Poll: Do you support evolution?

[gamernerdtg2]

I don't support evolution. I don't need to support evolution. Unlike religion, which requires a constant stream of cash from its believers and pedophiles to act as priests, evolution happens whether we embrace it, ignore it, attempt to speed it up or try and halt its progress.

This is what I'm saying about the extremists. No one will believe in God as the pedophiles and power hungry leeches in leadership. I really think that this issue within the religious community needs to be sorted out before it can approach science with any credibility. How can you say "believe in God" and then completely go against everything that you're supposed to follow? I'm not an atheist but I understand the anger over this 100%.
The constant stream of cash quote is hilarious, but too true.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

No, I don't support evolution. I pirate it.

Reported for piracy.

You'd better feel sorry. You'd better be repentant. You thief.

 

[discrider]

As this point has already been countered previously in response to another poster, I'll just repeat what they said.

Indeed.


Honestly, the worst thing about this debate has to be the amount of propaganda from both sides. It just obfuscates the science. I mean, I was following Biscuit's links trying to analyse the science and form a more balanced opinion, but then they'd link to the creationist response who'd chew them out for misrepresenting their arguments and willfully ignoring evidence. And of course the opposite happens as well, with the creationists misrepresenting the evolutionist arguments. And around and around and around it goes. And it just becomes impossible to discern what is valid research among all the bluster without doing all the legwork yourself.

It doesn't help that all the scientific archives require subscriptions to browse either. Means we have to rely on a media filter of some kind to receive any information at all.

 

[Quaxar]

That was big news though, so you can kind of see how rare findings like this are. And even then this doesn't mean we can clone dinos, just that apparently enough DNA survived in some form to keep the cell alive. Let's put it this way, you can't expect to find genetic information older than half a million years or so, sure you could get lucky but it's extremely unlikely and needs very precise conditions. Hell, fossils are rare to find as it is so the chances are immensely small.

Well I have to wonder how many fossils we have found, because getting extraordinarily lucky seems like a non-argument to me.
Halflife of DNA: http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

I might have put it badly. Fossils are indeed extremely rare. Consider that billions of dinosaurs once dominated the whole world for 135 million years, yet only a few months ago paleontologists discovered a completely new genus (the magnitude above species), <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurornis_xui>Aurornis xui, a dinosaur-bird link. If you compared the amount of organisms that lived at any given time to the amount of fossils of each species we have found so far fossils are incredibly rare because they only form under very specific conditions. Good T-Rex fossils are so rare <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus>they even have individual names.
You can probably guess then how good your chances are of finding any DNA in any given fossil.

That doesn't mean we just dig at random, you can narrow possible locations down a lot with geological factors and known habitats. For example we know that human evolution happened mainly in Africa, so if we want to dig for early Homininae we'd be wise to go there. And if we know our African geology and history of discoveries we can deduce that the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Shear_Zone>Central African Shear Zone will be the best place to dig for an Australopithecus since there it is much easier to reach lower geological strata and thus older fossils.

That doesn't of course imply there couldn't have been Australopitheci in Europe at one point, but because we haven't found any anywhere outside of a certain area in Africa while at the same time we discovered quite a lot of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo ergaster in Europe and the latter one all over Asia as well it is the most likely explanation.

That also doesn't mean we can't get <url=http://jezebel.com/5992340/5+year+old-girl-discovers-new-species-of-dinosaur-scientists-name-it-after-her>5 year-olds stumbling upon new species from time to time too.

 

[snakeinthereeds]

This is a topic that should raise no debate, because the amount of proof for evolution is just plain ridiculous while creationists and other naysayers stick to misrepresenting the proponents and putting up ignorant claptrap they make up on the spot while utterly missing the whole point and meaning of the topic.

The only problem this really "has" with religion is that it clashes with all those creation myths that were written by people anyway. But you don't need to stick to any musty doctrines to believe in some sort of higher power(s) that influence how the world ticks. It's actually kind of a given that there are mechanisms this world runs on. Evolution looks like it might be one of these, or maybe a tool of some sort that propagates and updates data for some unknown purpose, or maybe for something that has little to do with the concept of "purpose" as we understand it. There's also the thing about that(those) "god(s)" having any sort of will/mind as we understand it being kind of unlikely. Because lets face it: there's no way anything anywhere near godlike would have the intelligence and attitude of a spoiled brat - how most religions like to portray them. And then the ones that don't trip over that one still have their gods have the brains of an average human. In essense: they're interpretations of "god" made in the image of humans, and that's just silly on way too many levels.

 

[BrassButtons]

4. I'm loath to take the human evolutionary "family" fossil tree as evidence of anything, since there is the huge incentive here for confirmation bias. There is a very disproportionate focus on our own ancestry, and so the fossil record will have been completed here regardless of it's veracity.

