Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[childeroland]

Interesting to see Leakey's optimism.

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

NEW YORK (AP) — Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.


Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."
"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."


Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent several weeks in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of mankind in an area rich with fossils.


His friend, Paul Simon, performed at a May 2 fundraiser for the institute in Manhattan that collected more than $2 million. A National Geographic documentary on his work at Turkana aired this month on public television.


Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have unearthed "much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution."


On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.


"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."


Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.


"If we're spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?" he asked.


"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."


Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.
"If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that," he said.


"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."


Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as "Turkana Boy," the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature.


In the late 1980s, Leakey began a career in government service in Kenya, heading the Kenya Wildlife Service. He led the quest to protect elephants from poachers who were killing the animals at an alarming rate in order to harvest their valuable ivory tusks. He gathered 12 tons of confiscated ivory in Nairobi National Park and set it afire in a 1989 demonstration that attracted worldwide headlines.


In 1993, Leakey crashed a small propeller-driven plane; his lower legs were later amputated and he now gets around on artificial limbs. There were suspicions the plane had been sabotaged by his political enemies, but it was never proven.
About a decade ago, he visited Stony Brook University on eastern Long Island, a part of the State University of New York, as a guest lecturer. Then-President Shirley Strum Kenny began lobbying Leakey to join the faculty. It was a process that took about two years; he relented after returning to the campus to accept an honorary degree.


Kenny convinced him that he could remain in Kenya most of the time, where Stony Brook anthropology students could visit and learn about his work. And the college founded in 1957 would benefit from the gravitas of such a noted professor on its faculty.


"It was much easier to work with a new university that didn't have a 200-year-old image where it was so set in its ways like some of the Ivy League schools that you couldn't really change what they did and what they thought," he said.


Earlier this month, Paul Simon performed at a benefit dinner for the Turkana Basin Institute. IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond and his wife, Peggy Bonapace Gelfond, and billionaire hedge fund investor Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn, were among those attending the exclusive show in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood.


Simon agreed to allow his music to be performed on the National Geographic documentary airing on PBS and donated an autographed guitar at the fundraiser that sold for nearly $20,000.


Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future.


"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

 

[Sophie Grey]

It's never been a question to me that evolution is what happened. I think the biggest part of this question is figuring out when "theory" is used casually or scientifically. Evolution = scientific theory, akin to the theory of gravity (and there's no sense not believing in gravity). I am a scientific person, and not very religious, and that impacts my thoughts and beliefs.

 

[NateHevens]

Evolution.

I would go on and on about why, but that's been answered on the last 27 pages.

I should point out that I don't have much tolerance for arrogant ignorance.

If you're unsure about evolution, perhaps because of a creationist upbringing, but wish to learn, I'll spend as much time with you as you want, as long as your interest is sincere and you make an honest effort to understand.

But if you're a Kent Hovind disciple who insists on continually asking me why monkeys still exist and why it's still called a theory, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do believe that a lot of the resistance to evolution comes from human narcissism. A lot of humans don't like to think of themselves as apes or animals.

Being told you were created in the image of a God, or that the entire universe was designed just for you, sounds much better. Delusions of grandeur, really.

 

[KalMart]

I'm fine with that answer. I don't see the need for people to discredit something completely, you can easily work it into your beliefs. It wouldn't be the first time people have tooled their beliefs to suit their needs.

Moving the goal posts...what a lot of atheists/non-believers find to be an irritating act of denial. I think it's at god creating the big bang and just leaving it at that now.

 

[NateHevens]

I do believe that a lot of the resistance to evolution comes from human narcissism. A lot of humans don't like to think of themselves as apes or animals.

Being told you were created in the image of a God, or that the entire universe was designed just for you, sounds much better. Delusions of grandeur, really.

