One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows[W:571]

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Lursa said:

I'd say their influence on evolution is mostly neutral. A negative mutation wont hurt a natural population.....it wont succeed. However we do promote negative mutations and traits (not the same things but we exploit mutations to create 'traits) in our domestic animal & plant populations.

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on your point of view. Sure, on one hand dogs we've bred to be lapdogs would be terribly suited for the wild, but if it exhibits the right traits we'll be more likely to breed it. In any case I'm not sure how well the topic of breeding fits in with natural selection.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Cardinal said:

They do this by splitting evolution up into macro and micro evolution. No, I'm not saying it's smart, I'm just saying that's how they rationalize it.

Click to expand...

It's stupid though. A million little changes results in lots of big changes. I feel only those who are grasping to straws do that. If every day I do some change to a piece of paper from applying cold, to vaporizing some, to melting wax, coloring it, so on and so forth, it is still paper a 100 days from now or something quite different? That's the idiocy of the micro but no macro arguement. They assume little changes don't result in big changes.

The tax code has undergone hundreds of thousands of little changes from its early days. Under their idiotic argument, it's still the 10 page document it started off as rather than the monstrosity it is now.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

obvious Child said:

This is a little wrong.

The horse shoe crab has gone through significant environmental changes or stresses, it's just that the genotypes producing the phenotypes have been successful enough not to warrant significant allele changes. The horseshoe crab today guaranteed is not the same genetically as the one a million years ago.

Evolution is partially based on genetic mutation, but it's not entirely based on it.

Click to expand...

No one is genetically 'the same' as anything a million yrs ago.

And I think I already stated your last sentence, but minimized 'partially' a bit more.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Cardinal said:

Except that 6000 years isn't long enough for microevolution to result in speciation. QED.

Have you ever seen a cat turn into a whale? Exactly.

Click to expand...

That depends how we define speciation. Hawaiian fruit flies have evolved into new species in 50 years. And the whole notion of dogs has resulted in a huge number of variety, many of which are unable to breed with each other in a geological heartbeat span of tie. The notion of species is really a man made concept. How do we define what is a species and when it stops and when a new one begins? That's man made.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Lursa said:

No one is genetically 'the same' as anything a million yrs ago.

Click to expand...

Point is that species change even if they don't appear to have. The coelacanth was initially believed to not have changed from fossils until people started looking harder at it. The coelacanth from the fossil record is quite different from the coelacanth swimming off the coast of Madagascar.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Cardinal said:

There are Jews who believe that too? Damn, that's depressing.

Click to expand...

The more fundamentalist you as a person of the book, the more likely you accept creationism. I always thought it was kind of funny how die hard super religious conservatives share a number of beliefs with Islamic crazies. And the ultra conservative Jews are in some ways no different from the ultra conservative Muslims.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Cardinal said:

I guess that depends on your point of view. Sure, on one hand dogs we've bred to be lapdogs would be terribly suited for the wild, but if it exhibits the right traits we'll be more likely to breed it. In any case I'm not sure how well the topic of breeding fits in with natural selection.

Click to expand...

I knew I should have qualified. Doesnt mean the mutations or traits are negative to OUR uses or even the pets or livestock or crops themselves. Just that they would NOT be beneficial in natural populations.

And we pay the price for focusing on those 'mutations.' They are highly exploited and we see the consequences in overbreeding everywhere. I see it in dogs and horses. Certain lines of cutting horses in the Quarter Horse breed have concentrated a gene for a disease that affects skin collagen and causes the skin to tear easily...like when a saddle is used. It took from about the 60's to 8 yrs ago before the gene....extremely rare before...become common in those lines....unfortunately when breeders focused on cow sense and other athletic abilities, the gene for HERDA was carried along with them....thru one sire (now that they've traced it...took yrs).

Other QH breeders have intentionally concentrated on a line of horses with a disease that weakens muscles and causes horse to collapse...all because the physiological "form" of the horse conforms to a certain look that became 'trendy.'

The examples among dog breeds are legion. As they are with crops.

We cannot (as yet) predict the results of our breeding efforts where we focus on only positive traits because genes are not 'solitary' things....well they are but they are grouped on our chromosomes in pieces and that shuffling cannot be predicted.

