Evolution

[RadicalModerate]

I am not religous so I dont have a dog in the fight, that said there are intelligent people professors who do not think that evolution occurs as it is said to occur and I have seen some compeling arguments for why. That does not mean evolution is completly wrong but niether is it completely right. That is the crux of my argument, that the THEORY of EVOLUTION is not complete. Any claims otherwise is arrogant and foolish. To claim that people have to be stupid if they dont believe in evolution is daft in and of it self. Truth and knowledge come from disparate facts and evidence being distilled down to their base contents with the ruthless crucible of analylis and scutiny of opposing views.

Does a scientific theory need to be 100% complete to be true? Sounds like your moving goalposts; "the theory isn't completely understood backwards and forwards, so it's not be accepted as fact". Gravity is less understood than evolution, and you still fly planes, right? And that's just going from your perspective that evolution isn't "fully understood". It IS fully understood; species develop from small genetic adaptations over time becoming new species. The theory is actually very simple, that's why it's a theory in the first place; a theory encapsulates the general thrust of the idea. All the theory of gravity states is that "physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses". It's an amazingly easy concept to understand at a fundamental level, but when you start getting into the details, that's where complicated physics and mathematics come in. It's the details that are complicated. Regarding evolution, we know the general picture, all we are doing now is exploring every nook and cranny of this amazing, ongoing event.

 

[PirateMk1]

Does a scientific theory need to be 100% complete to be true? Sounds like your moving goalposts; "the theory isn't completely understood backwards and forwards, so it's not be accepted as fact". Gravity is less understood than evolution, and you still fly planes, right? And that's just going from your perspective that evolution isn't "fully understood". It IS fully understood; species develop from small genetic adaptations over time becoming new species. The theory is actually very simple, that's why it's a theory in the first place; a theory encapsulates the general thrust of the idea. All the theory of gravity states is that "physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses". It's an amazingly easy concept to understand at a fundamental level, but when you start getting into the details, that's where complicated physics and mathematics come in. It's the details that are complicated. Regarding evolution, we know the general picture, all we are doing now is exploring every nook and cranny of this amazing, ongoing event.

What is the other theory that is accepted by a minority of scientists then?

I never claimed evolution was a compelte theory and 100% immutable. My problem is That the only competing "theories" I have ever heard are based on the bible not science. Come up with a better explanation then evolution, or a better explanation of evolution and you will get people to atually listen to you, and either accept your new theory or reject it with explanations on where/why it is wrong. If you base it on the bible, not science you will be ignored.

I would say Lamarcks theory which microbiologists say they see on the microbeal scale would be a competing or more approprietly maybee an alternetive theory for a specific subset of life.

Basing theories on the Bible is perfectly fine IF you can prove it. Extrordinary claims require extrodinary proof.

My arguement is not with evolution per sey but the claim that it is FACT. It is a theory to decribe observed phenomenea no more. It is the more part I have a problem with. Its like saying Newtonian Physics is fact. It is a good working model that is quite useful for basic understanding of physics but it does NOT describe the universe around us in a complete way. This why there is Quantum physics and Relitivistic Physics, and people trying real hard to combine them into one coherent theory. Like Ron Popeal says wait theres more.
The theory of evolution itself is not settled in any real way as there are competing theories within the general theory to describe the mechinisim by which evolution occures. Then there are the very real questions that have not been aswered such as why the lack of diversity at the beginning of the Cambrian era which concerened Charles Darwin himself in his own work. There is also the question of why no more real diversification of Phyla since the cambrian era. Is there a single orginating entity is was there more than one?

Does gravity exist yes probably bordering on almost certainly. We know there is a phenomena, we can decribe it generally but we have no real testable idea of the mechanism and how that mechanism works. Can we use what we know currently about it to effect us in our lives yes, even though we know essentially nothing about it. Its like electricity 200 years ago, we now have a very solid idea how it works and a good idea of perhaps why. Evolution is like that.

One of the problems with Evolutionary Theory arguments is that the subject covers many diciplins and has many competing theories under the primary theory, which greatly complicates the debate.

 

[RadicalModerate]

The theory of evolution itself is not settled in any real way as there are competing theories within the general theory to describe the mechinisim by which evolution occures..

That is absolutely 100% false. Have you not heard of genetics? That is the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

 

[Redress]

I would say Lamarcks theory which microbiologists say they see on the microbeal scale would be a competing or more approprietly maybee an alternetive theory for a specific subset of life.

Lamarck's theory would fall under evolution. It does not stand on it's own as a seperate theory but as a highly speculative theory on how evolution works.

Basing theories on the Bible is perfectly fine IF you can prove it. Extrordinary claims require extrodinary proof.

