Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[enterthemadness]

Yes, I believe in evolution and I am a Pagan...suddenly I feel like Mitt Romney...and I have flip flopped on this issue...I blame a crappy memory and crappy sleep for this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I believe in partial evolution. Which is supported. Meaning things adapt to their enviroments over time, even humans. But the whole "we came from monkey's" thing seems a bit silly to me.

We didn't come from monkeys. We are apes who evolved from older, extinct apes. Monkeys are a more distant cousin to us. Our closest living "relative" is the chimp.

 

[Shemtov]

Apes and humans belong to the same family. Both branches evolved in the same manner you just described. What exactly clashes with your beliefs?

It's Microevolution vs. Macroevolution.
The difference is that while Macroevolution says something can evolve into a different species while Microevolution says it can't. Like an ape can't evolve into something recognizably different like a human.

 

[NateHevens]

Apes and humans belong to the same family. Both branches evolved in the same manner you just described. What exactly clashes with your beliefs?

Oh, I can answer that.

The "clash" part comes in with the belief that we humans are super-duper speshul being made espeshully by Invisible Sky-Daddy from dirt in the gwound and we'd never be related to dirty, soulless animals... because Invisible Sky-Daddy wuvs us so much he made Hell to punish us for eternity when we be bad...

In other words, accepting that we are apes who co-evolved along with all other modern primates (apes and monkeys) from a common ancestor clashes with a belief in "Human Exceptionalism" (a concept, BTW, that is demonstrably idiotic).

It's Microevolution vs. Macroevolution.
The difference is that while Macroevolution says something can evolve into a different species while Microevolution says it can't. Like an ape can't evolve into something recognizably different like a human.

Could you please show me anywhere within the scientific literature where microevolution could, in any way, suggest that macroevolution can't happen?

The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the scale.

And for the record, the total differences between, say, chimps and humans is 1.5% genetically. In other words, our DNA 98.5% identical to chimp DNA.

So... um... we're not that different...

 

[NateHevens]

Double-post. Please ignore.

 

[Odneyson]

Like an ape can't evolve into something recognizably different like a human.

Humans are apes.

 

[Piper Maru]

Discovering Religion: Ep 14 - Micro and Macroevolution

[YT]5j7_IGc_8rk[/YT]

Discovering Religion

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's Microevolution vs. Macroevolution.
The difference is that while Macroevolution says something can evolve into a different species while Microevolution says it can't. Like an ape can't evolve into something recognizably different like a human.

Out of curiosity, if you follow this line of thinking. Looking at the fossils, and the reconstructions, where exactly do you draw the line "between" ape and human?

Homo habilis?

It's funny because to any alien looking down at Earth we would be the archetypical ape.

 

[enterthemadness]

Apes and monkeys can smoke...you think that would be proof enough...#adorable

 

[childeroland]

It's Microevolution vs. Macroevolution.
The difference is that while Macroevolution says something can evolve into a different species while Microevolution says it can't. Like an ape can't evolve into something recognizably different like a human.

Microevolution is the same process within a species or population. Macroevolution is that process on a scale of separated gene pools. Speciation occurs in both.

 

[Dr.]

Many creationists tolerate “microevolution” because a) the fact is undeniable and b) they actually need it in order to account for the variation from the “kinds” on the Ark (i.e., there was a space issue on the Ark - so, e.g., a single “canine kind” begat foxes, coyotes, etc.).

But creationists reject “macroevolution” because they interpret this as synonymous with speciation. And since one species doesn’t give rise to another (from one generation to the next), macroevolution - by definition - doesn’t exist.

The thing is… no evolutionist claims that this erroneous definition of macroevolution (a dramatic genetic change or mutation in offspring) is the engine for creating new species. Every (sexually reproducing) critter that ever lived necessarily belonged to the same species as its parents. And, in turn, they had offspring of the same species. Speciation is a long-term process observed with hindsight - not an instantaneous event.