Even when I was religious (I'm an Agnostic Atheist now, although I do still identify as a cultural Jew to some extant), I never understood that. I mean, I get why, but I thought we'd be over that by now. To be fair, I used to be a major humanity-hating cynic (like... I was a disciple of Bill Hicks; we humans were just a virus in shoes... and all that), so maybe it's my mindset (I now call myself a "realistic optimist"... humans are better than a virus with shoes... "we're just f***ing monkeys in shoes" [Tim Minchin ]), but that whole "we have got to be the center of this universe!" is just baffling to me.

The universe is huge. Like... unimaginably huge. And there is an uncountable number of planets.

There is no way in hell we're the only, or even most intelligent, life in the universe. While I don't believe we've ever been visited (I can explain, but that's not for this topic), the numbers simply demand that there is more life out there... even more intelligent life.

How in the hell are we the reason for all of this? The idea literally defies common sense...

 

[Thundercrack85]

I believe we have (though I won't go into that).

But humanity is like a child to a degree. It believes that the entire universe revolves around itself. Hell, until relatively recently, they literally believed that. What do you mean Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth!?

So to answer your question, humans are self-absorbed idiots.

 

[Maximum Carnage]

Interesting.

 

[NateHevens]

I believe we have (though I won't go into that).

Is there a thread her where we can go into it? I always like talking to people who think so. With a few exceptions, y'all aren't crazy idiots, and the discussions can be fascinating...

But humanity is like a child to a degree. It believes that the entire universe revolves around itself. Hell, until relatively recently, they literally believed that. What do you mean Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth!?

So to answer your question, humans are self-absorbed idiots.

This... is a good point.

Perhaps Bill Hicks was right about one thing; the next phase of our evolution has to be in mental/emotional maturity. We desperately need to get over this self-absorbed anthropocentricism.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't know, but feel free to PM me about it though. Always makes for an interesting discussion.

I think all species must go through that phase. In fact, I believe there are a lot of phases. Even religions are slowly moving away from it. A few years ago (wasn't that far back), the Vatican acknowledged that aliens might exist. Something they certainly wouldn't have done back in the day.

 

[Rocketman]

Do you accept the theory of evolution?

The thread title alone is laughable, in my opinion.
There's nothing to accept.
It's like saying, "Do you accept the theory of mathematics?"
Or, "Do you accept the theory of the grass being green?"

 

[Dr.]

...I don't have much tolerance for arrogant ignorance.

...

But if you're a Kent Hovind disciple who insists on continually asking me why monkeys still exist and why it's still called a theory, then we have nothing further to discuss.

It is interesting how many creationists continue to deliberately misrepresent evolution. I.e., they know full well that evolution doesn’t assert X; but they claim that it does.

But the leadership within creationism is starting to get the message that this strategy is counterproductive in the long term. The typical observer may not be able to follow a complicated detail of biology (and, therefore, may not be persuaded). But they know what lying is. And it hits home when a scientist can show that creationists have been engaged in blatant fraud.

Thus, Answers in Genesis actually posts a list of discredited creationist arguments. (As if to say: “don’t use these particular arguments because you’ll make yourself and our movement look stupid.&#8221

It may not seem like much. But it is a concession (of sorts) on their part. And it probably wouldn’t have happened without the scrutiny and hammer blows of the internet’s community of rationalists.

 

[Thundercrack85]

While you would assume that creationists are simply ignorant, after a while, (having debated some) you do get the sense that many are basically lying to themselves. Self-denial I suppose.

 

[thechangingman]

That is a sort of ignorance though.
willful ignorance is the worst kind.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't know (no pun intended), doesn't ignorance mean, not knowing? You really can't be willfully ignorant.

Unless you have like schizophrenia.

 

[thechangingman]

Well, you're right in a way.
what I mean is, the way people say something like " I didn't come from a monkey! "
when that's not what evolution says.
there's denial of course, but if you never research it because "it's wrong so I don't need to even read about it!" that's what I mean, where they know it's out there but people think that they don't need that specific set of facts, just hearsay will do.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do believe that most creationists are creationists primarily because they have simply not been sufficiently educated. The people in total denial are probably a minority. Just a very vocal minority.

