense amount of evidence". I stand by my statement. The finch populations that were previously mentioned are not groundbreaking. Taxonomists are still debating classification these birds. There are proteins that result in different skeletal features of the beak.

Like I said, I DO believe in evolution within species. It is based on environment and natural selection.

However, I do not believe that every living animal in this world evolved from a single cell.

You can criticize the "fairy tale" all you want and you have made it very clear where you stand on this issue. Yes, I am a Christian and I believe in God. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it. I will take my chances.

isn't part of the problem with what you're asking for though is that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer. millions even.

look at all the discussion surrounding early hominids - at what point do they go from "chimp" to "human?" Because clearly those are two different species, right? What's the definining characteristic? is it brain-casing? Walking upright? Speech? Because it's there. You won't find it in one skelaton, but you can see the evolution of the skeletal-shape over hundreds of thousands of years evolving to a bipedal form. You can see it in the evolution of the skulls to support the development of the Broca speech-center of the brain.

[Kodos]

WE DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Kodos

WE DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!

okay...fair enough...you're right. i should have been more specific in my post and said that we clearly diverged from a common ancestor at some point in the past.

saw something the other night that was interesting about how human head lice and human pubic lice are different. human head lice are unique to humans but human pubic lice are essentially ape-lice. saying that when we lost the hair covering all of our bodies the two species of lice on our bodies diverged evolutionally.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I believe Evolution is the recipe, but it will never be able to tell us if there was or was not a chef...

It's that next leap that's always baffled me. How one gets from "a chef" who put all of this in motion to the notion of the Chrisitan/Islamic or what-have-you God that favors a certain people, gives people very strict rules as how to live their lives, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

Please,give me evidence. Show me this "immense amount of evidence". I stand by my statement. The finch populations that were previously mentioned are not groundbreaking. Taxonomists are still debating classification these birds. There are proteins that result in different skeletal features of the beak.

Like I said, I DO believe in evolution within species. It is based on environment and natural selection.

However, I do not believe that every living animal in this world evolved from a single cell.

You can criticize the "fairy tale" all you want and you have made it very clear where you stand on this issue. Yes, I am a Christian and I believe in God. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it. I will take my chances.

I don't even know where to start. We have both intermediate fossils for lots of species and DNA evidence. There are countless books and studies on it. This information is hard to find and if you have a particular question I'll be happy to look it up for you.

I'm not criticizing the fairy tale, I'm saying it's ignorant to substitute it in the place of reality. There are a lot of people who believe in religion and accept basic scientific fact.

But like I said earlier, if you were to come down with something like cancer, you won't be demanding evidence from your doctor on evolution when he prescribes you with medicine based off that science.

[JediKooter]

I think species is an overused/misused word when it comes to evolution. I think of a species as no more than two like or similar entities being able to mate and have fertile offspring. Humans come from the same family that apes and monkees do. However, neither can mate and have fertile offspring, so in that sense we are different species, but, and the big but is, we ALL come from the same common ancestor.

Another issue with using the word species is, I think it was back in the 1700s before DNA and other means were developed regarding evolution, a classification system was developed and in widespread use by the time Darwin and his contemporaries came along and even today, it is hard to get away from that classification system which leads to a lot of confusion.

[Edward64]

Just another datapoint. Although the common belief is that evolution is slow, gradual changes from adaptation/mutation, Gould proposes that evolution may take 'leaps'.

A Darwinian leap / Stephen Jay Gould proposes that catastrophes triggered mass changes in species

Essential to Gould's thinking on evolution for the past 30 years is the concept he has called "punctuated equilibrium," the idea that evolution does not proceed along an infinitely slow course where, as Darwin saw it, individual organisms change and new species emerge in response to environmental pressures that weed out the unfit through a kind of Malthusian "survival of the fittest" and preserve the organisms best adapted to new environments.

But Darwin, ever the uniformitarian, conceded that huge gaps in the fossil record of his time posed the most crucial threat to his gradualist picture of natural selection. In 1972, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge, now at New York's American Museum of Natural History, published an influential paper that in effect saw those gaps in the fossil record as what Gould calls "valuable information rather than frustrating failure."

Fossils in long-buried sediments of the Devonian period in Michigan, for example, established that primitive, clamlike brachiopods remained unchanged for countless thousands of years, and that in fact no intermediate fossil forms at all lay between those species and the new and very different brachiopod species that succeeded them after a major "mass extinction" killed off 90 percent of all living species some 367 million years ago.

Thus, Eldredge and Gould concluded that "stasis is data," and that instead of Darwin's minute adaptational changes in individual organisms, evolution must proceed by huge leaps and bounds, with species remaining unchanged for long periods of time until some major event, most probably environmental and quite possibly global, creates an opening for entirely new species to emerge in very brief bursts.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

[Kodos]

That's awesome. I just hope that chimp doesn't eat Kirk's banana. You behave, Grandpa!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coder

I fall into this category as well.. I believe in Evolution but clicked the wrong radiobutton.

Clearly you need to evolve better poll taking skills?

SI

[sterlingice]

Evolution is just not best accurately described as "survival of the fittest"- it's really "survival of the good enough".

Just to use a simple example of, say, a giraffe. The tallest giraffe only survives and the others die if, and only if, only the top branch has food available the shorter giraffes die before reproducing. So, the very shortest die out because they can't get any food, but it's not as if the tallest are the only to survive as many in the middle also survive.

Not only that, but with many traits, it's good to be in the middle- not at the top. Great: so you can reach the top branches but you can't escape as well from a predator because you don't have as good of maneuverability and are susceptible to back issues.

And, yeah, more realistically- you aren't going to see substantial changes in species until mass extinction events. A species can get along fat, dumb, and happy with all sorts of excess for quite a while until some disaster preens back its gene pool. At that point, only those with the traits required for survival and subsequent reproduction will survive and those traits will exists in all for that species until mutations start to crop up again.




(As an aside, big bang theory is another matter entirely, in my mind. "The laws of physics work great except for the first few small pieces of time where they bend in ways that don't make sense to balance out equations. Never mind those few moments happens to be the most pivotal moments of our theory." I don't know how long it's going to take us to get telescopes or instruments that will allow us to figure out the moment our universe winked into existence, if ever. But if we do, us and Big Bang are going to look like as we look upon those who thought the sun revolved around the Earth or thought the earth was flat.)

SI

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just another datapoint. Although the common belief is that evolution is slow, gradual changes from adaptation/mutation, Gould proposes that evolution may take 'leaps'.

A Darwinian leap / Stephen Jay Gould proposes that catastrophes triggered mass changes in species

I thought macro-evolution was pretty commonly accepted as true these days by most experts, since microevolution has some logical flaws.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I thought macro-evolution was pretty commonly accepted as true these days by most experts, since microevolution has some logical flaws.

I do think macro evolution is pretty much accepted. However, I don't think this contradicts what Gould is proposes about rapid leaps in evolution.

Anyone major in biology?