Not exactly, no. Every theory, to be a theory, no matter how mundane or extraordinary require the same testing and "proof".

My arguement is not with evolution per sey but the claim that it is FACT. It is a theory to decribe observed phenomenea no more. It is the more part I have a problem with. Its like saying Newtonian Physics is fact. It is a good working model that is quite useful for basic understanding of physics but it does NOT describe the universe around us in a complete way. This why there is Quantum physics and Relitivistic Physics, and people trying real hard to combine them into one coherent theory. Like Ron Popeal says wait theres more.

Again, not exactly. Leaving aside your failure to understand Newton, no theory shy of a complete GUT explains everything, nor does it set out to do so. A theory sets out to explain a set of observations. This evolution does. It is a "good theory" because it explains completely observation and experimental evidence. It is perfectly safe to call evolution a fact, since the only things that are going to change about it are some of the theories as to the exact mechanics.

And it is spelled "per se".

The theory of evolution itself is not settled in any real way as there are competing theories within the general theory to describe the mechinisim by which evolution occures. Then there are the very real questions that have not been aswered such as why the lack of diversity at the beginning of the Cambrian era which concerened Charles Darwin himself in his own work. There is also the question of why no more real diversification of Phyla since the cambrian era. Is there a single orginating entity is was there more than one?

Evolution is settled. Where you are confused is as to what exactly evolution en compasses. Punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism as an example, neither changes the fact of evolution, but knowing which is true will have a tremendous impact on evolutionary science.

Does gravity exist yes probably bordering on almost certainly. We know there is a phenomena, we can decribe it generally but we have no real testable idea of the mechanism and how that mechanism works. Can we use what we know currently about it to effect us in our lives yes, even though we know essentially nothing about it. Its like electricity 200 years ago, we now have a very solid idea how it works and a good idea of perhaps why. Evolution is like that.

One of the problems with Evolutionary Theory arguments is that the subject covers many diciplins and has many competing theories under the primary theory, which greatly complicates the debate.

We can and are able to test for gravity and know it does exist.

 

[MoSurveyor]

There is also the question of why no more real diversification of Phyla since the cambrian era.

Are you trying to ask why no branch of a tree is bigger than the trunk?

Or maybe a better comparison is why no stick on a branch is bigger than the branch?

 

[Joshuanolen66]

D: Humans are the product of millions of years of micro and by extension macro evolution. God doesn't exist and is a fairy tale concocted by ignorant individuals.

I believe the ignorant one would be anyone to try and make factual statements on something that can neither be proven nor disproved...you cannot say that God exists or does not exist with any evidence based certainty. Therefore the "fairy tale concocting ignorant individuals," as you so eloquently deemed them, aren't half as ignorant as the man who claims to know something that is unknown. Namely, YOU...

 

[Redress]

I believe the ignorant one would be anyone to try and make factual statements on something that can neither be proven nor disproved...you cannot say that God exists or does not exist with any evidence based certainty. Therefore the "fairy tale concocting ignorant individuals," as you so eloquently deemed them, aren't half as ignorant as the man who claims to know something that is unknown. Namely, YOU...

You cannot prove nor disprove the existence of fairies. Should we posit them as the reason why dozens of children disappear every year?

 

[Quag]

I believe the ignorant one would be anyone to try and make factual statements on something that can neither be proven nor disproved...you cannot say that God exists or does not exist with any evidence based certainty. Therefore the "fairy tale concocting ignorant individuals," as you so eloquently deemed them, aren't half as ignorant as the man who claims to know something that is unknown. Namely, YOU...

Actually anyone who claims to know god does exist are doing the exact same thing, so they are not half as ignorant they are equally ignorant. In fact considering the number of gods proposed by various religions it could even be argued they are more ignorant than hatuey.
Is it not equally ignorant to claim that Zeus, Thor, Baal do not exist?
Those who state god(s) exists but do not know the nature of good would be on par with Hatuey.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No one can prove that god exists or does not exist. The one thing that is known is that the theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of god, and yet, believers will stand reason on its head trying to disprove evolution because they think that it is somehow atheistic.

I believe that there is a god. I know that the theory of evolution is correct. The one is proven, the other not, but there is no connection between the two ideas.

 

[00timh]

D: Humans are the product of millions of years of micro and by extension macro evolution. God doesn't exist and is a fairy tale concocted by ignorant individuals.

I definitely question much the religious folklore. However, to think that humans, or even life in its entirety is a random occurrence of matter combining in a particular way. EVEN if that is the case, no scientist, physicist or any other ist can in any way explain the existence of matter and its origin. Even the big bang theory came from something. I am willing to accept this theory as it appears to be the most logical given our understanding of the universe and its conclusions are based not only on what we have, but of good evidence of what has and is happening in the universe. But, that damn universe, where the hell did it come from??