 

[NateHevens]

It is interesting how many creationists continue to deliberately misrepresent evolution. I.e., they know full well that evolution doesn’t assert X; but they claim that it does.

The liars.

But the leadership within creationism is starting to get the message that this strategy is counterproductive in the long term. The typical observer may not be able to follow a complicated detail of biology (and, therefore, may not be persuaded). But they know what lying is. And it hits home when a scientist can show that creationists have been engaged in blatant fraud.

Thus, Answers in Genesis actually posts a list of discredited creationist arguments. (As if to say: “don’t use these particular arguments because you’ll make yourself and our movement look stupid.”)

It may not seem like much. But it is a concession (of sorts) on their part. And it probably wouldn’t have happened without the scrutiny and hammer blows of the internet’s community of rationalists.

I actually like AIG's list of discredited arguments... I'm just waiting for it to be updated with one word... "Creationism".

While you would assume that creationists are simply ignorant, after a while, (having debated some) you do get the sense that many are basically lying to themselves. Self-denial I suppose.

It's called willful ignorance...

I don't know (no pun intended), doesn't ignorance mean, not knowing? You really can't be willfully ignorant.

Unless you have like schizophrenia.

Actually, willful ignorance is whn you deliberately avoid information that contradicts your worldview. It's dishonest, but it's not exactly lying because you don't ever actually know the information. I hate those who are willfully ignorant the most.

I'm not one for torture, but these are people I'd love to lock in a room with an ongoing video of evolution and keep them in there until they can no longer claim ignorance.

I do believe that most creationists are creationists primarily because they have simply not been sufficiently educated. The people in total denial are probably a minority. Just a very vocal minority.

Actually, you'd be surprised. The amount of US-Americans who don't accept Evolution is 46% as of 2011, I believe (up from 40% in 2007).

Of all the creationists I've met, only one is willing to learn about actual evolution, and although she will deny it right now if you ask her, everyone one of us who talks to her about it can tell she's slowly coming to accept it. The vast majority of creationists I've met are quite content with the strawman evolution their pastors lie to them about and don't feel the need to try and understand the real thing.

While my sample size is not legitimate, I'd say that most creationists, at the end of the day, are willfully ignorant. They don't know anything about what evolution actually is, and they are happy to keep it that way.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is a distinction though. It's one thing to not want to know, and to be content with your religious pseudo-science, it's another to know evolution is right, and pretend it isn't. Or to deliberately misrepresent it to further your argument.

 

[KalMart]

I do believe that most creationists are creationists primarily because they have simply not been sufficiently educated. The people in total denial are probably a minority. Just a very vocal minority.

I think you can parallel that with percentages of religious indoctrination as well.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do think most people are content with the answer "God did it". It's a simple answer that doesn't require you to study or understand anything scientific.

While humans may be "atheists" at birth, the species does seem to have a propensity for religion. I suppose it's the crude human mind's attempt at making sense of things that are beyond its understanding.

It's funny, because a lot of people assumed that if we know how the world worked, that we wouldn't have any need for the supernatural and superstition. What they probably didn't realize, or appreciate is that most humans are idiots.

If you talk to a creationist, forget evolution, most of them don't even understand the most basic scientific concepts. Basic biology, or how the tides work. I've even met many who don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or how that relates to seasons.

 

[KalMart]

It's not just an answer about whether A or B did it...it lies at the very core of the belief of power associated with the concept of a 'higher intelligence' or deity, and at a certain hubris of feeling 'special' or chosen to somehow reflect that power. If you take that responsibility of actual design/creation away, you take most of that concept of power and reduce the idea of God from a designer and creator to a mere observer or the like....if not removing the concept of a creator's existence altogether. That's what theists fear...the thought of pulling back the curtains and only finding us there.