 

[Devil-In]

*scrolling around the Hype, see a thread called, "Do you accept the theory of evolution?". Stop everything...*

Hold on, wait a second here...this is still up for debate? People still call this a theory? Folks, this is the 21st Century. This isn't a theory, ladies and gentlemen. It's a proven fact. Period. You may stop you're internal dialog now, "But, but, omg, look at all the stuff we don't know and how it's not mentioned in the Bible or religious texts, and it just doesn't make any sense to me" blahblahblah SHUT UP. You. Are. Wrong. OK? OK.

What other option is there to believe in this day and age? People still don't think a big invisible guy wearing a toga throwing lightning created us in his spare time when he's not chasing after another guy with a goatee wearing red spandex holding a pitchfork, do they?

This is science, people. Well-funded creationists (i.e. THE CHURCH) had it's turn to run the world, and it was called the Dark Ages. They also instilled in our population (with fear) that our planet was not only flat, but the center of the Universe. There was also this silly little thing called Witch Hunting, where hundreds of thousands of women were tortured and killed for no reason.

And I know what you are gonna say, "It's not been proven, you are just saying what other people have told you, just like Creationists." Wanna prove Evolution is real? Go to backyard and dig a hole. A big one. You will find fossils. More proof? How about a Museum? A big building FILLED with stuff about evolution.

I refuse to vote in this thread. Evolution isn't a theory. It's fact. Your thumbs that you will use to type a message arguing my point just further validates it. Thank You.

 

[Thundercrack85]

See, they really need to stop using the word "theory", because only a few people understand the scientific meaning.

 

[Marvolo]

See, they really need to stop using the word "theory", because only a few people understand the scientific meaning.

I agree. English is such an adaptive, evolving, and accomodating language (for the most part) that i cant imagine why they wouldnt come up with a more suitable descriptive word. Scientific theory is not the same as theory in general. Many do not understand the distinction so why they dont come up with a single word meaning the leading scientific thought of the day and fact is beyond me. Im tired of hearing the false argiment that "it is only a theory." I heard it repeatedly in my private christian based schooling. If only i had had the guts to standup to my teachers and debate reason over superstition.

 

[Dr.]

I’ve heard some scientists basically concede defeat over the word - and advocate for a substitute. But what would it be? “Fact” and “law” are already in use for other purposes. In The Greatest Show On Earth, Dawkins suggested (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) “theorum” - a spelling variant of “theorem” (from mathematics - which means a proven statement). But I’ve yet to see anyone else mention the Theorum of Evolution.

 

[Marvolo]

I’ve heard some scientists basically concede defeat over the word - and advocate for a substitute. But what would it be? “Fact” and “law” are already in use for other purposes. In The Greatest Show On Earth, Dawkins suggested (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) “theorum” - a spelling variant of “theorem” (from mathematics - which means a proven statement). But I’ve yet to see anyone else mention the Theorum of Evolution.

Theorum is too close to theory and the creationist and those in denial would say it is a simple attempt to conceal evolutions true nature of falacy. No, the word would need to be something simple and irrefutable. I would suggest for starters to remove the word theory altogether. The average layman no longer says the Theory of Gravity. They simply say gravity. It is established fact. Evolution is only called a theory by the layman as an attempt to deny it and discredit it. I propose removing the word "theory" preceeding evolution or in reference to evolution all together from all textbooks in the future. Evolution has been vetted by a peer review process of many men and publications for many years. It is fact and not up for the debate by students who have far less knowledge and lack the ability to adequately determine the validity of evolution. Evolution should be taught as fact in classrooms because it is fact and not up for debate least of all by students in highschool.

 

[Dr.]

I propose removing the word "theory" preceeding evolution or in reference to evolution all together from all textbooks in the future. Evolution has been vetted by a peer review process of many men and publications for many years. It is fact and not up for the debate by students who have far less knowledge and lack the ability to adequately determine the validity of evolution. Evolution should be taught as fact in classrooms because it is fact and not up for debate least of all by students in highschool.

But in other scientific disciplines (Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Plate Tectonics), the word “theory” would still be used, no? Or are you suggesting a more universal abandonment of the term?

