Do you believe in evolution?

[Care4all]

the part of evolution that people reject is that humans evolved from primates....

Science is not based on purely facts, I misspoke on that...Science is based on speculation of facts...first you come up with plausible hypothesis, and then you set out to prove them, or damn near prove them in the best explainable manner based on the facts, theories and laws of Science you do have...

 

[Missourian]

You do not believe in Evolution. Evolution is fact...the actual reality. So when you make out evolution is something to believe or not to believe I find it very funny.

You can choose to deny evolution occurs, and thus deny the world exists and that there is genetic mutation, you can also deny that the sky is blue and that the scientific method gave us the capacity to build computers, cars and telephones.

You can indeed deny these things. But in the end people who know that there is evolution are very sane and intelligent people and those who deny evolution are likely to believe in ghosts, tooth fairy's, Santa Claus or the boogie monster under the bed because without natural selection and evolution anything from the tooth fairy to ghosts to the boogie monster can exist.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about...the scientific method had absolutely nothing to do with building cars or computers. These were both fetes of engineering. Only with the telephone can you secure the most tenuous grasp on the scientific method as Bell did experiment but only thru the trial and error method.

Go back and try again.

 

[Missourian]

the part of evolution that people reject is that humans evolved from primates....

Science is not based on purely facts, I misspoke on that...Science is based on speculation of facts...first you come up with plausible hypothesis, and then you set out to prove them, or damn near prove them in the best explainable manner based on the facts, theories and laws of Science you do have...

Hi Care,

I am not convinced about evolution. I constantly hear evolution takes millions of years, but that isn't true...evolution should take little more than 100,000 generations and while that may not be observable in our lifetime when it comes to the larger animals, it should certainly have occurred in bacteria.

To my knowledge, no bacteria has evolved into an more complex organism (evolved beyond bacteria) since serious bacteriological study began 100 years ago.

Natural selection is a different story. Natural selection has been proven to a certain extent. But there is a distinguishable and dramatic difference between evolution and natural selection.

Here is a good example of pure natural selection from Wikipedia:

The natural variation within a population of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. means that some individuals will survive better than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark.

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Care4all]

the part of evolution that people reject is that humans evolved from primates....

Science is not based on purely facts, I misspoke on that...Science is based on speculation of facts...first you come up with plausible hypothesis, and then you set out to prove them, or damn near prove them in the best explainable manner based on the facts, theories and laws of Science you do have...

Hi Care,

I am not convinced about evolution. I constantly hear evolution takes millions of years, but that isn't true...evolution should take little more than 100,000 generations and while that may not be observable in our lifetime when it comes to the larger animals, it should certainly have occurred in bacteria.

To my knowledge, no bacteria has evolved into an more complex organism (evolved beyond bacteria) since serious bacteriological study began 100 years ago.

Natural selection is a different story. Natural selection has been proven to a certain extent. But there is a distinguishable and dramatic difference between evolution and natural selection.

Here is a good example of pure natural selection from Wikipedia:

The natural variation within a population of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. means that some individuals will survive better than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark.

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

very interesting! so i mispoke again, there is still much to be debated regarding evolution, purely on science basis....leaving creationism, out of it.

i think alot has to do with the misusing of terms, evolution vs natural selection,,,

I love this stuff! wish i spent even more time on it!

care

 

[manifold]

the part of evolution that people reject is that humans evolved from primates...

And that's also not really a part of evolution as I understand it. I'm really not sure why Ravi phrased it the way she did but regardless, evolutionary theory suggests that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, not that we evolved from monkeys. How far back you have to go, and what that ancestor was, is not known, and likely never will be. But considering the similarities in our DNA, the liklihood that we didn't share a common ancestor might not be one in a trillion trillion, but it's high enough to be considered a scientific certainty.

 

[Care4all]

the part of evolution that people reject is that humans evolved from primates...