Just so we're clear, are you accusing paleontologists of incompetence or fraud? Either way this is a serious accusation, and I expect you to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise you should retract this libelous claim.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

Honestly, the worst thing about this debate has to be the amount of propaganda from both sides. It just obfuscates the science. I mean, I was following Biscuit's links trying to analyse the science and form a more balanced opinion, but then they'd link to the creationist response who'd chew them out for misrepresenting their arguments and willfully ignoring evidence. And of course the opposite happens as well, with the creationists misrepresenting the evolutionist arguments. And around and around and around it goes. And it just becomes impossible to discern what is valid research among all the bluster without doing all the legwork yourself.

It doesn't help that all the scientific archives require subscriptions to browse either. Means we have to rely on a media filter of some kind to receive any information at all.

This will get ranty but I feel I need to point out the thing as to why this position in particular is just such an annoying example of what is wrong this whole thing. Apologies for quite possibly offending you, but here's the thing:

Might as well say that there is "propaganda" from both sides and stuff "obfusciating" science when trying to ascertain whether or not evil lizard people control the world or we live in a democratic state. One of those positions is not like the other to the point where everyone who has somehow researched the matter properly says one of those positions is very much bogus. So why on earth would anyone argue differently? I tell you why: because they have a vested emotional interest in getting people to adopt their viewpoint - no matter the cost.

And that is also the problem here: every single internet-creationist counterargument I have ever seen trying to "disprove" evolution is either ultimately fallacious, clearly just an emotional appeal to manipulate people to adopt that viewpoint, plainly uneducated or any combination of them - it is clear to me that most just don't know what they are talking about or a clear attempt at proselytization. The most egregious part about it, however, is the utter amount of arrogance inherent in that position: clearly somebody who has read two articles in some fucking blog can disprove over 100 years of work by scientists who wrote an ungodly amount of papers, did years of field work or performed thousands of experiments - because, hey, instead of thinking that maybe that strange organization that wants me to send them all my money because they want to spread the word of god is a little bit shady, clearly it must be far more trustworthy than every scientist ever, every scientific theory ever and any bloody application ever that has been born out of scientific research. And the reason is: they have to be right because somebody told them that it is part of what makes them be, ultimately because somebody, somewhere applied an unbelievably narrow interpretation to a piece of text. And that is enough for them to try with all their might to tear down a theory that might even save lives with its predictions.

That is not to say, that science, biology, evolution or what have you is beyond reproach, skepticism is bad or even god does not exist - by all means be skeptic and do research, try to learn things, make up your own mind, believe in whatever you want to and, above all, feel free to ask - but to presume to be able to mechanically disprove a cornerstone of biological science by a mere argument made up in five minutes of spare time without having at the very least a formal education on the matter and a place in the scientific community or simply as you call it "doing" the legwork is just one thing: pride. And that was a cardinal sin last time I checked.

Or in other words: it's simply not your or my place to decide if evolution is right or wrong - it was never a debate we were qualified to enter in the first place.

However, I can relate that research is hard to come by without a university access. So, if you are genuinely interested in those mechanical aspects and where and how it might not make sense I suggest to start with some university courses that you might find online for free (The MIT has some youtube channels on that I think) take the literature from there and edge onwards, Google Scholar [http://scholar.google.com/] might also be a good source if you want to find some papers, some of which are I think free. There is also PLOS [http://www.plos.org/] a free database for articles that you can use and arXiv [http://arxiv.org/] for physics you can also always skim through. For starters, I suggest to search for any articles or introductory stuff that might be good. There are also good magazines like Scientific American that you can also read to get a first introduction into these details.

 

[VulakAerr]

Err... do I support it? I think "support" is the wrong word. I think evolution will do just fine without my support.

Captcha: play again

Okay!

 

[Dethenger]

