Poll: Do you support evolution?

[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).

 

[wintercoat]

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.

But that's what several people are doing. Look at fix-the-spade up there. He literally replaced the definition of belief with that of faith just so he could go "well of course I don't believe in it! I know it to be true!" like that isn't some goddam redundancy. It's the same way people wh ouse the "it's just a theory" argument twist the word theory so that they can make it fit their argument.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You've made an asstonne of mistakes in this post. I suggest you do some googling.

But the thing is, none of those things are EVOLUTION. Cheetahs are still Cheetahs. They still have Cheetah DNA. More to the point, their Genome still consists of the same number of genes that it always has. Another thing about Cheetahs is kinda sad: They have incredibly low genetic variability. This means that they're specialized as all fuck... but can't really go anywhere, because they've lost genes to allow them to adapt and change as a species.

Almost entirely incorrect. Cheetahs have a genetic bottleneck because they were reduced to a very small number of individuals some time ago. And thus descendants are all somewhat inter related, they can still survive from here via adaption but its harder since a smaller genepool means fewer available phenotypes are possible via mutations. There is no "Gene" for adaption or mutation to make such a thing possible anymore than there is a gene to allow the animal to fall when it jumps. Mutations are the effects of physics on DNA replication that causes unintentional errors. Thats just total fiction and i have no idea where you read such a bizare fabrication.

Now, the problem is that the Theory of Evolution, as it is now, takes those two very solid, observable things and connects them with a whole lot of "we don't know." How did life originate? We don't know. Why and how does a genome suddenly expand to allow for a greater quantity of genetic information? We don't know. Why are there so many fossils of accepted species, but an absolute lack of even a single complete fossil of a proposed missing link, especially since evolution as proposed takes so long that literal hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years, would go by while that missing link species was as viable in the natural world of its time as all current living species are today? We don't know.

Youve assumed that "I dont know" equals "We dont know". I sure as hell know, or have some very well supported ideas. Lemme answer them for you.

How did life originate?

Abiogenesis, its a proven fact "living material" like DNA, nucleotides and other such protiens can arise naturally in the atmosphere of ancient earth. The Urey Miller experiment proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you take the gaseous atmosphere of earth, add energy and put some water (the ocean) as a medium, you get the building blocks of life. Seems pretty coincidental to me that the atmosphere at the time life is predicted to have arisen generates the building blocks for said life via natural processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

The experiment has been repeated many times with similar or better results.

Why are there so many fossils of accepted species, but an absolute lack of even a single complete fossil of a proposed missing link?

First of all a missing link is a fallacy. You can take an infinite amount of fossils and still have technical "missing links" because there will always be something between any two fossils. You could repeat the argumant ad infinatum.

Anyway fossils form under extremely specific circumstances. Animals that die in a climate where fossil formation is rare or almost impossible will leave very few fossils, while ancient sea creatures leave MANY since the bottom of the ocean provides a good environment for fossil formation. O This means some species, like the whale, and the human, who lived near clay/swamp/marshes or in the ocean leave many fossils while other desert dwelling creatures leave very few. There will always be an imbalance in this way. On top of this evolution takes millions of years NOT for one mutation to change the population but millions of years for said mutation to arise and survive the initial few generations.

To expand, a beneficial mutation is exceedingly rare. On top of that there's no promise said mutation will survive since other factors can kill the mutated individual by blind bad luck. This can happen many times. However once a mutation is beneficial AND survives to be in enough of the population to not die by chance the proliferation of the mutation is very swift relative to the millions of years evolution takes. The "superior" population will usually outperform the older one very fast and replace it in a short space of time. The majority of those millions of years are waiting for the mutation to occur and survive the first few individuals. Only in the tiny minority of that time does a "transition" occur and the population changes. Evolution, despite taking a long time, is a load of waiting and a relative flurry of activity as the new mutation makes a foot hold and becomes the norm.

Why and how does a genome suddenly expand to allow for a greater quantity of genetic information?

