Poll: Do you support evolution?

[Bluestorm83]

I would not use the term "believe".
I would say my conclusion to the evidence I have learnt of is that evolution is the most logical theory of how life came about. I don't expect a better theory to ever exist.

I have to correct you on this. Evolution does not in any way deal with how life came about. It only deals with changes in that life over a long period of time. It proposes the origins of the current FORMS of life.

 

[BrassButtons]

I'm gonna go longwinded on this, because I feel like the term "Evolution" that people use most regularly does not actually mean Evolution.

Evolution is the long slow process of one form of life becoming a different form of life due to changes in its genetic structure.

No, it's the change in allele frequency in a population over time. No time to deal with the rest of your post right now, but you really shouldn't tell others how to use a word when you yourself don't know.

Edited because 7am Me somehow confused the words "frequency" and "expression"

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

You wanna know the real kicker in these debates?


Evolution isn't the theory, which is something that BOTH sides seem to forget.
When people say 'the theory of evolution', it's actually just a nickname for 'the theory of evolution through natural selection'.



Evolution is not a theory, not even under the scientific definition of theory. Evolution is a phenomenon, and natural selection is the (scientific)theory to explain why/how evolution happens.


((same for gravity ladies and gents, gravity is no theory, 'general relativity', 'quantum gravitation' or the earlier newtonian 'universal gravitation' are the theories))

 

[SpAc3man]

I would not use the term "believe".
I would say my conclusion to the evidence I have learnt of is that evolution is the most logical theory of how life came about. I don't expect a better theory to ever exist.

I have to correct you on this. Evolution does not in any way deal with how life came about. It only deals with changes in that life over a long period of time. It proposes the origins of the current FORMS of life.

I'm going to go ahead and say that is what I meant. It's midnight and I'm tired and whatnot.

Anyway, yes, I concede. That would be the correct definition.

 

[JenSeven]

No, I do not believe in evolution.
I do no believe in it because it is a simple fact.
To believe in something is to accept there can be doubt in its existence.
It is a simple fact amd its existence has been proven, therefor therecan be no doubt about it and it becomes unnecessary to believe in it.

The people that say they "do not believe in evolution" are simply ignorant of reality, do not understand science and should get a mental diagnosis.

 

[Bluestorm83]

I'm gonna go longwinded on this, because I feel like the term "Evolution" that people use most regularly does not actually mean Evolution.

Evolution is the long slow process of one form of life becoming a different form of life due to changes in its genetic structure.

No, it's the change in allele expressions in a population over time. No time to deal with the rest of your post right now, but you really shouldn't tell others how to use a word when you yourself don't know.

Got a definition right here.

"Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

In no way does that invalidate the way I expressed what I did. Your way of saying it was more clinical, to be sure. My overall point is that people often point to one of the components of evolution, like Natural Selection, and say "That is Evolution, it is proven," when it is not. A tire is not a Ford, peel is not an orange. That tire COULD have come from a Ford, but it could also have come from a Chevy. The peel could have come from an orange, but it could also have come from a tangerine.

Some Evidence is not the same as Definitive Proof.

FURTHERMORE, I'd like to take the opportunity to say to anyone who says something along the lines of "I don't see why this is even still a discussion," (not you, but others) that everything should always be a discussion. When something isn't allowed to be questioned then it's not knowledge, it's just Dogma. When "Facts" aren't allowed to be looked into, good men are put to the torch instead of being debated. When everyone just shrugs and says that "everybody knows" something, then people are kept in slavery because they're not really PEOPLE, right?

The debate must go on, for all time, because to stop talking is to stop thinking.

 

[wintercoat]

I would not use the term "believe".
I would say my conclusion to the evidence I have learnt of is that evolution is the most logical theory of how life came about. I don't expect a better theory to ever exist.

I know you aren't the first person to say this, and probably won't be the last, but god damn it, this is starting to piss me off. A belief is a conclusion that something is true based on the evidence given. I believe in evolution because of the empirical evidence proving it to be true, Christians believe in the existence of God because they believe the Bible is enough evidence to prove it to be true.

People denouncing the word "believe" is ridiculous. You come off as fanatical in the extreme, attempting to distance yourself from anything you perceive as being rooted in religion, even when it isn't.

