Poll: Do you support evolution?

[fleischwolke]

The poll is badly formulated. Believing in evolution is like believing in gravitation. So why not make another poll: "Do you believe in gravitation? Yes/ No/ Maybe/ Cake!"

 

[Whispering Cynic]

I don't need to "believe" in anything. I've seen rational, scientific evidence for evolution - that makes it real in my eyes. Belief isn't needed when you have evidence.

 

[Angie7F]

I am somewhere in between because I dont think i will be able to sitness the effect of evolution for myself.
I dont believe in religion wither, and choose not to think too much about which is better.

 

[kabooz18]

you can't believe in science since it's the study of what "is" always trying to determine how the world works through observation .
as for "evolution vs creationism" ... it's really a moot argument,
either its evolution since it's established and well observed
or it's creationism in the non traditional way, in that god created everything including evolution.

Of course it could always be something entirely different and there always was evolution or we ended up with it.

 

[Smeatza]

If we're using the definition of "belief" that means "confidence." Then yes, I am confident of the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Yes, I believe in animals.

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

You're a christian? Huh.

OT: I don't "believe" in evolution so much as I've read and viewed the evidence and it seems to make sense and be backed up by a lot of... well, evidence.

We can map out a lot of evolutionary paths for animals, we can find evolutionary dead ends too.

I'd really recommended people to watch some stuff like this:

Spoiler

And the follow up:

Spoiler

Oh and every time I see a lunatic argue that bananas are shaped for our hands by god or whatever I crack up.

Evolution is a thing, maybe some deity set the universe in motion, but nothing was created as it is now.

David Attenborough does subscribe to that theory about aquatic humans though and that isn't supported by any evidence. Indeed, the background to that theory is not dissimilar to the whole bannana hand thing.

Wait, was that the point? I'm on break so can't watch videos.

Um no the point of those videos is not that at all, they're just a documentary on where life began and a rough outline of how it is thought to have advanced. It's very interesting actually.

There's an actual theory about fish people?...

Truth be told I heard it somewhat fleetingly on a radio programme about scientific developments in paleontology but from what I recall the generally accepted theory is that humans, or rather homo sapiens, evolved on the African savannah and this is backed up by fossils and such. I'm no expert but I think it's stuff like the teeth are effective at dealing with fruits and grasses from the region and our bone structure shares characteristics with other creatures that evolved exclusively in the aforementioned savannah.

The aquatic origin theory that Attenborough and others subscribe to suggests we evolved in a coastal or river delta style region. I forget the specifics but it's all based on speculation rather than hard evidence. It's nothing like mer-people or other such rot but there is a twinge of romantic and magical thinking about it all. Personally I think it's interesting because I remember a programme when David went to Madagascar on some personal quest to find evidence of some walloping great bird that'd gone extinct, he found egg fragments in the end, and he critiscised some of his own writings when he'd gone over there as a young man and was "anthromorphising all over the place" when pontificating the mating habits of local lemurs. I can't help but wonder if it's the old fantasies coming back to plauge his reason.

But then it makes you think, doesn't it? I mean, is a scientist, a good scientist, a totally mechanical entitiy? Do they not need to be something of a dreamer? Perhaps it needs to be a balance; the dream tempered by the reality of the scientific method in order to forge truth.

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Yes, I believe in animals.

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

You're a christian? Huh.

OT: I don't "believe" in evolution so much as I've read and viewed the evidence and it seems to make sense and be backed up by a lot of... well, evidence.

We can map out a lot of evolutionary paths for animals, we can find evolutionary dead ends too.

I'd really recommended people to watch some stuff like this:

Spoiler

And the follow up:

Spoiler

Oh and every time I see a lunatic argue that bananas are shaped for our hands by god or whatever I crack up.

Evolution is a thing, maybe some deity set the universe in motion, but nothing was created as it is now.

David Attenborough does subscribe to that theory about aquatic humans though and that isn't supported by any evidence. Indeed, the background to that theory is not dissimilar to the whole bannana hand thing.

Wait, was that the point? I'm on break so can't watch videos.