And that's also not really a part of evolution as I understand it. I'm really not sure why Ravi phrased it the way she did but regardless, evolutionary theory suggests that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, not that we evolved from monkeys. How far back you have to go, and what that ancestor was, is not known, and likely never will be. But considering the similarities in our DNA, the liklihood that we didn't share a common ancestor might not be one in a trillion trillion, but it's high enough to be considered a scientific certainty.

so randomly, this ape like creature evolved in to 3 different primates with 48 chrmosones and 1 human with 46 chromosones, with no rhyme or reason? Not because of survival reasons? I say, not because of survival of the fittest reasons because you would think through natural selection, a form of humans would have been the "fittest" or the more likely offspring that would survive so I would think that this ape like creature that we descended from would have mutated or evolved in to three types of human species and one primate being that the idea is that we always evolve in a manner that makes our survival better or more likely...at least that is what I thought? And we do have 6 billion humans on earth now verses millions of Primates so Humans obviously rule above primates on the survival scale?

I dunno? Maybe I am just not understanding it all, like most people, and this is why the debate continues...from the lack of reading up on the ever growing information on all of this?

care

 

[manifold]

the part of evolution that people reject is that humans evolved from primates...

And that's also not really a part of evolution as I understand it. I'm really not sure why Ravi phrased it the way she did but regardless, evolutionary theory suggests that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, not that we evolved from monkeys. How far back you have to go, and what that ancestor was, is not known, and likely never will be. But considering the similarities in our DNA, the liklihood that we didn't share a common ancestor might not be one in a trillion trillion, but it's high enough to be considered a scientific certainty.

so randomly, this ape like creature evolved in to 3 different primates with 48 chrmosones and 1 human with 46 chromosones, with no rhyme or reason? Not because of survival reasons? I say, not because of survival of the fittest reasons because you would think through natural selection, a form of humans would have been the "fittest" or the more likely offspring that would survive so I would think that this ape like creature that we descended from would have mutated or evolved in to three types of human species and one primate being that the idea is that we always evolve in a manner that makes our survival better or more likely...at least that is what I thought? And we do have 6 billion humans on earth now verses millions of Primates so Humans obviously rule above primates on the survival scale?

I dunno? Maybe I am just not understanding it all, like most people, and this is why the debate continues...from the lack of reading up on the ever growing information on all of this?

care

The bold part is all that I read. Quite simply because it contradicts what I said but is represented somehow as my position. Common ancestor doesn't necessarily mean same grandfather. It could also mean the same great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather. There could be multiple, now extinct variations along each remaining individual genetic path eminating from this common ancestor.

 

[Care4all]

And that's also not really a part of evolution as I understand it. I'm really not sure why Ravi phrased it the way she did but regardless, evolutionary theory suggests that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, not that we evolved from monkeys. How far back you have to go, and what that ancestor was, is not known, and likely never will be. But considering the similarities in our DNA, the liklihood that we didn't share a common ancestor might not be one in a trillion trillion, but it's high enough to be considered a scientific certainty.

so randomly, this ape like creature evolved in to 3 different primates with 48 chrmosones and 1 human with 46 chromosones, with no rhyme or reason? Not because of survival reasons? I say, not because of survival of the fittest reasons because you would think through natural selection, a form of humans would have been the "fittest" or the more likely offspring that would survive so I would think that this ape like creature that we descended from would have mutated or evolved in to three types of human species and one primate being that the idea is that we always evolve in a manner that makes our survival better or more likely...at least that is what I thought? And we do have 6 billion humans on earth now verses millions of Primates so Humans obviously rule above primates on the survival scale?

I dunno? Maybe I am just not understanding it all, like most people, and this is why the debate continues...from the lack of reading up on the ever growing information on all of this?

care

The bold part is all that I read. Quite simply because it contradicts what I said but is represented somehow as my position. Common ancestor doesn't necessarily mean same grandfather. It could also mean the same great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather. There could be multiple, now extinct variations along each remaining individual genetic path eminating from this common ancestor.

YIKES! hahahahahaha!

