Poll: Do you support evolution?

[Dinwatr]

You can believe in both God and Evolution.

Go to YouTube. Type in "AronRa". Watch his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism videos. One of the first ones is about how many evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, etc. are actually religious. For example, Dr. Robert Bakker, instrumental in demonstrating that birds are dinosaurs, is an Evangelical preacher.

Creationism is disproven science and bad theology.

 

[Wyes]

None of this addresses the fact that it can be ok to be wrong about some things, or that it's okj to let other people be wrong.

You're right, it does not address that. I never made any claims about it not being okay to be wrong.

People are wrong all the time. Science is wrong all the time - but science is self-correcting.

It is however not always okay to let other people be wrong. I think MinionJoe has shown why quite effectively.

If somebody believes what they're about to drink isn't poison, and I have a substantial base of evidence suggesting that it is, you'd better be damned sure that I'll tell them they're wrong.

One of the reasons I am opposed to people not thinking evolution is real is because that has real and detrimental consequences - the fact that there has been a problem at all in the US about people wanting to teach bullshit creationism as science in schools should be proof of that.

If we let a generation of school kids, who will go on to become doctors, lawyers, politicians, people in positions of power, and they hold such a ridiculous belief, then we are in trouble.

 

[Ruhsey]

Well now this may be a case of a poorly framed question. Do I support evolution? Well, I certainly believe it exists and happens. Would I support it? Hmmm. Leave me out if we have to call ourselves "team science", that's too corny. I am not sure if I have a choice though, if I choose to breed. Let me get back to you.

 

[Jegsimmons]

You mean it shows no evidence either way.

And that's not a question, that's a statement.
You can't draw a scientifically accurate conclusion when no evidence for either one exist, especially when dealing with the metaphysical.

Precisely what Eddie said.

"There is no god" is a negative statement; it is the logical default. The null hypothesis does not require evidence if there is no reason to believe otherwise.

For example; I do not require positive evidence that Freddy Krueger does not exist. The only logical default position is that he does not exist, because there is not a shred of evidence to say he does. A deity has the same amount of evidence as does Mr. Krueger.

"hey mister Wes Craven (or who ever came up with him.) is Freddy a fictional character?"
"yes"

positive evidence.

Sorry i just like being a smart ass.

 

[Jegsimmons]

so where is the option: "God made science, so it would be blasphemy to ignore scientific progress, so yes i support evolution"

God made a method by which to draw conclusions, and that method indicates that he doesn't exist?

I can see why that option wasn't in the poll.

You mean it shows no evidence either way.

And that's not a question, that's a statement.
You can't draw a scientifically accurate conclusion when no evidence for either one exist, especially when dealing with the metaphysical.

Not really. The null hypothesis is the default possession on anything, and in this case the null hypothesis states there is no supernatural. There is no connection unless you prove there is. Scientifically speaking unless you can prove there is a god, there isn't one. In science absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Here is a nice video explaining it better then I could.

"Scientifically speaking unless you can prove there is a god, there isn't one."

No, scientifically speaking, if their is no evidence either way, it inconclusive.

How ever, when speaking of a metaphysical being, physical evidence is out of the question anyway.
So in a sense, yes and no.

Also just so we're clear, im just debating for the sake of debating, i couldn't give less of a shit of others beliefs. My original comment was just for shits.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm really good at surviving and now I'm working on the whole passing on of genes bit. So I guess I'm supporting evolution. You're welcome.

 

[Dinwatr]

No, scientifically speaking, if their is no evidence either way, it inconclusive.

Not quite. "Inconclusive" is what we call evidence that supports multiple conclusions. For example, in 1987 the fossil record supported both a catastrophic extinction at the K/Pg boundary and a gradual one; we simply didn't have enough data to firmly conclude either one. But the important bit is that there WAS data.

In contrast, there is no data for, say, Russle's teapot. It's not that there's evidence against it; there's literally NO evidence. We don't say that the evidence for the existence of a teapot spinning out in space is inconclusive; we say that there's not enough data to entertain the notion even long enough to say it's wrong. The notion is, properly, dismissed out of hand.

In science all ideas must be supported by data before we can justify discussing them. That means that anything without evidence isn't wrong--there's not enough there for it TO BE wrong. It's nothing. It's irrelevant.

To be clear, I'm not saying anything about gods here--I'm merely clearing up an epistomological issue.

 

[ffs-dontcare]

I don't support evolution.

I don't support any other system either.

All I know is, I'm expected to support one way or the other because, either way, I'm being told that's what happened (or most likely happened).

