Do you reject evolution?

Muhammed said:

Just a heads up to make others more aware.

We should not encourage the corruption of science, especially when citizen taxpayer money is in the mix.

Click to expand...

What?

This has nothing to do with evolution.

Stopandthink said:

I like how error is now called hoax. Piltman was scientific fact for 40 yrs. I wonder how many more errors, I mean, hoaxes are involved with macroevolution. IMHO since microevolution is empirically verifiable we should stick to teaching that.

Click to expand...

The terms macroevolution and microevolution are semantic designations used by creationists and their ID cousins to argue against evolution. To a biologist it is simply evolution. Every biological process ultimately adheres to the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no chemical or physical law that prevents speciation from occurring. In fact, speciation is nothing more than a human construct of taxonomy. What you term as "macroevolution" is nothing more than what you term as "microevolution" over more generations. By the way, this has been observed in science, and the evidence for it is throughout our genome.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, many on here would do well to read a book like this: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution: Richard Dawkins: Amazon.com: Books

You would find that many of the questions you have about evolution have long been addressed with mountains of empirical evidence by modern science.

SouthernDemocrat said:

The genetic mutations as the molecular level are indeed random. Whether those mutations are beneficial or not and thus get passed down to future generations are dictated by the environment a species is in. I think they problem is you are arguing two different things. Ecofarm is talking about the initial minute genetic changes that result from random molecular changes as dna molecules are replicated. You are talking about adaption that occurs in terms of how well a species competes with others in its environment. That is what determines whether those random molecular changes are passed on to subsequent generations or not. Adaption is not random, but genetic mutations at the molecular level are.

Click to expand...

Its one and the same. No matter where you go there is a constant environmental effect going on which affects genes and molecules. That includes when molecules are being replicated. As I said, "random" is not really random. We just are not advanced enough to understand everything thats going on.

What's interesting about evolution is that some single celled organisms reacted to outside stimuli (light, water, temperature, sound, odor, proteins) to become more organized, develop senses and adapt to their environment. But to what purpose does their instinct to survive and perpetuate come from?

Humans, being one of the most complicated organisms to evolve out the abundant variety, exist as a result of biochemical activity on a sphere of minerals. Could the universal forces that spin materials in space into denser objects have some leftover force imbued within earths biological process that create the urge to exist?

Sal Khan in this video describes how I view evolution as it relates to a more grand, elegant designer.

Kal'Stang said:

Its one and the same. No matter where you go there is a constant environmental effect going on which affects genes and molecules. That includes when molecules are being replicated. As I said, "random" is not really random. We just are not advanced enough to understand everything thats going on.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree with that, in that nothing is ever random, but not being random does not mean its divinely directed either.

Kal'Stang said:

There is no randomness in any mutations. Mutations are a result of environment.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Mutations are random. They are then selected by the environment.

We've been through this twice already:

1. Random mutations
2. Adaption/selection by the environment


Without that, one cannot understand evolution.

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

Click to expand...

Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

polgara said:

The more we discover, the more we find that we really don't know much! :mrgreen:

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave: Ready to welcome a New Year in? I am! :thumbs:

Click to expand...

True, and there is no guarantee that I will even exist tomorrow or reach my destination this afternoon in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I'll be happy to see 2013 expire with the hope 2014 will be a better year for all. I doubt I'll be awake at midnight, but I'll rest in the belief it'll arrive just fine, and I welcome it. I'm a real party pooper when it comes to late nights - even this one.

ecofarm said:

Nonsense. Mutations are random. They are then selected by the environment.

We've been through this twice already:

1. Random mutations
2. Adaption/selection by the environment


Without that, one cannot understand evolution.

Click to expand...

Well technically while for all intents and purposes mutations at the molecular level are random, they are the result of chemical and physical reactions in the molecular environment those dna molecules are being replicated in, thus technically they don't just happen on their own in a vacuum. That all said, there is certainly no evidence that they are being directed in anyway by any supreme being.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Yes, I would agree with that, in that nothing is ever random, but not being random does not mean its divinely directed either.