Um no the point of those videos is not that at all, they're just a documentary on where life began and a rough outline of how it is thought to have advanced. It's very interesting actually.

There's an actual theory about fish people?...

Truth be told I heard it somewhat fleetingly on a radio programme about scientific developments in paleontology but from what I recall the generally accepted theory is that humans, or rather homo sapiens, evolved on the African savannah and this is backed up by fossils and such. I'm no expert but I think it's stuff like the teeth are effective at dealing with fruits and grasses from the region and our bone structure shares characteristics with other creatures that evolved exclusively in the aforementioned savannah.

The aquatic origin theory that Attenborough and others subscribe to suggests we evolved in a coastal or river delta style region. I forget the specifics but it's all based on speculation rather than hard evidence. It's nothing like mer-people or other such rot but there is a twinge of romantic and magical thinking about it all. Personally I think it's interesting because I remember a programme when David went to Madagascar on some personal quest to find evidence of some walloping great bird that'd gone extinct, he found egg fragments in the end, and he critiscised some of his own writings when he'd gone over there as a young man and was "anthromorphising all over the place" when pontificating the mating habits of local lemurs. I can't help but wonder if it's the old fantasies coming back to plauge his reason.

But then it makes you think, doesn't it? I mean, is a scientist, a good scientist, a totally mechanical entitiy? Do they not need to be something of a dreamer? Perhaps it needs to be a balance; the dream tempered by the reality of the scientific method in order to forge truth.

Aquatic Ape Theory, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_theory.

There are some points to it that give it credit, but it can also be explained else where.

A better fossil record, would help clear up any of those confusions. But.. you know, nature sucks that way.
The conditions to get a fossil, that goes back far enough, requires 'just the right conditions', to survive those millions of years till today.
We are always finding new ones. (thankfully) But its not like (and this is something a lot of Christians don't understand) every skeleton that ever existed, is still in the ground just waiting to be dug up. If it were. Man.. Evolution would have been proven 75 years ago.

On a side note, Interesting thing I always wondered was.. How did humans, Hunt before we developed tools? That was something I always pondered.. Then I saw a interview with an anthropologist, regarding human feet...

http://phys.org/news/2011-02-early-humans-won-neandertals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

I'd probably die, trying to chase a deer dead. lol

 

[McMarbles]

I don't "believe" in evolution, as that wording suggests it isn't an observable fact.

I don't "believe" in gravity or magnetism either. They are facts. Belief is irrelevant.

 

[Kukakkau]

Well considering I did a lab project that involved me effectively evolving a strain of bacteria in order to make them resistant to an antibiotic, then passing that resistance on to the replicated cells...
(Transduction if anyone is interested)

It would be kinda dumb for me to doubt evolution

I'm always puzzled why die hard religious people refuse evolution outright - I mean the theory explains changes over time, but it doesn't give the answer to the origin source of that life, could still be a god - nobody knows currently.

 

[TRex22]

I think and therefore I exist. That is all I am truly certain of. In terms of what I can observe I believe in science and am a deist.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

Don't worry, judging by the poll results, it's not much of a contest on this site.

Put another one down for team science.

 

[Ytomyth]

No, I don't believe in/support evolution. The same way I don't believe in/support gravity. (Bit different with gravity though, I really don't support it, even discourage it. Let me fly, dammit!)

EDIT: Reading something you're responding to properly is hard. >.<

 

[Euryalus]

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

Don't worry, judging by the poll results, it's not much of a contest on this site.

Put another one down for team science.

I'm not so much worried as I am exasperated by the fact this is a discussion. The response I had when I read the title was a sigh. What it should have been was a "Wait what? of course I do. Why ask?." Or even a surprised "There's a competing theory? WHAT?!"

Unfortunately we all knew it was about religion. Which it shouldn't even be about :/

 

[Rastrelly]

Wow. I see not the result I was expecting to see. Not that I ain't glad to see such a result )

 

[Snotnarok]

Believe it or not, it's basically proven with the exception of being able to show something evolve in real time. Hence why it's a theory ...like gravity, and the earth orbiting the sun, yes, they are theories. For some reason many seem to think a theory means a hypothesis, it's not.

