Poll: Evolution Yay or Nah?

[DarkRyter]

It's the only valid explanation.

It's either that, or aliens.

And that just opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

[Brandon237]

So much semantic confusion...

Science doesn't give us absolute truths. There's no way of absolutely objectively proving that the world we live in isn't some matrix style fantasy land. Science tells us what is most likely to be true based on the best available evidence and observations. If new evidence comes to light, scientists change their ideas. That's the greatest strength of science as a process for discerning how the world around us works.

The fact of evolution and the theory are two separate things. Species HAVE changed over time, that's a fact. Much like the fact that things fall to Earth, the fact of gravity. In science a theory isn't some half-baked, diet, evidence-lite version of a fact. In scientific terminology, a theory is BETTER than a fact. A fact is just an observation; a figure, a point of data. A strong theory unites many facts and observations and explains, lays them out in a coherent framework, and most importantly MAKES PREDICTIONS. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains the many FACTS of evolution (the fossil record, DNA hierarchies, etc). Facts are the flour and eggs that make up the moist, delicious cake that is a well formed theory.

I accept both the obvious fact of evolution and the modern interpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Two posts and you already deserve more respect for that than half the Escapist, well done good sir.

In science, there is no higher tier than theory, because there is always something new to learn the exact specifics of. You actually have to go into mathematics to get anything that can physically possibly be of a higher level of support and importance than a theory. If the entire world knew and accepted this, there would be no support for creationism at all.

I have noticed something, people listen and accept help from those who know what they are talking about, proclaiming their brilliance / intelligence until the moment they disagree with them. People will listen to biologists when it comes down to life saving medicine when it helps them, but when the same level of expertise and knowledge is applied to evolution, suddenly they are deluded. I have seen it myself in debates, some of which I have been in, and people will turn their opinion suddenly simply because they do not like what is being said...

 

[Hamish Durie]

well if pokemon has taught me anything is that shit evolves if you lvl it

also wheres the little poster showing all of eevees possible evolutions?

 

[mitchell271]

the poll should be different
"Which do you believe to be true?"
"Evolution"
"Intelligent Design"
"Creation"

I'm personally an atheist, so evolution

 

[TK421]

Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory, which is many facts strung together in a specific person's or group of people's idea of how they should work.
OT: No, I don't believe any of that evolution crap. Yes, I do believe in adaptation, because species will change to better fit their environment, but they will not become a different species.

 

[Brandon237]

Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory, which is many facts strung together in a specific person's or group of people's idea of how they should work.
OT: No, I don't believe any of that evolution crap. Yes, I do believe in adaptation, because species will change to better fit their environment, but they will not become a different species.

I checked the poll a few seconds ago, 999 people accepted evolution. Reloaded page. Another 21 did. This is good. So very good.

Now TK421, two questions, why were you not at your post? And why, when at your post, did you not bother to learn exactly what a theory was and learn at least a little bit of what the Theory of evolution entailed before calling it crap?

Adaptation after adaptation across various regions will eventually lead to the different variants of one species being unable to reproduce with each other... hence we have new species[footnote]Ring species [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species] in particular illustrate this, also look here [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml].[/footnote]. It happens a lot... we have many good fossil records to prove that point too... so why is evolution crap?

 

[funguy2121]

I know evolution. Evolution is fact. Belief and Faith don't come into it. You can disbelieve gravity, go test how well that goes for you when you walk off a cliff.

Nice cans, by the way

Seriously, though, this.

Oh, well, our next president (in four years - sorry, Mr. Perry) will be another Texan who thinks that global warming is a conspiracy and is "on the fence" about evolution. This one, however, will be able to speak English. He will still be a sister-fucking hick, though. Don't look at me like that. I'm a Texan; I have to live with 'em.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Macro evolution is a theory, which means nothing can conclusively prove it. ("a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. ")So far, all of the missing links and early humans, like Lucy, have been fake. (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html) Carbon dating showing ages is unreliable.(http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html ) The embryos shown in every textbook have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html) So, no, I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, which concerns changes in a single population, is a proven fact.

First, all your arguements are false. None of the missing links are fake, carbon dating is accurate, embryology is touchy and I find it useless anyway.

