Y or N? Do you believe in Evolution? Why?

[HydrogenBond]

The believe in evolution in the sense of forward progression. Even religions and science have evolved over time. Where I depart is the traditional models do not tell the whole story.

 

For one thing traditional thinking places evolution in the hands of genetics, even though environmental potentials is what sets the potential for the genetics to adapt or change. Place clones in two different environments. Adaptations will not be random for both but specific to both.

 

The fossil data is discontinuous data. The life forms with the most units will be the ones we are mostly likely to find fossils of. That is why missing links are often not a significant part of this data. There were too few units to increase the odds of finding as many fossil as the big ticket items. This discontinuous data has led to theories that are discontinuous.

 

Selective advantage and survival of the fittest does not always have to mean evolution. The mammals are higher in the evolutionary chain than dinosaurs, yet dinosaurs had selective advantage when mammals first appeared. The shark has rather primitive genes, since it has not changed much in 100M years, yet it too has selective advantage and is a good example of survival of the fittest not being the most evolved.

 

Multicellular differentiation allows cells with the same DNA to specialize or narrow down the full genetic expression without the need of mutations. It is conceivable that the multicellular transition created diversity, without a single mutation being involved. Yet mutations will get all the credit.

 

Lastly the definition of life is still stuck at the level of philosophy. That means the science is something between science and science philosophy. Evolution is more slanted toward science philosophy. But unlike philosophy that has the requirement of reason, evolution is too dependant of a type of mathematical fortune telling called statistics. This is lower than reason. It is based on the middle age crystal ball, before reason was required.

 

To summarize; I believe in evolution. But I don't give to much credibility to science philosophy that is too dependant on irrational math. Even with the biased data, that crystal ball can pretends this is all that is needed. If it was more rational, then one would be able to see the many shortcomings.

[CraigD]

To summarize; I believe in evolution. But I don't give to much credibility to science philosophy that is too dependant on irrational math. Even with the biased data, that crystal ball can pretends this is all that is needed. If it was more rational, then one would be able to see the many shortcomings.

I don’t know to what math and evidence you’re referring, HydrogenBond. Can you be more specific? :)

[Eclogite]

The believe in evolution in the sense of forward progression. .......

 

Selective advantage and survival of the fittest does not always have to mean evolution. The mammals are higher in the evolutionary chain than dinosaurs, yet dinosaurs had selective advantage when mammals first appeared. The shark has rather primitive genes, since it has not changed much in 100M years, yet it too has selective advantage and is a good example of survival of the fittest not being the most evolved.

Evolution is not about forward progression.

 

Mammals are not higher in the evolutionary chain than dinosaurs.

 

The shark does not have primitve genes (certainly not in the sense which you imply).

 

Hydrogen Bond, please stop making statements that fail to reflect the consensus understanding of evolution, unless and until you are prepared to offer reasoned argument or relevant citations to support these statements. Until that point those statements are not alternative views, but simply errors of understanding. Alternative views are welcome - that is how progress in the sciences are made - but these views must have a basis in fact, not be merely unsubstantiated statements, endlessly repeated.

 

Multicellular differentiation allows cells with the same DNA to specialize or narrow down the full genetic expression without the need of mutations.

What allowed cells to group together in the first place? That's right - mutations.

What allowed cells to 'narrow down the full genetic expression'?

That's right - mutations.

 

Variation, on which selection acts, is created in large measure - though not exclusively - by mutations.

[Boerseun]

Boerseun,

what, pray tell, are you doing with a devil-dog in your house???? :) ;)

If you have to crossbreed a dachshund with Satan to sort your rat problem out, can you imagine the size of the rats?

 

Like they say - Africa is not for sissies...

[Killean]

N

Because his noodly appendages created it all. :lol:

 

Sorry, just had to do it. Yes I believe in it, because of the evidence in support of it.

[REASON]

N

Because his noodly appendages created it all. ;)

 

:lol:

 

Great site!

[mynah]

1. YES

 

2. Apart from other good arguments put forward in this thread, would you seriously base a major scientific theory on a handbook that wasn't written with scientists in mind, has not been updated for several thousand years, cites no references, devotes less than one of its many chapters to the subject and includes a description of a thoracic surgical procedure I'm pretty sure you'd reject if your doctor suggested it?