And as has already been mentioned in this thread - there are two aspects to evolution: the fact that it happened and the theory that explains the fact. The distinction is important. So it wouldn’t do to have the same word (“fact”) for both usages.

I suppose we might get used to the Explanation of Evolution, Atomic Explanation, etc.

 

[childeroland]

I don't think changing the word would do much, since a lot of creationists simply use "just a theory" when they don't have any other arguments against evolution. "Explanation" would incite responses like, Dictionary definition of explain 2.: to assign a meaning, to interpret. SEE, IT'S ONLY INTERPRETATION, NOT A FACT.

 

[Marvolo]

But in other scientific disciplines (Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Plate Tectonics), the word “theory” would still be used, no? Or are you suggesting a more universal abandonment of the term?

And as has already been mentioned in this thread - there are two aspects to evolution: the fact that it happened and the theory that explains the fact. The distinction is important. So it wouldn’t do to have the same word (“fact”) for both usages.

I suppose we might get used to the Explanation of Evolution, Atomic Explanation, etc.

A more universal abandonment. The title "Theory of Evolution" makes sense when referring to how it works because some of it still is theory. We dont have all the answers to how it works and all the turn on the path of life's evolution. The problem is that the laymen do not understand the distinction between the theory of how it works and the fact that we know evolution took place.

I don't think changing the word would do much, since a lot of creationists simply use "just a theory" when they don't have any other arguments against evolution. "Explanation" would incite responses like, Dictionary definition of explain 2.: to assign a meaning, to interpret. SEE, IT'S ONLY INTERPRETATION, NOT A FACT.

Youd be surprised. Come to a rural southern christian town. Youll hear that argument everytime you start to throw out irrefutable facts. If thwy want to play semantics and argue with titles the best thing to do would be leave no room for semantics. Get rid of the word "Theory" and come up with a new scientific word that cant be confused with it. Scienists had to invent many words for the english language for various reasons in the 1700 onward so why stop now?

 

[KalMart]

I agree...the 'theory' part of the nomenclature is unfortunately misinterpreted as being unsubstantiated. Just as we call astrology what it is, with histories and concepts that we consider true and/or extremely likely through calculation and analysis/study but cannot be witnessed 'in action', the same should apply to evolution.

The only thing that evolution uniquely conflicts is the symbolic (and not logical or rational) value behind sentient and intentional creation by some higher intelligence. I think that religion at least needs to evolve itself with that and accept it rather than look at it as a threat...and likewise, those who are not theists can't point to evolution as the flagship of their opposition to religion.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think of religion as a failed science, really.

Our early attempt to explain how things work. It's become a lot more since then, but that's how it started.

It's been in conflict with modern science ever since. First Copernicus and Galileo, then Gesner, and eventually Darwin. I'm leaving out a few prominent scientists, but those were probably the biggest spats.

 

[Shemtov]

What about the fact that there were experiments done on Flies, where scientests tried to mutate them into permanent eyelessness and after many generations they couldn't?

 

[Thundercrack85]

What about the fact that there were experiments done on Flies, where scientests tried to mutate them into permanent eyelessness and after many generations they couldn't?

Which study was that?

 

[KalMart]

What about the fact that there were experiments done on Flies, where scientests tried to mutate them into permanent eyelessness and after many generations they couldn't?

So? Can it be shown that a supreme being can? We could mutate them to have no wings though, as I recall.

 

[KalMart]

I think of religion as a failed science, really.

Our early attempt to explain how things work. It's become a lot more since then, but that's how it started.

It's been in conflict with modern science ever since. First Copernicus and Galileo, then Gesner, and eventually Darwin. I'm leaving out a few prominent scientists, but those were probably the biggest spats.

It goes much deeper than just explaining how things 'work', and certainly shouldn't hinge just on that as it would be easy to dismiss entirely upon it. I think more reassessment has to be made and evolved over what is literal and what is symbolic/metaphorical, and what 'truths' are to be found i that.