Click to expand...

Nor does it mean that it is not divine. But I wasn't basing my arguement on intelligent design or godly intervention so thats really irrelevent. My arguement was simply about ecofarms comment on "random" and evolution.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Well technically while for all intents and purposes mutations are the molecular level are random, they are the result of chemical and physical reactions in the molecular environment those dna molecules are being replicated in, thus technically they don't just happen on their own in a vacuum. That all said, there is certainly no evidence that they are being directed in anyway by any supreme being.

Click to expand...

The mutations are random. All evidence, logic and reason say such.

I can't believe some people don't know that. See Uni. Berk citation above.

Kal'Stang said:

Nor does it mean that it is not divine. But I wasn't basing my arguement on intelligent design or godly intervention so thats really irrelevent. My arguement was simply about ecofarms comment on "random" and evolution.

Click to expand...

Argue with the university of Berk and every other biological scientist. Spare me your personal definition of random.

Dezaad said:

On a pragmatic level the difference between theory, as you make it out, and fact is negligible. When making use of knowledge with respect to evolution, it is abjectly foolish to treat evolution as anything but truth. It has proven dizzyingly that useful to do so.

Put another way, we are better off treating it as true than treating it as false, and nothing of high value is served by treating it as if it were somewhere in between.

Click to expand...

To say it's a theory leaves open the possiblity of alternatives and improvements, which is important.

I'm sure that many considered Newton's theory of gravitation to be fact until Einstein came along. The respective theories mostly explain the same facts but do so with a very different underlying model and with very different implications for special situations.

Heisenburg's theory of how a fission bomb works was totally wrong but because of his stature in the German physics community at the time others were obliged to treat it as fact. Thus the Nazis failed to build an atomic bomb. Meanwhile, at Los Alamos some physicist you never heard of got it right and calculated the right amount of U[235] to pack into a bomb.

I see no value in reacting to critics by overstating the case.

Manc Skipper said:

Evolution is both a theory and a fact to those who understand the meaning of the terms. Those ignorant of the science deny this.

Click to expand...

It's a theory that explains a lot of facts. Perhaps that's what you mean.

and it is consistant with related fields etc. and it works.

LowDown said:

It's a theory that explains a lot of facts. Perhaps that's what you mean.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

Nonsense. Mutations are random. They are then selected by the environment.

We've been through this twice already:

1. Random mutations
2. Adaption/selection by the environment


Without that, one cannot understand evolution.


Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

Click to expand...

Even your own link states that all the tests that have been done can be interpreted in several different ways. In otherwords they just don't know for sure.

ecofarm said:

Argue with the university of Berk and every other biological scientist. Spare me your personal definition of random.

Click to expand...

So all those at the University of Berkley and all biological scientists know everything and take every single thing into account? :roll: Yeah, right.

Kal'Stang said:

So all those at the University of Berkley and all biological scientists know everything and take every single thing into account? :roll: Yeah, right.

Click to expand...

Tell them all to stop using the word random, every university in the Western world. Why are you on about this?

SouthernDemocrat said:

I would not go that far. Chimps are adapted to living in forests, we are adapted to living on the open savanna. Upper body strength is essential to survival in equatorial rain forests where you spend the vast majority of your life living and hunting in the canopy. Endurance, the ability to cool your body efficiently, and being able to run for extremely long distances is essential to survival on the open savanna. Thus since our ancestors adapted to life on the savanna, we are excellent long distance runners, can cool ourselves quite efficiently due to our body shape and our ability to sweat profusely, yet have comparably little upper body strength as we had little use for climbing. In contrast chimps and bonobos have excellent upper body strength, a much higher proportion of their muscle fibers are fast twitch, and are physically much stronger because they are adapted to life in the tropical forest canopy. However, they don't cool themselves as efficiently, and they do not have as much endurance as running long distances is not as desirable of a trait living in forests.