I get what you mean. The issue here is people want to distance themselves from the connotations of "believe" being a synonym for "have faith in" when discussing this topic. The terms "believe in evolution" and "believe in the literal word of the Bible" mean very different things by the word "believe".

We are trying to cement the idea that we favour evolutionary theory because of what we have concluded from our own interpretation of the presented evidence. Not because we "believe" what someone else told us.

But that's like a base-jumper denouncing the word jump because it means to leap upwards and what they're doing is falling off of tall places(jump, by the way, means to push oneself off of a surface using the legs and feet). You're twisting a word to mean something it doesn't, then denouncing it for meaning that made-up definition.

A belief is a conclusion that something is true. Nothing more, nothing less. Said conclusion can be based off of empirical evidence, or it can be based off of faith. The way belief is derived doesn't matter, it is still a belief.

What you're doing is no different than the people who say "it's just a theory".

 

[Bluestorm83]

I would not use the term "believe".
I would say my conclusion to the evidence I have learnt of is that evolution is the most logical theory of how life came about. I don't expect a better theory to ever exist.

I have to correct you on this. Evolution does not in any way deal with how life came about. It only deals with changes in that life over a long period of time. It proposes the origins of the current FORMS of life.

I'm going to go ahead and say that is what I meant. It's midnight and I'm tired and whatnot.

Anyway, yes, I concede. That would be the correct definition.

We are in agreement. Just said that because there's a LOT of commonly accepted things about the Theory of Evolution that aren't actually part of it.

 

[erbkaiser]

Yes and no. Yes, I believe evolution exists and is the mechanism by which species evolved.

No, I do not believe it is completely by random chance. You cannot explain why the eye is built essentially backwards for example if you believe that it is a series of completely random crap-shoot evolving genes.

Of course the body of humans evolved from a Pan ancestor somewhere back in the line, and one group of its descendants became chimps and bonobos, and the other became the various homo species of man.
But I see no reason not to believe this was guided.

I would use the term Intelligent Design had this not been co-opted by the crazy US protestants.

 

[pearcinator]

I am a bit in the middle...I don't really believe in Evolution as to me it all seems a bit too...convenient. I am not opposed to the idea though and if it is 100% true then I won't bat an eyelid. It also won't make me NOT believe in God.

Also, it irks me that evolution and religion are seen as like oil and water (do not mix) when I think they can co-exist...

By the way, don't try to argue/convert me to believing in evolution by throwing links to websites or walls of text at my face because I don't care! It doesn't interest me enough to truly look into it. I prefer looking towards the future than back to the past. What's happened has happened and which theory is true is now irrelevant to me.

I am not going to write any more on the matter...just sharing my opinion.

 

[RJ 17]

I voted for the "somewhere in the middle" because I do believe in a higher power, but I don't believe in literal interpretations of the Bible. As such, I do not believe that The Flintstones was meant to be taken as a documentary.

 

[newwiseman]

I'm with Nye, the bow tie guy.

 

[lunavixen]

Go Team Science!! While religion can certainly have its place in society, it does not belong in science as religion requires faith whereas sciences requires evidence and faith is not an empirical form of evidence.

I will say this poll has created a false dichotomy as it is possible to be religious and still believe in evolution.

 

[fix-the-spade]

So, which do you believe? Feel free to tear each other apart in the comments.

I think there is a fundamental problem with the idea of having to believe in evolution. Belief is the mental confirmation of an idea regardless of facts or evidence. Evolution is backed up by evidence, it's a process you can actually watch happening (albeit at a microscopic level), which makes it knowledge, a belief confirmed by evaluation of the available evidence, making it no longer a belief but quantifiable fact.

Those who chose to ignore it are being willfully ignorant, which is a problem with their capacity to learn rather than believe.

 

[Cheeseman Muncher]

Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory that has accumulated evidence for and against through empirical testing of hypotheses. To date the evidence in favour outweighs the evidence against and hence it is accepted as the best model for how life has developed.

You can't "believe" in a theory, you either support it or reject it based on viewing the available evidence.

/rant

For the purposes of this, in my semi-professional opinion, I agree that evolution is supported by the available evidence.