However for generations farmers and breeders and humans HAVE recognized the need for outbreeding.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

obvious Child said:

Point is that species change even if they don't appear to have. The coelacanth was initially believed to not have changed from fossils until people started looking harder at it. The coelacanth from the fossil record is quite different from the coelacanth swimming off the coast of Madagascar.

Click to expand...

Every individual is 'different' genetically. From their parents, from anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. It's not evolution and it's not speciation. Genes are shuffled a great deal (understatement) in every population. That is diversity...that is any population's greatest strength. Is that what you are referring to?

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Cardinal said:

Don't forget the banana. That's our greatest nightmare, you know.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I'm supposed to eat a banana before bed for the potassium! And I always forget. It's good for promoting sleep.

*goes to kitchen for banana*

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Lursa said:

Every individual is 'different' genetically. From their parents, from anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. It's not evolution and it's not speciation. Genes are shuffled a great deal (understatement) in every population. That is diversity...that is any population's greatest strength. Is that what you are referring to?

Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that merely because a species like the horseshoe crab doesn't appear to have changed much in eons doesn't mean it actually hasn't changed much in eons. FYI, you should check out the WND and other forums on this topic. So many dumb users saying there are no transitional fossils and that evolution is nothing but a lie.

Boy, makes me ashamed to be an American. Idiots like that running all over the country.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

obvious Child said:

I'm just pointing out that merely because a species like the horseshoe crab doesn't appear to have changed much in eons doesn't mean it actually hasn't changed much in eons. FYI, you should check out the WND and other forums on this topic. So many dumb users saying there are no transitional fossils and that evolution is nothing but a lie.

Boy, makes me ashamed to be an American. Idiots like that running all over the country.

Click to expand...

I think I see what you mean. Even humans have evolved over the last 10,000 or so (random number). I study, non-professionally, epidemiology and there are good examples there of how different geographical human populations have evolved different immune systems and genetic traits as adaptions to environmentally-specific diseases and mineral deficiencies.

I can make a recommendation for an excellent book on that, if you are interested.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Cardinal said:

What's missing at the heart of your question is an understanding of time and geological isolation that allows speciation to occur. If you have one species and a group of that species migrates to another location, in time (a long, long time), that group will evolve into a species that is different from the original. Should those two groups meet up again and attempt to mate, they will either not be able to reproduce or its young will be sterile. With enough speciation the two wouldn't even dream of attempting to mate with each other.

Click to expand...

Time I understand, better than most probably since I find it very easy to think of it arithmetically. I question if the Earth is old enough considering the number of successful mutations that would have to occur to get from say, a primitive cell, to an emu. Especially if the mutations have to be minor enough not to destroy the individual, and slow enough to not destroy the species.

I mean, a propensity to cancer or a loss of ability to assimilate or synthesize vital chemicals seem a far greater likely out come of random binary code alterations than a longer neck to reach higher foliage, doesn't it? Look what happens sometimes when a single bit goes funky in our computer operating system. Imagine that this were computer software, which is just a different binary code, performing at a similar level of complexity, with a similar random alteration to the code and similar installations in new devices while old devices were turned off or recycled with the newer software. It I came back in say a billion years, I wouldn't expect to find the world filled with a variety of elegant software and operating systems, I'd expect to find fossilized junk. To be honest, I'd expect that if I came back in ten years.

This would be true even it you added a filtering system that promoted the "most fit" alterations, because in general, the alterations would lessen function or destroy it.

But if I'm wrong then it doesn't matter either, because then we're just dirt machines running a program for a short while an neither we, nor anything we ever do has the slightest meaning.

Again, I'm not rejecting the idea of evolution, or natural selection, it just seem to me that something else is going on here.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Aunt Spiker said:

There's interbreeding (a male donkey and a female horse = mule). These hybrid animals cannot reproduce. Mules don't have mule babies. They are mere a byproduct of mating between two similar species.

Then there's evolution - passing down strong genetic traits generation to generation.