The initial catalyst was the creation of the rift valley seperating our shared ancestor into two groups each living in their own ecological islands (one in the forest, the other savanna). Technically, chimps and bonobos are more evolved than we are as they have experienced a greater number of genetic adaptions since separating from our shared ancestor than we have.

Our greater intelligence arises from adapting to the harsh conditions of the savanna as well where collaboration in hunting and gathering was more beneficial, game was far more dispersed, and more knowledge had to be passed down between generations as to where game could be found, tool use, location of water during the dry season and so on.

Click to expand...

Unless you own a time machine I'd have to say that this is all speculation. Plausible and interesting, but speculation nontheless.

I like the water ape theory -- we lost all of our body hair because we were going into the water to fish and whatnot all the time, we have a lot of body fat compared to other primates for the same reason, for insulation in the water, and we have the down turned noses to keep the water out (as some water loving primates do today). Plus, human babies put into water automatically hold their breaths, a reflex other primates don't have. Primates trying to survival glacial periods would find fishing in tropical latitudes to be one of the few reliable sources of food.

Not a shred of direct evidence for any of it, though. No traces of coastal water hominids have ever been found. It's just one of a number of speculations about human evolution.

americanwoman said:

Yes or No?




No, I do not reject evolution.

Click to expand...

I literally cannot, I am the product of it.

LowDown said:

It's a theory that explains a lot of facts. Perhaps that's what you mean.

Click to expand...

That's what theories do in science. One more step and you're there.

Only an uneducated idiot rejects the best supported scientific theory there is.

It seems a bit amazing to me that anyone would actually reject evolution.

SouthernDemocrat said:

What is the chemical / physical barrier that prevents speciation? Hint: There is not one. You should read The Greatest Show On Earth. I think you will find that science know a lot more about evolution and speciation than you might think it does.

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution: Richard Dawkins: Amazon.com: Books

Click to expand...

I understand what speciation is and how it's generally understood by evolutionary biologists - moreover, I think there is sufficient evidence for speciation - albeit within the bounds of design. But I do not believe in a LUCA, that there is a singular source for all life back to which we can all trace our genesis (which source, which genesis itself becomes a major problem for the theorists who postulate a LUCA), and that via purely random processes to end up the beings we are today. I simply don't share that belief; and it IS a belief, albeit one extended to its logical extreme from modern science. Again, I believe there is evidence for a degree of evolution, but within certain design parameters. Nothing more. I do not believe humans and oak trees are descendants of some LUCA.

Moreover, I think there is a very strong, concerted effort to take what we know today, what we've observed, and make it somehow "prove" that there is no design to our being. Eco properly identified that as the issue a couple of posts above, that the ultimate question here is whether or not we exist and evolve as a part of a random process or by intelligent design and that to accept the one is to reject the other.

Random evolution, to the absolute exclusion of intelligent design hasn't been proven - merely postulated, and I don't believe it will, or can be proven. I go so far as to think that the postulation is itself more a factor of desire that there BE no intelligent design as much as it is a desire to understand the processes in general. I think humans and oak trees are the product of intelligent design, not some random process that evolved beyond a certain infinitude of probability to yield... us, beings that are now engaged in a debate, defending both sides of the singular issue - intelligent design, or random event.

I DO believe random events can occur within the confines of intelligent design. I'm not an absolute determinist. But I do believe in intelligent design.

DiavoTheMiavo said:

I'm sorry, but a monkey COULD jump out of my arse next week . . . I don't think it is going to happen, but it COULD. If it is intelligent design by God's hand . . . it sure took him a long time to get us right. You'd think an entity so all encompassing and infallible wouldn't have needed hundreds of thousands of years to get us to the point of modern humans.

Click to expand...

You're measuring God in human terms when you discuss time. I agree it would be impossible for us to do otherwise, as long as we're measuring, but the act itself is a fruitless endeavor if God is a consideration.