I ain't about to get in to any kind of your Ravi verse Mani fights regarding a misunderstanding or in the middle of the two of you! I would lose, and confidently know such, so hold your horses nellie....!

I have missed reading a page or two of this thread so I really didn't know what you had already represented regarding the topic or your position nor did I realize that this thread had gone off in to so many tangents.

I realize it doesn't mean grandfather but some great grandfather generations ago. I am not ruling this out yet, but I don't see it as set in stone, as being such....there are still many unanswered questions regarding all of this...as there should be, nothing in Science is just easily accepted as the final answer...

care

 

[manifold]

so randomly, this ape like creature evolved in to 3 different primates with 48 chrmosones and 1 human with 46 chromosones, with no rhyme or reason? Not because of survival reasons? I say, not because of survival of the fittest reasons because you would think through natural selection, a form of humans would have been the "fittest" or the more likely offspring that would survive so I would think that this ape like creature that we descended from would have mutated or evolved in to three types of human species and one primate being that the idea is that we always evolve in a manner that makes our survival better or more likely...at least that is what I thought? And we do have 6 billion humans on earth now verses millions of Primates so Humans obviously rule above primates on the survival scale?

I dunno? Maybe I am just not understanding it all, like most people, and this is why the debate continues...from the lack of reading up on the ever growing information on all of this?

care

The bold part is all that I read. Quite simply because it contradicts what I said but is represented somehow as my position. Common ancestor doesn't necessarily mean same grandfather. It could also mean the same great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather. There could be multiple, now extinct variations along each remaining individual genetic path eminating from this common ancestor.

YIKES! hahahahahaha!

I ain't about to get in to any kind of your Ravi verse Mani fights regarding a misunderstanding or in the middle of the two of you! I would lose, and confidently know such, so hold your horses nellie....!

I have missed reading a page or two of this thread so I really didn't know what you had already represented regarding the topic or your position nor did I realize that this thread had gone off in to so many tangents.

I realize it doesn't mean grandfather but some great grandfather generations ago. I am not ruling this out yet, but I don't see it as set in stone, as being such....there are still many unanswered questions regarding all of this...as there should be, nothing in Science is just easily accepted as the final answer...

care

That's fine. But perhaps you should ask yourself what it would take for you to set it in stone. Contemporary science considers it a certainty. If this stands as the one exception to your previously stated acceptence of scientific discovery, that is your business.

 

[Care4all]

The bold part is all that I read. Quite simply because it contradicts what I said but is represented somehow as my position. Common ancestor doesn't necessarily mean same grandfather. It could also mean the same great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather. There could be multiple, now extinct variations along each remaining individual genetic path eminating from this common ancestor.

YIKES! hahahahahaha!

I ain't about to get in to any kind of your Ravi verse Mani fights regarding a misunderstanding or in the middle of the two of you! I would lose, and confidently know such, so hold your horses nellie....!

I have missed reading a page or two of this thread so I really didn't know what you had already represented regarding the topic or your position nor did I realize that this thread had gone off in to so many tangents.

I realize it doesn't mean grandfather but some great grandfather generations ago. I am not ruling this out yet, but I don't see it as set in stone, as being such....there are still many unanswered questions regarding all of this...as there should be, nothing in Science is just easily accepted as the final answer...

care

That's fine. But perhaps you should ask yourself what it would take for you to set it in stone. Contemporary science considers it a certainty. If this stands as the one exception to your previously stated acceptence of scientific discovery, that is your business.

I don't believe contemporary scientists believe it is a certainty...so maybe I am behind the times....can you provide a link to such a concensus of certainty on this by a majority of scientists?? I thought they were still working on proving it???

care

 

[KittenKoder]

Missourian, what frightens you the most?

Is it that there are people out the far more intelligent who have an extremely complex view of the world you wish was a simple binary planet?

Is it that you fear change so much you can't stand the fact that everything is always changing around you?

Is it that you just might be related to another natural species?

Or is it that you fear there may be another planet with intelligent beings?