Second, Macro-evolution is the same Micro-evolution. The only difference is time and quantity; Macro-evolution is Micro-evolution occurring several times throughout a long period of time. Saying that one exists and the other doesn't is like saying centimeters are real, but gigameters aren't.

EDIT: BTW, Paleontology doesn't utilize radiometric dating, but stratigraphy. Radio metrics are useful for estimating the age of rocks, or the planet; living creatures not so much. On that note, there are several other elements that could be used for dating and cross-referencing results.

 

[Alon Shechter]

I think Evolution is real, but I don't think that cancels the possibility of a god.
I also don't agree with the whole 5771 years of existence thing..

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I choose to believe in evolution because when I start questioning my reality things tend to get crazy. Well at least I do, I guess I should say.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

Oy. No, but not because I disagree with evolution. Quite the contrary, I completely accept evolution as a strongly supported scientific theory (which is not the same as the colloquial usage of "theory," by the way), just as I accept gravity and germ theory. But it is not a fact, just like gravity and germ theory aren't facts.

Facts in science are data. They're pieces of information that inform the hypotheses we create to explain these facts. When a hypothesis is strongly supported in some cases, but not all, we call it a law (which can be broken). When the hypothesis is strongly supported in all tested cases, we call it a theory (which is as high and powerful an idea can be in science).

Example:
Fact - My hair is brown and my mother's hair is brown.
Hypothesis - I inherited my hair color from my mother.
Law - Mendel's Law of Segregation - getting brown hair from my mother does not 100% mean I will get her brown eyes (this is a law because its not always true, some genes are inherited together)
Theory - Genetics - certain traits are heritable from one generation to the next

I know I'm simplifying a bit (and getting off topic), but this is one of those misconceptions that really bothers me.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

I'm a Darwinian Christian, so I believe in Guided Evolution. Evolution makes sense but it kind of clashes with my christian beliefs which are pretty much hard wired into my psyche and this clash troubled me till I learned about Darwinian Christianity (I was 12) I learned it off a badge on the back of a car, asked my dad what that was, he told me and I've pretty much just followed that train of thought.

What is a Darwinian Christian?

Good question. I didn't look too far into it and just formulated my own opinions and my own beliefs. My belief is basically that God placed the original bacteria that all life on this planet originated and just poked and proded it in the right direction. If you really want to know about it, I suggest you consult Google or whatever

That's having your cake and eating it. You're fooling yourself, mate.
You need to make a choice - your belief in god or your common sense, which is rather uncommon these days.

You make it sound like it's impossible for common sense to favour religion. Faith has made more sense than atheism ever does. To me anyway, probably sounds stupid/unbelievable/insane/etc to you but it doesn't to me. Varying opinions and perspectives.

 

[RidetheLightning]

Any theory is subject to scientific scrutiny. The fact that recombinant DNA does not trans-mutate across the genus barrier in the natural environment mitigates strongly against naturalistic evolutionary presupposition. In other words that we all just come together completely by chance with no intelligence. The fact that getting the exact right combination of left and right handed amino acids together right down to the level of atomic co-valence to form a single peptide and then getting the precise combination of peptides together under the precise circumstances bio-chemically to form a poly-peptide, and then getting the precise combination of poly-peptides together under the precise circumstances to synthesize a single protein for which in turn their must be an equally complex co-enzyme , and that will interact chemically with other proteins and enzymes is too complicated a process to be attributed to an astronomical series of chance events.Protein metabolism is foundational to the biosphere. No probability known to man can account for a random inter-systemic formation.

And NO I am not using made up science jargon to confuse people with my point I am using legitimate scientific terms and processes that can be checked out

 

[TheIronRuler]

I'm a Darwinian Christian, so I believe in Guided Evolution. Evolution makes sense but it kind of clashes with my christian beliefs which are pretty much hard wired into my psyche and this clash troubled me till I learned about Darwinian Christianity (I was 12) I learned it off a badge on the back of a car, asked my dad what that was, he told me and I've pretty much just followed that train of thought.

What is a Darwinian Christian?