 

[Quag]

I definitely question much the religious folklore. However, to think that humans, or even life in its entirety is a random occurrence of matter combining in a particular way. EVEN if that is the case, no scientist, physicist or any other ist can in any way explain the existence of matter and its origin. Even the big bang theory came from something. I am willing to accept this theory as it appears to be the most logical given our understanding of the universe and its conclusions are based not only on what we have, but of good evidence of what has and is happening in the universe. But, that damn universe, where the hell did it come from??

Where the hell did god come from?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Where the hell did god come from?

He evolved from an ape god, but it only took him about 30 seconds. ;-)

 

[Ikari]

I am not religous so I dont have a dog in the fight, that said there are intelligent people professors who do not think that evolution occurs as it is said to occur and I have seen some compeling arguments for why. That does not mean evolution is completly wrong but niether is it completely right. That is the crux of my argument, that the THEORY of EVOLUTION is not complete. Any claims otherwise is arrogant and foolish. To claim that people have to be stupid if they dont believe in evolution is daft in and of it self. Truth and knowledge come from disparate facts and evidence being distilled down to their base contents with the ruthless crucible of analylis and scutiny of opposing views.

There are things left to discover with evolutionary dynamics. It is true that we do not know all the dynamics. Yet even though we do not understand fully at this point all the dynamics of evolution, we do know that evolution happened. That is to say the theory of evolution which describes the dynamics of the phenomenon are not known, but the existence of the phenomenon in general is known. To argue against evolution is to say that there are dinosaurs today or that humans lived with them. Yet we know from the fossil record that life which existed in the past do not exist now and life which does exist now did not exist in the past. The system evolved.

 

[Hatuey]

I believe the ignorant one would be anyone to try and make factual statements on something that can neither be proven nor disproved...you cannot say that God exists or does not exist with any evidence based certainty. Therefore the "fairy tale concocting ignorant individuals," as you so eloquently deemed them, aren't half as ignorant as the man who claims to know something that is unknown. Namely, YOU...

What utter nonsense. Religion is the sociological answer to that which people don't know. How does thunder occur? God X (Zeus, Amun, Mars take your pic) is mad. Why are there good harvests? God X (once again, take your pick) blessed us. "Gods" were invented to explain what people didn't know. That they're still being used in an age of MRI scans, antibiotics, petabytes and airborne distributed fertilizers is superstitious at its best and at worst willfully ignorant of the reality we live in.

 

[PrometheusBound]

What is the practical value of teaching Evolution anyway? It's not like we are going to create life and evolve it anywhere. Students are burdened with too much material that not even future biologists will use. Creationism is important and practical to theocratic education, so I suspect that unnecessarily teaching evolution is a design of those who want to destroy religion. What's more, they make unnecessary judgmental conclusions from it, such as that man is no better than an animal and is insignificant because the homo sapiens species has only been here a relatively minuscle time.

It's also not as if religious chemists are going to use prayer rather than scientific method to make their experiments work.

 

[Ikari]

What is the practical value of teaching Evolution anyway? It's not like we are going to create life and evolve it anywhere. Students are burdened with too much material that not even future biologists will use. Creationism is important and practical to theocratic education, so I suspect that unnecessarily teaching evolution is a design of those who want to destroy religion. What's more, they make unnecessary judgmental conclusions from it, such as that man is no better than an animal and is insignificant because the homo sapiens species has only been here a relatively minuscle time.

Evolution's purpose is to destroy religion? Could you insert more hyperbole? Your entire post is assumption and bias.

 

[Hatuey]

What is the practical value of teaching Evolution anyway? It's not like we are going to create life and evolve it anywhere. Students are burdened with too much material that not even future biologists will use. Creationism is important and practical to theocratic education, so I suspect that unnecessarily teaching evolution is a design of those who want to destroy religion. What's more, they make unnecessary judgmental conclusions from it, such as that man is no better than an animal and is insignificant because the homo sapiens species has only been here a relatively minuscle time.

It's also not as if religious chemists are going to use prayer rather than scientific method to make their experiments work.

Hahahaha I guess factual knowledge has no practical application to those who believe in 2000 year old myths.

 

[OhIsee.Then]

I definitely question much the religious folklore. However, to think that humans, or even life in its entirety is a random occurrence of matter combining in a particular way. EVEN if that is the case, no scientist, physicist or any other ist can in any way explain the existence of matter and its origin. Even the big bang theory came from something. I am willing to accept this theory as it appears to be the most logical given our understanding of the universe and its conclusions are based not only on what we have, but of good evidence of what has and is happening in the universe. But, that damn universe, where the hell did it come from??