Because those are the only possible reasons do deny any of the sciences in evolution, there are no others. It doesn't challenge the existence of a more powerful being or creator in any way. It doesn't interfere with any of the "whys" of existence. It in no way changes any religious belief nor challenges them. Understanding evolution however has benefited humanity greatly, giving us vaccines to viruses that don't even exist yet, offering alternatives to organ replacement, giving us many new species of food (plant), even some digital technology advances are a result of evolutionary science. Everything evolves, everything changes, it never stops.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are LOTS of scientific reasons to oppose the claim evolution has created different mammal species from a single species. It remains a theory that is not proven in any way that is tangible.

Once again, did we evolve from a pig like creature? A mouse like creature? Both of those animals have a hell of a lot of common DNA with us.

Further there is no evidence or even truly working theory on HOW life began on Earth.

But both are taught in science class as if true.

 

[KittenKoder]

There are LOTS of scientific reasons to oppose the claim evolution has created different mammal species from a single species. It remains a theory that is not proven in any way that is tangible.

Once again, did we evolve from a pig like creature? A mouse like creature? Both of those animals have a hell of a lot of common DNA with us.

Further there is no evidence or even truly working theory on HOW life began on Earth.

But both are taught in science class as if true.

Why do you fear it so much? The science of evolution is fact and how humanity evolved is a very very very teeny, tiny part of it, and all evolutionary tracts before we started paying attention are considered theory. There are no scientific reasons to deny it, and every other scientific field has benefited from understanding it. Also, it doesn't even try to answer how life started, that's a different science altogether. All it does is explain how certain traits were developed and why. Without understanding it, we'd all have the plague or be dead, period. Without evolutionary science our population might be about 100 thousand across the globe. Without understanding evolution more humans would die every day. I'm all for getting people to be stupid again just for that one reason, but denying it simply because it's too complex for you to understand or because you fear change is a bad reason to deny. Go ahead, push it out of the system and get rid of all the advances that depend and are based on it, have fun back in the stone age.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are LOTS of scientific reasons to oppose the claim evolution has created different mammal species from a single species. It remains a theory that is not proven in any way that is tangible.

Once again, did we evolve from a pig like creature? A mouse like creature? Both of those animals have a hell of a lot of common DNA with us.

Further there is no evidence or even truly working theory on HOW life began on Earth.

But both are taught in science class as if true.

Why do you fear it so much? The science of evolution is fact and how humanity evolved is a very very very teeny, tiny part of it, and all evolutionary tracts before we started paying attention are considered theory. There are no scientific reasons to deny it, and every other scientific field has benefited from understanding it. Also, it doesn't even try to answer how life started, that's a different science altogether. All it does is explain how certain traits were developed and why. Without understanding it, we'd all have the plague or be dead, period. Without evolutionary science our population might be about 100 thousand across the globe. Without understanding evolution more humans would die every day. I'm all for getting people to be stupid again just for that one reason, but denying it simply because it's too complex for you to understand or because you fear change is a bad reason to deny. Go ahead, push it out of the system and get rid of all the advances that depend and are based on it, have fun back in the stone age.

FACT? Evolution with IN a species is fact, there is absolutely NO evidence evolution occurs where in a mammal species evolves into 2 or more entirely different species.

You saying it does not change that. ANY scientist that believes in the scientific method will tell you what I have just told you. The theory may be around but NO EVIDENCE actually exists to prove it.

And last I checked the entire argument against creation is no EVIDENCE.

NO EVIDENCE exists that life began in any of the different theories that science has, yet it is taught in science class, NO EVIDENCE exists that one mammal species has EVER evolved into 2 or more entirely different species. YET it to is taught as FACT in science class.

As for fear, why would I fear it even if proven? If proven that just means that is how God created the rest of mankind besides Adam and Eve. Once again, their children had to marry someone, Cain was thrown put and went to live with some other GROUP.

 

[editec]

We see evolutionary changing happening right in front of us all the time.

Where do you folks think all these new forms of influenza are coming from?

Wait a minute...you think God is making them happen, right?