Example of a 'mutant' as you're labeling it would be a child born with a myostatin deficiency - a condition which causes excessive muscle growth. If the child receives the genetic mutation from one parent, their anomalies won't be quite so noticeable. If they receive it from both parents they're going to be noticeably stronger - visually - a little Hercules. If such a person has children with another person who is, also, mystatin deficient, the odds are high that they'll pass that onto their kids. So on - so forth.

The genetic passing stops when the trait comes to an end.

Click to expand...

Thank you for a good response indeed!

I'm realty trying to ask how a new species --especially one with different numbers of chromosomes that its antecedent could reach a second generation. I suppose that a litter with a bother and sister could be born with the mutation and breed -- an act that is generally thought to decrease survival odds, but many animals only give birth to one offspring at a time. (Or two in the case of bald eagle, as I understand it, with the parents executing the smaller in its infancy. Ma Nature is such a dear!)

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Kobie said:

It baffles me that people can "reject" evolution when it happens, observably, every single day with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Life adapts.

Click to expand...

Yeah, when one of these people that don't believe in evolution gets a MRSA or MSSA infection, they can just pray it away.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Dragonfly said:

One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows





Okay - who here rejects evolution?

Show of hands please.


"Republicans" are growing skeptical???? Really?

Like there's growing evidence against evolution?

Click to expand...

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

Play the game on the above page. See how much of our genes we share with fruitfly, dog, cow, and even grapes.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Dragonfly said:

I'm still enthralled by the notion that "Republicans have grown more skeptical about it".

What exactly is there to be skeptical of?

Click to expand...

"evolution"of the growing Democratic demographics of the electorate?

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Not shocked and the problem is that SOME people think that if they believe in evolution then they can believe in god and thats simply not true.

People make it a black white issue and of course its not


If people want to debate of mans origins feel free but nobody educated flat out denies evolution in general, it exist and that fact wont change. If you want to debate how man evolved/came into existence have at it but regardless evolution itself has already been proven.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

It makes perfect sense, really.

Those who have not evolved just cannot imagine the process.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

:0) This is not the least bit surprising in the land of make-believe.

Make believe that you're 'exceptional.' :0)

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

IMHO, Agent J hits the nail on the head in this....The article is setting up a false dichotomy here...Although it is my own perception, and experience that new generations entering society seem to be dense when it comes to expanded thinking on subjects, recent generations are shallow, and self absorbed in their thinking which I think leads to this conclusion of PEW in the poll.

adpst also made a salient point early on, for those who believe in God. Which is to say that as a believer, God created everything, and also created evolution, as a part and whole of free will.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

AGENT J said:

Not shocked and the problem is that SOME people think that if they believe in evolution then they can believe in god and thats simply not true.

People make it a black white issue and of course its not


If people want to debate of mans origins feel free but nobody educated flat out denies evolution in general, it exist and that fact wont change. If you want to debate how man evolved/came into existence have at it but regardless evolution itself has already been proven.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Trouble being that religions are very diverse, even within the same species. I was raised a Christian believing in Jesus as our salvation from eternal death. But the brand that I was born and raised in was in so many ways not mainstream. But amongst the few commonalities of many mainstream Christian groups (and certainly not all) was the literal or level of literal acceptance of the text. I was taught to accept the literal and spontaneous creation of mankind on the sixth day of creation week, and I can assure you that there was NO/NADA/ZERO room for any evolutionary process whatsoever. I have quite evolved past that since of course and today accept ALL religions as I do any other human creations and developments and categorize them accordingly. But for the most fundamental, the true believer in the literal translation of the Bible, evolution is taboo!

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Alot of people hold a belief that people are here as a result of creationism or evolution. Some people are going to stick with creationism. But one doesn't really negate the other. Science and religion dont negate one another. Science is nothing more than understanding the process that took place. It doesn't necessarily mean that a higher power didn't put that process in place. If you believe in a God you don't know Gods processes or exactly how he made man, only that he did. Evolution may be God's process of creation.

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Grand Mal said:

Chimps and Bonobos are genus Pan. Family Hominidae, maybe that's what you mean.
You're probably right about why the close relationship bothers people, though. Hell, we share DNA with yeast.

Click to expand...

I should have been more clear. I know they are classified in the genus Pan. However, due to dna sequencing done over the last decade or so, we know that they should actually be classified in the same genus that we are in.