Interesting thing I'd like to add here. A research team at my university is currently observing parapatric speciation (or possibly sympatric speciation based on how you define it) in a species of fish in a pond. The population lives in the same pond, but they lay their eggs in different streams so they are separated while reproducing, thus it's most likely parapatric speciation, but nevertheless they are observing the divergence of one species becoming two.

I know you've been informed of the virus evolution, but I thought you'd be interested in knowing it's being observed in animals too.

Indeed I already replied to another poster about fish but in a different way, 2 of the same species with a difference, one lives in polluted water and survives because they adapted to the waters toxins, and this is a result of our presence so it's not like it could have taken excessively long.

The most easy to observe evolution is the flu, need to constantly make modifications to treatments, no wait that's a conspiracy by the government I'm sure some people suggest. They're out to get our hotdogs ladies and gentleman!

The biggest case against evolution is ignorance in recent discoveries or just information in general "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys!?" or they try and use skewed numbers to justify this planets population to be a miracle. While that may be true there's no confirmed life out there ...yet, even if the odds were .01% for a planet to have life, in our galaxy alone the number of populated planets would be very much in the many...never the less the universe. Hm, I think I got off topic there in the end but, it really shocks me what people force into fields of facts and discovery with bias and prejudgement.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Faith is just pride. Science is the antithesis of it, despite what some have said.

 

[O maestre]

hmmm this again, a true conflagration. I thought with the support on the title this would have asked whether or not we were activley supporting some kind of evolutionary agenda, like only intending to have offspring with a genetically diverse mate, or other kinds of experimental breeding programs.


OT: evolution and ae proven through genetic experiments, adaptability within a single generation should be enough evidence, like callous finger tips. The interesting argument would also be whether the process happens gradually or if there actually are leaps.

 

[Ville Vuorela]

How does one *support* evolution?

Are you suggesting we should do something... eh... drastic to enforce it?

 

[Lightknight]

I think some people are being a little bit silly about the word "believe". I believe that I exist, I believe that I had cereal for breakfast. Believe isn't faith. You can know facts and not necessarily believe in them. So it's silly to say things like "believe" is a bad term to use. Belief is merely the acceptance of something as true.

As an addition to what Quaxar already mentioned, there are applications where you can neglect the momentum-dependence or mass-dependence under certain circumstances which will yield suitable results. When you do scattering experiments in particle accelerators for instance you usually work in energy ranges much larger than the electron rest energy given by E = mc^2, so you can neglect the term under the root for fast electrons and only work with E = pc which simplifies the equations immensely.

Naturally, outside of studying physics one rarely meets these problems mostly because they rest on Quantum Mechanics and Scattering Theory both of which cannot be exhaustively explained without resorting to advanced math which is out of the scope of schools to convey.

The idea that the speed of light is a local constant would lend to some examples like that being basically useful. Any variances would be small enough to be inconsistent. But this would certainly explain why I didn't have a ton of coursework that used the constant.

E=mc2 only uses squared c (the constant) as a conversion factor between energy and mass, it's nothing to do with movement as this is the abbreviated formular for the energy of an object in rest. The proper whole formula for motion is E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2, where p is the momentum of the object. Of course if the momentum is 0 you get it down to the well-known bit.

That makes better sense.

Yeah, lazy teachers... the one I had one year nearly electrocuted herself. Thankfully we got a smarter one for the last few years who really managed to get me into it and I actually did my A-levels with her.
If you're interested in physics I can really recommend the channel on Youtube (where I took the two videos I used from), which is a project by the University of Nottingham's physics department. They also have chemistry and math channels run by the respective departments. And one for computers. And one for literature. And one for the bible. And one for food science.
Not much you can't find really.

Thanks, that'll be useful. I've clearly gotten forgetful after years of not using physics for much of anything.

Either way, I stand corrected and I thank you for it. As a sign of gratitude, I'll give you the gift of an optical illusion with which I have delighted my peers at dinner conversations. Place your wrist between your eyes with your palm resting on your forehead and your eyes on either side of the small of your wrist such that your wrist appears distorted/smaller than it actually is. Now, take your other hand and pass it on the other side of your wrist at a straight horizontal angle. Note that as you pass it by, your brain is momentarily confused because it apparently takes too long to get there.