I don't think "support" is the right word here. Evolution isn't really a cause. Do you support gravity? No.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Religion's main problem with evolution, I've found, is that religious people don't like the logical consequences of it being true. ie. If we assume every human being has a completely arbitrarily assigned "soul" then it asks the religious person to make some very hard logical leaps when looking back at evolution. The difference between humans and other primates are varying ranges of small to tiny, so do they have souls too? But the difference between primates and the other relatives of that group are small, so do they all have souls too? What about another step back from that? Every step is small and it's impossible to make a serious clear line saying "This side has souls, that side does not" without being completely arbitrary in the most blatantly obvious of ways. At some point, the logical extension of souls + evolution leads you to have to wonder about the spiritual salvation of your potted plants. If you simply decide "no, only humans!" the question then arises, at what point did humans suddenly go from soulless beasts to salvation-necessary god worshipers? Evolution basically makes it so that religion has to fall onto one of two conclusions: Either we have not always had souls, in which case souls are a recent "invention", which religion cannot accept because it challenges the timelessness of their tenents, OR all living things have souls, in which case not only are they committing murder every time you kill literally anything, be it animals for your meat, wheat for your bread, or sugar cane for your cereal, but they have to concern themselves over the question of how soul-bound non-humans fit into their belief in the afterlife, ie do monkeys go to heaven, do dogs go to heaven, do cats go to heaven, do gerbils go to heaven, do worms go to heaven, do potted plants go to heaven? What does the spiritual salvation of a potted plant hinge on? Is it possible for anything other than a human to go to hell? Based on what do they make a claim one way or the other? And so on and so on. In the end, because evolution brings up so many uncomfortable questions, religions have a tendency to fall back on to their creation stories and simply claim evolution is a lie because it doesn't mesh with that story.

 

[Wyes]

Hey, look, 11 people are wrong! Don't let anyone fool you, there is NO argument against evolution. You are just wrong.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity.

11 people are not wrong. 11 people simply have beliefs counter to your own.

-

This as why threads like this go to R&P.

Lol, yeah, might as well go up to the professor after you get an answer wrong on an exam and declare "I'm not wrong, I just have beliefs counter to your own!" It'd make as much sense.

One day you will be out of school, and what a teacher or professor thinks will seem less important. People can be wrong about things and get through life just fine. Look at you, you are wrong about needing to be right all of the time.

Did I just cause your world to crumble before you? Sorry about that...

Professors are not infallible, but they tend to get to those positions because they're good at what they do, and it's usually the strength of their research, not their teaching abilities, that get them those positions.

They tend to be experts in their field, who usually teach things that have been established 'facts' for a long time (the newest thing I ever learnt was some Chaos Theory which is about 30-40 years old).

So when the professor tells you that you're wrong and they've carefully considered your claim, you can be damn near certain that you're wrong.

Evolution falls into this category. It has been a well established scientific theory for over a century and a half. In that time it has withstood all tests thrown its way. It is accepted in the scientific community as fact - there is no controversy.

So when people say they don't think evolution is real, then well... they are wrong, there's no two ways about it. Those people are free to believe whatever they want, but belief does not change reality.

 

[In Search of Username]

I don't claim to have a fucking clue personally, but given that scientists base their viewpoint on evidence and creationists base their viewpoints on a two-thousand-year-old book, I'm gonna go with team science.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

People that do not believe in Evolution are so stupid that they disprove the theory of human evolution.

 

[Whodat]

I believe in evolution, but something put us here. So yes, I believe 100% percent in evolution, but origin of species is where I am conflicted.

 

[Sunrider]

People that do not believe in Evolution are so stupid that they disprove the theory of human evolution.

#Shotsfired

OT: I cringe a bit whenever I see someone say "Micro-evolution, fine, but macro-evolution? Fuck that.".

I'll just leave this here. Should simplify things a bit.

 

[spartan231490]

I believe in creationism and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive. That said, you're poll has a great many biases, not just age. You also aren't going to have as many females, and you're going to have many more atheists here on this site than in the general populace.

 

[Naeo]

In the same way I "support" or "believe" in, say, the theory of gravitation, or the theory that vowels exist. The "alternative" explanations (i.e. creationism/intelligent design) are, frankly, stupid. They're not scientific explanations, they contradict observations and legitimate scientific inquiry and development (the foundation of which has held up to any number of peer reviews), and have absolutely no place in a society that actually values science. It's a bunch of people who don't understand anything about science trying to push a stupid, backwards, and hilariously shabby excuse for an explanations. They falls apart under any real scrutiny and questioning, and the vocal proponents of these "theories" don't even know enough to know how little they know. They think they know everything about the subject because they don't even know how much else is out there to know. Or, they just don't care, and are dogmatically pushing their bullshit excuses for science.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I was searching the other day for a recent poll on how many people believe evolution vs. creationism, but the only ones I could find were over a year old. So I decided to bring the question to you, the Escapist viewers. I probably won't get many people in the 54+ age group, but all polls have some element of bias. So, which do you believe? Feel free to tear each other apart in the comments.

EDIT: All right, maybe believe was the wrong word. How does 'support' sound?

I don't need to 'support' evolution. The world exists as it does whether I acknowledge it or not.

The only difference is whether I'm able to recognize how the world works. Nobody is able to cure some instance of cancer by using Christian theology. Nobody is able to launch a satellite into space by believing that the earth is flat. By believing in stories instead of trying to understand the world around us through investigation and tests, we paint ourselves into a corner where we have little control and self-determination.