I'll support something when I'm actually in a position to find out what happened myself (as close to first-hand as I possibly can), as opposed to being someone who was just taught about it by my teacher/mentor who was taught about it by his teacher/mentor and so forth.

And even then, it's not of much importance to me. I'm more interested in what's going to happen than what already happened.

 

[Dinwatr]

If you're honest about wanting to study evolution, I can find some papers for you. There are a lot of free PDFs out there from peer-reviewed journals that amply demonstrate the fact of evolution. You'll just have to put up with a paleontological perspective.

 

[obscuredlimits]

And here is the endless debate. There is nothing that prevents a person from thinking that the theory of evolution is correct and believing in some sort of deity at the same time. From a philosophical viewpoint, God is the only perfect being in existence, being all those things which it is better to be than not to be. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in that definition is contradictory, there is no cognitive dissonance. Therefore, as there is not an option for both, I choose neither. Good day ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Super Kami Guru]

There is no debate as to whether evolution is true or not, because it has been categorically proved beyond all reasonable doubt, it's as much a fact as the Earth revolving around the Sun, you don't get to have an opinion on that. What is open for debate is the way evolution works, how big of a role do genes, environment, sexual preference and random chance have on it.

Despite what some people say we can observe evolution, large species may take millions of years to change, however micro-organisms can do so almost daily, this is why we are constantly needing to research and develop new drugs to fight infection, they adapt and evolve to be resistant. Ever heard of MRSA? That is alone is proof of evolution. If you want a bigger example see this study on the Galapagos Finches http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090201_darwinday They observed evolutionary change in the size and beak shape of the finches, this is possible in species with such short reproductive cycles.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Also moths don't evolve to change colour in response to the environment. There needs to be moths with the specific colour scheme (or moths with seasonal changes as a part of their genes). The moths that have the advantageous phenotype will grow in numbers due to natural selection.

Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution consists of natural variation in offspring coupled with natural selection for those that best fit the environment/interact with other organisms in that environment. What you just described *IS* evolution.

Variation in moths. Natural selection for those moths that best fit the environment who go on to have offspring that are more likely to be like their parents. The gene pool (of the species/pool of organisms) has thus shuffled. That's evolution.

Yes, what I described is evolution I never claimed it wasn't.

I merely claimed that this was wrong.

moths evolve to change color when air quality changes the color of the trees they rest on.

This is wrong because they don't evolve to change their colour. The colour is already present, but due to natural selection the phenotype will increase in that population. This is evolution, your way of putting it is wrong.
You put it in a way that made it seem like evolution has a purpose rather than using it as an explanation of why things are. That is in fact one of the biggest misconceptions in evolution.

You clearly don't know evolution as well as you think you do, yet you have the audacity to tell others they have no right to speak unless they read up on it... I'll leave it at that.

I never said it had a purpose. Natural selection favors existing some mutated alleles over others. Accumulated damage or (semi-)random events provides the mutations. As to telling people they should read up on it I was correct in doing so. I did however make an error when I was responding to you. In reading comprehension of your reply to someone else, not in terms of the science. So I owe you an apology for that.

Again you misinterpret what I am saying here.

I didn't say you think evolution has a purpose I said your phrasing gives off the IMPRESSION that evolution has a purpose.

You also treat evolution as a mechanism rather than a process. This is a quite serious misunderstanding.

Your wording shows off knowledge of the basic principles with lack of any deeper understanding. You might not believe this, you might never admit it, but please, try to be more respectful to people who share your lack of understanding rather than fend them off and saying they have no right to voice their opinion. You think you understand it, but I'd say you've misunderstood a lot. Does that mean you don't have the right to voice your opinion before you get a degree in it? How can we be sure we understand something if we only got our own belief that we understand it?

I'm not asking you to admit you phrased your statement incorrectly, I'm not asking you to read up on it. I'm simply asking you to be more respectful, is this really an impossible task to you?

Perhaps my phrasing has given that impression. That's not what I think. I actually do have a bachelor's degree in biology with a major in biotechnology and biochemistry. Which of course doesn't mean I can't make errors. I'm happy to be corrected by people who are genuine experts on the matter. Which may or may not include you.

As for lecturing me on showing respect, you certainly come across to me as being condescending, implying that I'm apparently in denial - "You might not believe this, you might never admit it, but please, try to be more respectful to people who share your lack of understanding". Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm not motivated to go into depth on the topic in this thread. I was talking about the mechanism and I realise that evolution is indeed a process with a mechanism at work.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Anyway, religious people can reject evolution all they like and feel content that science can't disprove the existence of a deity. That's fine. It doesn't mean creationism has anything much going for it, that the idea of a deity makes much sense in the context of what we've discovered thus far through scientific endeavour or that a religious belief system is any basis for telling other people who don't buy into it, what moral standards they should uphold.