[Jay-qu]

1. Yes

2. All the well put reasons above would be enough to convice me of it if I were a non-believer :)

[Essay]

NO! ...just to be different (see explanation below).

 

hi, lolz!1 i want everyone to take a break from your normal debate and answer these 2 questions:

1. do you believe in tradition evolution?
   
2. why?

ok, ill start.

1. NO.
   
2. the lack of fossils linking monkey to man.
   

that simple. no debate or arguments plz.

 

...and this post was edited?

 

hmmmm

For semantic reasons, I will say that:

 

NO, I do not believe IN evolution.

 

...but....

 

Yes, I do believe evolution is a valid theory.

So, what's the difference? Semantics?

 

Here's my reply to this same "Topic" from another forum.

Ha! You fell for this Creationist's clever ploy. The OP got you to say 'I believe IN evolution.'

 

As soon as you say that you believe IN something' date=' you leave yourself open to attack by "religious logic." :rolleyes:

 

As biologists, we should be careful to say 'I believe evolution is valid' (or true, or a well supported theory, or whatever you "believe" or want to emphasize about it).

 

While I do believe in something, I do not believe in evolution.

"Believing in Evolution" makes it sound like a religion (or a god).

I do believe evolution theory is the most wonderful tool (itself still developing & evolving), showing us how life works on both the grand and small scale. [Just google epigenetics!]

 

I believe evolution theory is valid, but I do not believe God shows us the facts you claim.

fyi: The "facts you claim," was just some creationism jargon, particular to the OP.

 

Anyway, just trying to point out a "debating tactic" to remember when these troll-isms crop up. :phones:

[Michaelangelica]

1. Yes

2. Because it is the scientific theory that best 'fits' the evidence at the moment.

 

 

Why is there such a hate-fest on with Darwin and evolution in the USA?

This questions should not be being asked in 2008

 

Should I seriously ask:-

1 Do you believe Darwin is wrong because the Bible is the literal word of God?

Even the misogynist, misguided ravings of Paul?

[goku]

no

 

science proves evolution to be impossible.

 

thank you

 

Moderator note: Replies to this post have been moved to 14328, because the original thread was intended to contain only a yes/no response and an explanation, “no debate or arguments plz.”

 

Please post replies to posts in this thread in 14328

[Michaelangelica]

bullet 49% believe in "Evolution;"

bullet 48% do not;

bullet 2% have no opinion.

(USA-I can't find info on other countries)

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

[Pyrotex]

The Darwin debate in the USA is unique among all the industrialized countries, in that we have allowed our education system and a significant portion of our popular media to be compromised by a very small (and typically uneducated) segment of the Christian community.

[CerebralEcstasy]

hi, lolz!1 i want everyone to take a break from your normal debate and answer these 2 questions:

1. do you believe in tradition evolution?
   
2. why?
   

 

1. I reject evolution on the basis of scientific knowledge, and it's transient nature.

 

2. Scientific research regarding evolution itself is continually evolving, the dust has not settled yet.

 

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith has many discourses on youtube, that discuss some of his thoughts on the matter.

 

The books 'The Scientific Alternative to Neo Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, as well as 'The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution' also discuss in length some of the discrepancies regarding evolution.

[jab2]

1. I reject evolution on the basis of scientific knowledge, and it's transient nature.

 

2. Scientific research regarding evolution itself is continually evolving, the dust has not settled yet.

 

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith has many discourses on youtube, that discuss some of his thoughts on the matter.

 

The books 'The Scientific Alternative to Neo Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, as well as 'The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution' also discuss in length some of the discrepancies regarding evolution.

 

I guess then you do not believe in and use computers and cars, as these are also continually evolving, both in functionality and capability. :phones:

[Tormod]

1. I reject evolution on the basis of scientific knowledge, and it's transient nature.

 

Science's transient nature? In other words, you reject science.

[Moontanman]

Evolution is not a belief, it's the only theory that has any evidence to back it up. Science is not based on belief only on evidence. But do I think it's true as far as the evidence goes so far, Yes I do, overwhelmingly so.