I'm just gonna plagarise my notes because they explain it better than me:

Genetic information can increase in a genome.

Here's how.

Two steps:

1. A mutation called a gene duplication. This is where a gene (or a sequence of nucleotide bases) is accidentally duplicated on the same chromosome, or even on a different chromosome.

2. A mutation called a point mutation. This is where one or more nucleotides in a sequence accidentally get copied to a different nucleotide. (Like a typo.)

This is extremely well understood and frankly quite basic biology.

Ill give you credit though for admitting youre no guru, so think of this more as an example of what scientists might think than me aggressively correcting you

 

[Rellik San]

Without a doubt, Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

As for this sub debate about God and Science co-existing, that was fine when not believing in God meant horrific torture and death (see Galileo), but in this modern world, it's all too easy to see a gap and rather then wait for the explanation jump in with "GOD DID IT! CLEARLY! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT RIGHT NOW SO GOD DID IT!" (yes the cliché God of the gaps arguement) which is why I think Atheism and Science have ended up so intrinsically linked, the Scientists got that pissed off with people yelling it, they just told the churches to do one and leave them alone.

 

[Amgeo]

Even if the world DID start only a few thousand years ago, the PROCESS of evolution would still be taking place right now.

 

[Petromir]

I believe in Evolution.
I personally don't know if it exists, because I lack the capability to test it myself, but I have faith in it's existence, because it fits into my view of the world.

One thing I know though, is that people like to treat Religion like a Science, and then laugh at it for being not science.
Science and Religion aim at different questions, using different methods, yet people still insist they should be measured with the same scales. So everyone gets his own scale and "disproves" the other one in an endless, senseless feud.

A lot of science started out as Religion, or was performed by members of the clergy. Often the reasoning was that if you could better understand the universe then you could better understand it's creator.

Hell even some of the biggest religion versus science clashes are nowhere near as straightforward. In gerneal the intial resposne of the C of E to Origin of the Species was quite mixed, but there was a lot of support (and Darwin had trained as a clergyman). Galilao's book was initially published with the blessing of the Inquisition, and the Pope, but unfortunately the Pope was on shaky ground politically and so when it came out that in his book the popes views had been put into the mouth of a character portrayed as a simpleton the pope rather unsurprisingly came down pretty hard on him, had he done it to any ruling Prince of the time the results would have been the same, that it was the Pope only affected the power and influence of the man he (likely without malice) ridiculed.

To a certain degree the presence and strength of feeling on both sides has been strengthened by the childish attacks and squabbles. And even the most intelligent and eminent from both sides of the fence (if we are to take such an incredibly flawed view of the situation) don't seem immune to it.

 

[DaWaffledude]

So, you're new here, aren't you?

Asking if I believe in evolution is like asking if I believe in gravity. I suppose that yes, technically I do believe in it, but it's not exactly a difficult conclusion to reach.

Everyone knows that they're somewhat like their Mother and somewhat like their Father. If your parents are tall, and a massive plague happens that only affects tall people, then they (and all other tall people) die without being able to give anyone their "tallness". Thus, tall people stop being born. You don't even need to know the first thing about science to figure it out.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

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

First off, I agree with this whole heartedly.
Now, I have to raise some issues I had with your posts. Mostly, I can't really form a very good idea of what it is you're trying to express.

You seem to think that most people use the term evolution wrong, okay, with you so far, that could easily be the case.

Then you say people are talking about Natural selection and Specialisation. Now, I'm no biologist, but surely these are the processes by which Evolution occurs, and the result of these could be seen as the evolution of the species?

(these bits are more or less straight responses to the corresponding parts of your first post)

You then mention the theory of evolution involving a lot of holes and unanswered questions. Well, I don't really see the problem here. Scientists are still figuring those questions out. There's a chance the theory of evolution as it currently exists will be completely discarded, much like older theories and models of atoms were discarded as they were discovered to be wrong.

We may have lost a lot of data from the past, but there's a lot of data to collect from the future, so we'll be able to understand better as evolution occurs around us which may even someday enable us to simulate evolution in the past and work backwards, as it were.