 

[Eddie the head]

"Scientifically speaking unless you can prove there is a god, there isn't one."

No, scientifically speaking, if their is no evidence either way, it inconclusive.

How ever, when speaking of a metaphysical being, physical evidence is out of the question anyway.
So in a sense, yes and no.

Also just so we're clear, im just debating for the sake of debating, i couldn't give less of a shit of others beliefs. My original comment was just for shits.

Pretty much what Dinwatr said. Inconclusive would be if the date presented could support two different outcomes. There is no date to support the "God hypotheses." And if there is no data the hypotheses it's irreverent. If the hypotheses is irreverent we default back to the null. That there isn't a god.

 

[Yopaz]

Also moths don't evolve to change colour in response to the environment. There needs to be moths with the specific colour scheme (or moths with seasonal changes as a part of their genes). The moths that have the advantageous phenotype will grow in numbers due to natural selection.

Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution consists of natural variation in offspring coupled with natural selection for those that best fit the environment/interact with other organisms in that environment. What you just described *IS* evolution.

Variation in moths. Natural selection for those moths that best fit the environment who go on to have offspring that are more likely to be like their parents. The gene pool (of the species/pool of organisms) has thus shuffled. That's evolution.

Yes, what I described is evolution I never claimed it wasn't.

I merely claimed that this was wrong.

moths evolve to change color when air quality changes the color of the trees they rest on.

This is wrong because they don't evolve to change their colour. The colour is already present, but due to natural selection the phenotype will increase in that population. This is evolution, your way of putting it is wrong.
You put it in a way that made it seem like evolution has a purpose rather than using it as an explanation of why things are. That is in fact one of the biggest misconceptions in evolution.

You clearly don't know evolution as well as you think you do, yet you have the audacity to tell others they have no right to speak unless they read up on it... I'll leave it at that.

I never said it had a purpose. Natural selection favors existing some mutated alleles over others. Accumulated damage or (semi-)random events provides the mutations. As to telling people they should read up on it I was correct in doing so. I did however make an error when I was responding to you. In reading comprehension of your reply to someone else, not in terms of the science. So I owe you an apology for that.

Again you misinterpret what I am saying here.

I didn't say you think evolution has a purpose I said your phrasing gives off the IMPRESSION that evolution has a purpose.

You also treat evolution as a mechanism rather than a process. This is a quite serious misunderstanding.

Your wording shows off knowledge of the basic principles with lack of any deeper understanding. You might not believe this, you might never admit it, but please, try to be more respectful to people who share your lack of understanding rather than fend them off and saying they have no right to voice their opinion. You think you understand it, but I'd say you've misunderstood a lot. Does that mean you don't have the right to voice your opinion before you get a degree in it? How can we be sure we understand something if we only got our own belief that we understand it?

I'm not asking you to admit you phrased your statement incorrectly, I'm not asking you to read up on it. I'm simply asking you to be more respectful, is this really an impossible task to you?

Perhaps my phrasing has given that impression. That's not what I think. I actually do have a bachelor's degree in biology with a major in biotechnology and biochemistry. Which of course doesn't mean I can't make errors. I'm happy to be corrected by people who are genuine experts on the matter. Which may or may not include you.

As for lecturing me on showing respect, you certainly come across to me as being condescending, implying that I'm apparently in denial - "You might not believe this, you might never admit it, but please, try to be more respectful to people who share your lack of understanding". Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm not motivated to go into depth on the topic in this thread. I was talking about the mechanism and I realise that evolution is indeed a process with a mechanism at work.

Edit: I realized that I am arguing with a different person than the one I originally quoted. I am in the wrong here and I should have noticed that earlier. I am sorry for for this misunderstanding, my bad.

 

[Frission]

/snip

Critical thinking is the ability to sort through and understand information and the validity of the source. It's a failure of critical thinking to dismiss all outside sources, and be happy of knowing nothing. You may have What are you trying to justify? People are ignorant? Of course they are. It's okay to be ignorant, since that is simply being human and you are only truly stupid when you refuse to learn.

Most of us have understood, that the human race has problems and that it should prioritize. Don't congratulate yourself on stating the obvious. Your friends probably understand too.