 

[SaberXIII]

Whilst I agree whole heartedly with the theory of evolution and am not at all religious I'd like to know why so many people feel that you have to choose between that and Creationism. Could God not have instigated evolution?

 

[ACman]

Evolution is a thing that happens clearly. But If we're talking the origin of the universe, I find creationism more likely with evolution happening as an after effect.

Is this a Deist position or Abrahamic?

I'm not sure you can really put a definition on the beginnings of the universe that isn't somehow tied to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe was at the beginning of what we would call time a very concentrated -- approachingly infinitely dense -- and almost uniform field of energy. From a state of uniformity 3 dimensions of this field expanded very rapidly resulting in what is colloquially called the big bang and energy and particles started arranging themselves randomly.

Randomly arrange cards in a 52 card deck and the chance that you will get the same arrangement twice in a row are:

1 in 52! x 52! = 1/(8 x 10^67 x 8 x 10^67) = 1/(6.4 x 10^135)

Imagine the same but for a universe with 10^82 protons and neutrons and a constantly expanding 3 dimensional space of arrangements.


Time cannot exist without the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Essentially best described as it being incredibly unlikely that the universe will ever return to a state previous to the one before. Even one immediately previous to the one before. And it is most likely that the next state will be more disordered. Thus entropy increases. No other physical law makes about time.


But when you consider the start of the universe -- a state of approachingly infinitely energetically dense, almost uniformity -- there are no states before, only states after, states in which states different from the first state (approchingly infinitely energetically dense, almost uniform) can exist.

Basically the big bang is just the prediction of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If entropy always increases there must be a state in the past where entropy is zero, where t (Time) is also zero and there are only states after that time.

 

[SpAc3man]

I get what you mean. The issue here is people want to distance themselves from the connotations of "believe" being a synonym for "have faith in" when discussing this topic. The terms "believe in evolution" and "believe in the literal word of the Bible" mean very different things by the word "believe".

We are trying to cement the idea that we favour evolutionary theory because of what we have concluded from our own interpretation of the presented evidence. Not because we "believe" what someone else told us.

But that's like a base-jumper denouncing the word jump because it means to leap upwards and what they're doing is falling off of tall places(jump, by the way, means to push oneself off of a surface using the legs and feet). You're twisting a word to mean something it doesn't, then denouncing it for meaning that made-up definition.

A belief is a conclusion that something is true. Nothing more, nothing less. Said conclusion can be based off of empirical evidence, or it can be based off of faith. The way belief is derived doesn't matter, it is still a belief.

What you're doing is no different than the people who say "it's just a theory".

I think you are misunderstanding my explanation. I am not trying to redefine the word. I am pointing out that in the two contexts the meaning of the word can potentially be interpreted differently and hence the desire to use different wording to emphasise the difference. Explicit difference over implied difference in the contextual definition.

 

[Akexi]

After living in southern Arizona for the past five years, I can indeed say I have observed multiple specimens who could be defined as missing links.

 

[NoeL]

We REALLY need to nail down some definitions here, and by "we" I of course mean "I":

Believe/belief in: The state of being convinced of the truth or likelihood of a proposition. Saying "I believe in evolution" is equivalent to saying "I'm convinced evolution is a real, extant phenomenon". It's fine for a scientist to say they "believe in" evolution - there's no faith implied - though they could probably pick their words better as "believe in" is generally reserved for dubious claims (e.g. the existence of fairies). It would be better to say they "believe that" evolution [is true].

Faith: The excuse people give in an attempt to justify irrational beliefs so that they may continue to believe whatever the hell they want (e.g. "I just have faith God exists"). A "leap of faith" is where a person takes action with the irrational (i.e. not supported by reason and or evidence) belief a certain reaction will manifest (a scenario where one uses reason to identify a probable reaction is called "trust" - I "trust" my son will pass his exam because he knows his shit, or I "trust" the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has. I don't "have faith" in these things). "Religious faith" is is more or less synonymous with trust, where one may rationally trust a deity to act in a certain manner due to its implied properties or prior actions (though the belief in said properties/actions may be completely unjustified themselves, making their trust equally unjustified).