Now, if you already knew this. Let me explain that other people do not commonly know this silly trick and are as amazed at it as they were the first time someone made a pencil move like rubber in front of their eyes.

Huh, I didn't know that one actually, although it took me a few tries until I realized that I made a mistake reading your instructions.

It can also be fun to pass larger objects like a mug or something. Your brain consistently has trouble with it. Jus a moment of broken expectation. I must have been really bored when I first found it in elementary school but I remember sharing it with my classmates around 3rd grade. To be an adult and to regularly find most people to not know such a simple trick is kind of odd.

 

[Silk_Sk]

Hasn't Micro-evolution (the evolution of single-cell organisms) basically proven the concepts that the greater theory is founded on. That is, that some random advantage in DNA allows some bacteria to survive when the environment changes--let's say, penicillin is introduced--which leads to only bacteria with the penicillin immunity left to repopulate.
(I realize there's some arguments to be made because bacteria also has the ability to trade strands of DNA with other microbes, but the principle still stands).

Its good you made that connection! Micro evolution happening over and over again IS macro evolution. There is literally NO difference between the two except time. Its similar to running 1 meter and running a mile. If you do the first over and over during a long period of time the second has to happen by definition. Ive personally gene sequenced a microbe my team was trying to breed to survive in British soil. I personally saw the DNA change in how it survived different soil acidity. I got a huge list of AGTC's before and after and could directly compare them to see what changed. Which was actually quite a lot in the section that controlled how they survived soil acid levels! If you can prove a man has been running at a constant speed for a hundred thousand years you can know he has run a mile already, even if you can only watch him run 1 meter. One is just an extension of another. Its very important to the understand of evolution that this connection is made and i commend you for seeing it by yourself

As atheists are so fond of saying, my belief is not affecting them so why should they care?

Dont be so hasty to group us, a lot of us really dont. Here in the UK we have a lot of christians but almost NO bible literalists. Most of my fellow biologists are christian and we never have any issues! Hell i met the leader of the genetics team mentioned above at church camp (I go to meet my girlfriends friends even though im an atheist and always have a wonderful time :3) and we get along great.

Two things though, first of all "Creationist" here in the UK at least means "Bible literalist". It means you take a literal view on creation. The word to describe what you're talking about is "Theistic evolution". Which is longer i know but I have simply NEVER met another person online or in the real world who used "Creationist" like you do. It might be why people are confused and hostile. You're not using the word like anyone else is. At least in my experience.

The second thing is that my beef with creationists (the bible literal kind) is the insult to my study and my experience. Its like walking into a car mechanics, striding up to the foreman and saying "I SAW THREEEE FACEBOOK POSTS ABOUT CARS AND MY PASTOR TOLD ME A LITTLE ABOUT THEM. YOU ARE FIXING THEM WRONG I KNOW WHY THEY DONT LAST FOREVER ITS SOOO OBVIOUS WHY AND MY 5 MINUTES OF STUDY ALLOWS ME TO SEE THIS OVER YOUR 10 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE! HOW COME WHEN THE ENGINE GOES FIRE AND FUMES DOESNT COME OUT OF THE CAR ALL OVER THE WINDOWS?!"... "You mean the exhaust....?"

Its infuriating because you get people who spend literally 10 minutes reading slanted arguments and funny mocking pictures about evolution and think they can destroy a theory using silly thought experiments like "Why are there monkeys?" These are problems biologists are taught the answer to on day one. Literally the most basic issues we fixed and solved 100 years ago. Im happy for scientific discourse and argument but i have NEVER seen a creationist (my definition) bring anything useful to the table, any thought provoking challenge. Its the same tired fallacious arguments that we had answers to a century ago. Likewise the complex problems in car engineering wont be answered or brought up by someone asking questions like "WHY DONT THE WHEELS RUB THE BODY OF THE CAR WHEN THEY SPIN HUH?!". Believe me when i say its very annoying.

Hah! Always a pleasure to have my mind expanded a bit. Thank you. I'll think more carefully on the meanings of terms I use.