The U.S should talk about something as complex as climate change, instead of being so backwards that there are still some people who are iffy about evolution. Instead of twisting themselves to appease special interest groups, politicians should take decisions to address real problems. The whole "human beings have to prioritize" spiel you're using, I think quite frankly is only a weak justification for being ignorant and for being apathetic.

As an addendum on the get "the disease rate to 0%", Plasmodium is a parasite responsible for malaria. It's a genus with four different species: Plasmodium falciparum, ovale, vivax and malarie. Each of them need different types of treatment, so properly identifying them is paramount. The problem though is dealing with malaira and any other diseases requires an understanding of genome structure and evolution. How do you propose curing any diseases, if the local infrastructure and experts know nothing of evolution?

Evolution isn't a "trifle", since evolution is the base of biology. If you don't understand evolution, you fail basic biology.

Scientific progress doesn't work where you just "focus" on something. We don't have "science points" to put into any particular goal, if you prefer game metaphors.

No one is forcing anyone here to know about evolution, despite the aggressive tone. This is a forum, a message board, an area where people communicate, not some city street. Perhaps that this is pointless. How many creationists are there? 3, maybe 4 or 5. This is a pretty pointless exercise, but it's the function of this forum, so talking about how we shouldn't even bother to correct misconceptions is useless.

The whole endpoint about nerds is unnecessary too. What should I say about the person who came in here to feel superior to "nerds", all the while being proud of their ignorance? Maybe some people here are just using this thread to wave around their basic schooling, but this certainly doesn't make you a better person either.

 

[Silvanus]

I'll support something when I'm actually in a position to find out what happened myself (as close to first-hand as I possibly can), as opposed to being someone who was just taught about it by my teacher/mentor who was taught about it by his teacher/mentor and so forth.

Natural History museums will be able to show the process of evolution before your very eyes. Adaptations will be clearly visible in carbon-dated fossils, and in some museums, can be studied alongside geological and geographic data to show the changing composition of the planet.

And even then, it's not of much importance to me. I'm more interested in what's going to happen than what already happened.

Evolution is still happening, and will continue to happen. It remains of immense importance for the future of every species on earth.

 

[Wyes]

The case of the poison simply falls outside of the set of "some things that it's ok to be wrong about".

I am done trying to save the world. Now that I am past the midpoint of my life expectancy I find myself fortunate that I will likely be dead of old age before anyone, any group, can screw up the planet any more significantly than it is now.

Human society needs to audit itself and prioritize. We need to acknowledge the problems we cant immediately fix such as reducing the crime and disease rate to 0%. We need to look at advancing in ways that expand the scope and survivability of the human race such as genetic engineering and space colonization. And, we need to leave enough room for luxury and leisure time so that life is still worth living.

Apparently my charisma score is low, I have a hard time even convincing people I call friends of things that seem excruciatingly self-apparent. I am certainly not the person to convince 7 billion people of anything.

If you think you are, more power to you.

In this thread I see a lot of nerds DYING to have a knock-down drag-out fight with creationists. I am sorry I am not that man either. Seriously, how many creationists do you think lurk around in a video game based forum?

Of course the poison falls outside of that set, that's precisely why I picked it. The lack of belief in evolution is a slow societal and scientific poison, as Frission has pointed out.

The excuse that we should focus our attentions elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned, has always been a weak one when it comes to societal issues. Don't get me wrong, I understand it is hard to tackle everything at once - it may be impossible, but I don't think that doesn't mean we should try.

For example, before the emancipation of slaves in the US, I'm sure there were many who were saying 'Oh look you know I don't really agree with slavery, but really we've got to deal with this issue of crime before we can even think about freeing the slaves.'

I think that's bullshit.

Now, I am no great emancipator, any effect I have on the world is probably going to be tiny and unnoticeable... but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't do it. And if I can help it, that infinitesimal effect will be a good one.

Otherwise, I certainly agree that we need to start colonising space. Genetic modifications is bit of a messy issue to tackle, because you have to be able to ensure equality, but I'm certainly not opposed to it and I think our future lies that way.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Why not both?

I see myself as a religious man, but I believe in evolution too. I've heard it argued that the Bible's creation story, in a sense, still works. The universe is created, then planets, then animals, then man.

You don't actually think the "days" mentioned are 24 hour days, right?

Why not? That is what a day is, is it not? At least on Earth. And the only religion I'm aware of that believes in a god that lives on a distinct planet, and could therefore reasonably claim that the day in question is that planet's day, and not Earth's, is Mormonism. So unless you are a Mormon, I don't see why it is hard to believe that, "day," means, "day."