 

[DBryan]

I do believe that most creationists are creationists primarily because they have simply not been sufficiently educated. The people in total denial are probably a minority. Just a very vocal minority.

I was just about to respond to this and then remembered that the new restrictions on me probably include using some of the words in your post. That sucks.

 

[DBryan]

Let's talk science. There really is far too much evidence for evolution, across multiple fields, to deny evolution. Our argument is easier, because we are right. And our best weapon is information. I like to collect information as I go. It's one of the reasons I engage in this discussion, not so much for their sake, but for your own sake - to improve your own understanding, to exercise your mind, improve your reasoning, and to gain knowledge. And for the benefit of whoever happens to be watching the conversation. Very rarely will you change your opponent's mind. That's been my experience. You can present mountains of information, but I find that a lot of the aforementioned people are not interested in information or evidence. They do not care enough about whether or not their beliefs are true. Nevertheless, the information is on YOUR side, and if you ever find yourself in a discussion with a 'C' word, I think the best tactic is to familiarize yourself with the evidence. Expose that they don't know what they are talking about. If they say evolution is just a theory? Boom! They've just exposed that their knowledge is totally inadequate for even having this discussion. Give them the correct definition, that a theory is the highest point of knowledge in science, backed with evidence and confirmed by observation or experiment. Give them examples of other theories. Keep exposing their ignorance.

Anyway, here is some good, interesting information/evidence.

Molecular phylogenetic evidence that whales were once land animals. Closest relative is the hippopotamus.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205103109.htm

It's very hard to argue against such conclusive genetic evidence.

Atavisms are also a very strong piece of evidence.

Atavisms are throwback characteristics to previous ancestors that sometimes show up in the structure of a current animal.

There are photos of these on whales. Another confirmation that whales were once land animals.

http://etb-whales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/whale-evolution-and-atavistic-hind.html

These characteristics can also show in the embryo stage. Again, using whales as an example. Scroll to page 449 in the bottom link.

http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lb/Bejder and Hall.pdf

When someone says "evolution has never been observed", don't let them get away with that level of ignorance. Above are 3 separate examples of observable evidence. Genetic, atavistic, and embryology. And I didn't even have to go into the extensive fossil record - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

If someone wants you to present an animal changing into another species NOW, they are arguing against a STRAWMAN of evolution. Evolution does not expect that a chimp will give birth to a human. They are only further exposing their ignorance to what the theory of evolution describes, if that is the kind of evidence that they are looking for.

To me, the fact that we can observe and describe the processes of evolution is so much more satisfying than simply putting it down to magic.

There are 2 positions in this debate. The honest position, and the position of ignorance/dishonesty. An argument you may encounter, that you WILL encounter if you engage in this conversation long enough with opponents to evolution, is that the evidence described above does not disprove their proposed 'c' alternative (look at above posts for what the 'C' word is, I'm trying my best here to not get banned).

That is a dishonest way to frame the evidence. The evidence doesn't disprove that a wizard living in the centre of Pluto didn't make the atavisms the way they are, either. The honest way to look at the evidence is, which conclusion actually fits the evidence. Ask your opponent to describe how the evidence FITS their proposed alternative. Ask them to describe the processes of life, since the early Australopithecus africanus to the modern day human, according to their proposed alternative. If they can't do that, they are no longer a part of the discussion.

If they want to refute the evidence point blank, such as some nonsense argument that the dating of the fossils isn't accurate, you can not only point out that there are multiple dating methods that each demonstrably hold up, but that there has never been, NEVER BEEN, a scientific peer reviewed paper to challenge this evidence. The information that your opponent is reading on the 'C' sites has not been confirmed by any independent study that they have undertaken. They have done no tests themselves. There is nothing to stop them from doing so. Your opponent has no leg to stand on in this regard.

 

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

I believe in survival of the fittest and natural selection, but I don't believe mankind can be traced backward to single-celled organisms.