What it's looking like to several scientists is the state of having nothing in a very large space is not stable. When you have enough of nothing something will appear. What set up the physics of everything is still the question. It's pretty clear that we as humans haven't needed a local universe as large as it is to exist; and, that leads to a few questions where many old answers don't make any sense.

 

[Quag]

What is the practical value of teaching Evolution anyway? It's not like we are going to create life and evolve it anywhere. Students are burdened with too much material that not even future biologists will use. Creationism is important and practical to theocratic education, so I suspect that unnecessarily teaching evolution is a design of those who want to destroy religion. What's more, they make unnecessary judgmental conclusions from it, such as that man is no better than an animal and is insignificant because the homo sapiens species has only been here a relatively minuscle time.

It's also not as if religious chemists are going to use prayer rather than scientific method to make their experiments work.

1. Scientist are working on creating life, They use evolutionary theory to explain much of what they expect to happen when they cross breed flowers for example.
2. People burdened with too much knowledge? If only this were the case.
3. Creationism is important to theocratic education? Every part of that statment is wrong wrong wrong.
4. Teaching evolution only shows how silly SOME people are in their dogmatic views of their particular religion. It is not the reasoning behind teaching evolution it is merely a byproduct. (a good one at that)
5. Why is man better than animal? Ok we have a superior intellect than anything else we have discovered here on earth (mice and dolphins excepted of course) but what do you think makes us special?
6. Unfortunately religious "scientisst" use the bible as science then design on purpose or subconsciously experements and data that "prove" their preconcieved notions. In other words they use prayer to conduct experiments.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

What is the practical value of teaching Evolution anyway? It's not like we are going to create life and evolve it anywhere. Students are burdened with too much material that not even future biologists will use. Creationism is important and practical to theocratic education, so I suspect that unnecessarily teaching evolution is a design of those who want to destroy religion. What's more, they make unnecessary judgmental conclusions from it, such as that man is no better than an animal and is insignificant because the homo sapiens species has only been here a relatively minuscle time.

It's also not as if religious chemists are going to use prayer rather than scientific method to make their experiments work.

Some of us prefer a world view based on evidence than on a 2000 year old book.

I bet you take advantage of the evolutionary theory more than you might think.

 

[Dittohead not!]

What is the practical value of teaching Evolution anyway? It's not like we are going to create life and evolve it anywhere. Students are burdened with too much material that not even future biologists will use. Creationism is important and practical to theocratic education, so I suspect that unnecessarily teaching evolution is a design of those who want to destroy religion. What's more, they make unnecessary judgmental conclusions from it, such as that man is no better than an animal and is insignificant because the homo sapiens species has only been here a relatively minuscle time.

It's also not as if religious chemists are going to use prayer rather than scientific method to make their experiments work.

Surely, the above must be satire.

 

[Removable Mind]

There is an option missing in the OP's questionnaire. The OP's questions are biased with the assumption God exist. I would have added the following:

"There is no God Creator, or Designer. Therefore Evolution is a natural process of the universe."

Just sayin....

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is an option missing in the OP's questionnaire. The OP's questions are biased with the assumption God exist. I would have added the following:

"There is no God Creator, or Designer. Therefore Evolution is a natural process of the universe."

Just sayin....

That is not fundamentally different than the second choice offered in this poll. You simply try to explain WHY you feel that god had no hand in the process described as evolution. ;-)

 

[Removable Mind]

That is not fundamentally different than the second choice offered in this poll. You simply try to explain WHY you feel that god had no hand in the process described as evolution. ;-)

Respectfully, I disagree.

The second choice is one that would reflect a "Deists" position. The questions are frames to define God's role...or lack there of in the process of evolution.

The question I added totally removes the possibility of any participation...or lack there of from a creator, designer, or if you prefer "God"...completely.

 

[Joshuanolen66]

@QUAG

I agree with you to a degree...as i said in my post, anyone to claim certainty over the existence or non-existence of a deity the ignorant...the people responsible for "concocting the fairy tale" were ignorant only in the matters of modern scientific processes. And for someone to deny another mans faith experiences, be them Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc. is a fool...the same kind of fool that would tell a person they're not gay its just in their head or they shouldnt be hurt about something because it wouldnt hurt said fool. many people cling to faith experiences and to people like hatuey, they seem silly because they themselves havent experienced them. so i would hold onto my original statement that hatuey is quite ignorant in faith based proccesses... the only thing i might retract is the word ignorant and replace it with insensitive.