Good question. I didn't look too far into it and just formulated my own opinions and my own beliefs. My belief is basically that God placed the original bacteria that all life on this planet originated and just poked and proded it in the right direction. If you really want to know about it, I suggest you consult Google or whatever

That's having your cake and eating it. You're fooling yourself, mate.
You need to make a choice - your belief in god or your common sense, which is rather uncommon these days.

You make it sound like it's impossible for common sense to favour religion. Faith has made more sense than atheism ever does. To me anyway, probably sounds stupid/unbelievable/insane/etc to you but it doesn't to me. Varying opinions and perspectives.

Faith made more sense to you than atheism ever had.
Fine.
Just so we are clear, you don't believe in the creation of the world in 7 days, the world being flooded, Encouragement of Incest, treating a woman and daughter as property, slave owning, etc. ?
You must think it was all written there as some sort of a parable, is that right? I just want to understand what sort of christian you are that manages to combine the theory of evolution with faith in an all powerful entity.
.
Let me tell you a story.
My friend is a part of Church-Norriscism. He believes that Church Norris created the universe and god, created every living thing and that everything you find about Chuch Norris is true, because Church Norris is all powerful and can do what people said he could do.
Do you denounce him, call him a heretic or insane?

 

[TheIronRuler]

Any theory is subject to scientific scrutiny. The fact that recombinant DNA does not trans-mutate across the genus barrier in the natural environment mitigates strongly against naturalistic evolutionary presupposition. In other words that we all just come together completely by chance with no intelligence. The fact that getting the exact right combination of left and right handed amino acids together right down to the level of atomic co-valence to form a single peptide and then getting the precise combination of peptides together under the precise circumstances bio-chemically to form a poly-peptide, and then getting the precise combination of poly-peptides together under the precise circumstances to synthesize a single protein for which in turn their must be an equally complex co-enzyme , and that will interact chemically with other proteins and enzymes is too complicated a process to be attributed to an astronomical series of chance events.Protein metabolism is foundational to the biosphere. No probability known to man can account for a random inter-systemic formation.

And NO I am not using made up science jargon to confuse people with my point I am using legitimate scientific terms and processes that can be checked out

I understand that, hurray for bio-chemistry.
Anyway, like I said earlier, the beginning of life and the forming of a consiousness is explained by Evolutionists as "Shit Happens". Therefore if a theory that explains what Evolution does manage to explain but also answers these questions pops up, I'll consider that a better alternative.

 

[kidigus]

"Other". I believe in guided evolution.

Wait, doesn't evolution specificaly explain how life can diversify without guidence?

Yes, but it's not necessarily unguided. The difference is that creationism MUST be guided by God (unless random quantum materialization is possible), while evolution MAY or MAY NOT be guided by God. Atheists automatically go straight for evolution because A. it doesn't require God, and B. it has a lot of usable evidence going for it.

"Atheists automatically go straight for evolution."
Okay, let's not even talk about Raelianism.

 

[Agow95]

I'm not a scientist (But I did get full marks in my GCSE higher tier biology and physics recently) but my Dad is, and my older brother is doing pharmacy decree at bath university (Not the giving out prescription medicine type pharmacy, drug research pharmacy), and I what I have learned at the very least about evolution, is that it IS scientific fact, I could rant for hours on all the evidence there is, but it won't convert anyone who believes otherwise, so I won't bother

 

[LITE992]

You can't prove either religion or evolution, so I'm neutral on this. However, it is true that religion and evolution complement each other. Even the Pope holds a meeting with Nobel-prize winning scientists to discuss the relation of science and religion.

 

[SirFlamingLoboOfDoom]

You can't prove either religion or evolution.

You can't prove religion so it is wrong until proven right. And yes you can prove evolution so I do not know what you are talking about

 

[Stall]

Evolution is scientific fact. The body of evidence is massive, and impossible to just ignore. Rejecting it is like saying you believe in Astrology or Astrology, or the various dozens of other pseudo-sciences out there.

Also, more people need to look up the definition of a scientific theory. It's not "something that hasn't been proven". It's the best explanation for a natural phenomenon with an ever increasing body of scientific evidence that supports that explanation. Dismissing evolution a "just a theory" just highlights your massive ignorance. You CAN prove evolution... it's what the literally mountains upon mountains of evidence do. If you don't think you can prove evolution, then again, you are brazenly ignorant.