Well...nobody can argue against that sort of faith based non-logic.

But for those interested in fact based scientific theories, there are plenty of species of genus Homo identified in the fossil records.

So any of folks who think you're offering a serious objection to the theory of evolution because science lacks evidence to support that theory are basing your argument on complete nonsense requiring a total disregard of the enormous amount of data which supports that theory.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again virus's and influenza, single cell amobia and plants are NOT mammals. If science had proof it would be provided. Science can no more prove what you have just claimed then they can how life began.

For people that love that scientific method YOUR FEAR over rides your senses every time this discussion comes up.

So to reverse the question, WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?

 

[KittenKoder]

There are LOTS of scientific reasons to oppose the claim evolution has created different mammal species from a single species. It remains a theory that is not proven in any way that is tangible.

Once again, did we evolve from a pig like creature? A mouse like creature? Both of those animals have a hell of a lot of common DNA with us.

Further there is no evidence or even truly working theory on HOW life began on Earth.

But both are taught in science class as if true.

Why do you fear it so much? The science of evolution is fact and how humanity evolved is a very very very teeny, tiny part of it, and all evolutionary tracts before we started paying attention are considered theory. There are no scientific reasons to deny it, and every other scientific field has benefited from understanding it. Also, it doesn't even try to answer how life started, that's a different science altogether. All it does is explain how certain traits were developed and why. Without understanding it, we'd all have the plague or be dead, period. Without evolutionary science our population might be about 100 thousand across the globe. Without understanding evolution more humans would die every day. I'm all for getting people to be stupid again just for that one reason, but denying it simply because it's too complex for you to understand or because you fear change is a bad reason to deny. Go ahead, push it out of the system and get rid of all the advances that depend and are based on it, have fun back in the stone age.

FACT? Evolution with IN a species is fact, there is absolutely NO evidence evolution occurs where in a mammal species evolves into 2 or more entirely different species.

You saying it does not change that. ANY scientist that believes in the scientific method will tell you what I have just told you. The theory may be around but NO EVIDENCE actually exists to prove it.

And last I checked the entire argument against creation is no EVIDENCE.

NO EVIDENCE exists that life began in any of the different theories that science has, yet it is taught in science class, NO EVIDENCE exists that one mammal species has EVER evolved into 2 or more entirely different species. YET it to is taught as FACT in science class.

As for fear, why would I fear it even if proven? If proven that just means that is how God created the rest of mankind besides Adam and Eve. Once again, their children had to marry someone, Cain was thrown put and went to live with some other GROUP.

What does how life forms change to do with how life began?

It is fact, and yes there are several species which are new on the planet, mostly insect since they experience time much faster than us, and tons of viruses and molds. They do in fact have new species evolved from ones we had previously discovered.

This is a scientific discussion as to why would you deny it, since the fact of evolution does not conflict with any religious views, period, so the question is why resist it? From another angle, why are you so intent on disproving something that is not only fact but has no conflict with your religion while so many get upset when others point out the falsehoods in said religion?

 

[KittenKoder]

Once again virus's and influenza, single cell amobia and plants are NOT mammals. If science had proof it would be provided. Science can no more prove what you have just claimed then they can how life began.

For people that love that scientific method YOUR FEAR over rides your senses every time this discussion comes up.

So to reverse the question, WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?

Now you are just nitpicking to ignore the facts.

 

[KittenKoder]

As for what are we afraid of if people start ignoring evolution science now? Simple, then we lose all ability to produce vaccines, period.

 

[Missourian]

You have it all wrong KK, I once believed that evolution was a fact. I am a product of the public school system. My teachers told me evolution was a fact, and I believed them. They also told me Global warming was a fact, and I believed that too.
Now I believe neither, not out of fear or because of my religious beliefs, but because they are not fact.

So here's what I want you to do. Take your two 'fear' posts, replace the evolution diatribe with a global warming diatribe, put "posted by Old Rocks" at the top and slip them in the environment forum.

Now read them and tell me if you're convinced.