Well yes, that will always be the case with everyone regarding everything unless that person has first hand knowledge/experience of everything they ever talk about, which is unlikely.

I assume by both you mean the co-existence of evolution and intelligent design. Yes completely possible, and I know many religious people who hold this belief.

(from here it's back to me struggling to understand)

Perhaps I would have less trouble with what you're trying to say if you'd provided an example of evolution as you see it. As I can't really grasp what exactly counts as evolution in your eyes, you just stated what you think isn't evolution.

I'm just going to quote some things for ease and clarity:
the definition of evolution you gave in your second post

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

okay but you said this

traits that were beneficial were spread throughout the future generations

and

they've just specialized into new species

followed by

This improves populations over time too, even if there's no new species coming about. An existing species will become stronger as a whole as weak traits (again, for that location) are bred out or at least minimized.

which to me, match up with your definition. But you then followed with this.

But the thing is, none of those things are EVOLUTION

and then just after your quote I really lost track with this one:

In no way does that invalidate the way I expressed what I did

So if you could clarify what you mean, I'd be really grateful.

 

[Miyenne]

I've never been able to wrap my head around how anyone could deny evolution. I just don't understand how people can, with such conviction, say the world's only a few thousand years old. I just... I can't.

... And those kind of people are coming to stay at my house in a month... What we do for family.

 

[NoeL]

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.

Umm... wut? The human eye - like every organ[ism] - evolved through a series of gradual improvements. If you get a random crap-shoot that's a bit better than what's the norm, congrats! You have a survival advantage, and that crap-shoot can be passed to your offspring. The reason the eye is backwards is because there was no intelligence in its design - shit just gets slapped on top of it and whatever works, sticks. Eventually you end up with a giant mound of working shit - complex, inefficient, unintelligent designs that barely manage to get the job done, but do get it done.

 

[John the Gamer]

I believe in evolution in the same way I believe I require air to live. Factually proven things should not require belief. And besides, since both God(the Christian/Muslim/Jewish one) and creationism are based on the bible, and the bible is mostly proven false, there's no good reason to believe in that stuff.

 

[nexus]

Evolution as a phenomenon in and of itself, does not disprove the existence of a "powerful entity" nor does it disprove intelligent design from a cosmic or supernatural origin. It just sort of "is". Reducing evolution to a crude form in order to explain away human's origin is juvenile.

Atheists grabbing the evolution banner and waving it around as their standard has been very embarrassing, in my opinion. It has turned education into pseudo-political nonsense. Yes, I'm aware fundamentalists have done the same.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

This is extremely well understood and frankly quite basic biology

Thank you for your post, that was an informative read! not something I expect on the escapist Unfortunately this isn't basic enough biology for me, as I never learnt any of this. Then again, I didn't take A level Biology where I probably would have learned this.

Out of curiosity, where does your knowledge come from? Traditional education or self-conducted research?

 

[Zantos]

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))

Damn it, you stole my thing! I wanted to say that, and then I'd have a chance to talk about Mercury before the anti-planet brigade got to it.

Unfortunately different sources seem to take different stances on the word 'belief'. Collins English dictionary doesn't require there to be no proof (though it notes it is often used without) whereas dictionary.com notes specifically that it is not susceptible to rigorous proof (though you could certainly disagree on what counts as rigorous proof depending on if you have a mathematics background). So unless anyone has an Oxford English to hand then I think you'll struggle to reach a consensus on whether or not 'belief' is appropriate to use in this context. Personally if it was good enough for my dissertation assessor and smartest man I've ever known then I'm quite happy to use it in a scientific context.

So yes, I believe in evolution. Although I do appreciate that thousands of years ago when there was no evidence to the contrary and you had nothing else to do that day than go a few miles down a road and kill people creationism was a really sensible theory, none of that situation is applicable today. Evolution all the way to the offy.

Also thanks, now I have Do You Believe in Magic? stuck in my head. The Pogues version. Dammit Shane