• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

My understanding of Darwins theory is basically this;random genetic mutations lead to more successful reproduction, thus the mutation is passed on, so on and so forth. Natural selection favors those individuals among a given species who have the beneficial mutated gene, so over time they branch off from the species and the group that does not have the mutation eventually becomes extinct. (Darwins "dead end" species) right so far?

No offense, but that's a rather poor understanding of evolution.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

But the basis for scientific research and discovery and how to prove theories, scientific method....ALL this is taught starting in grammar school and it's not difficult to understand. People just either cant be bothered or refuse to when it conflicts with their 'beliefs.' It's not even specific to any particular field of science or theory or principle...it's a matter of understanding how we conduct the research and examine the evidence and draw conclusions.

Many people are stupid... just a fact. Grade school or not, they will not understand.

Science is based on skepticism.

Not sure what this actually means...
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

No offense, but that's a rather poor understanding of evolution.

Well. Im no scientist. So, which part did I get wrong?Or was it just an incomplete understanding? So, I am an evolutionary simpleton. Please humor me and answer my simplistic questions.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Well. Im no scientist. So, which part did I get wrong?Or was it just an incomplete understanding? So, I am an evolutionary simpleton. Please humor me and answer my simplistic questions.

Have you considered going to Wiki for it? It won't burden you in overly much science speak, and it's not bad if you want to understand the gist of evolution.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Have you considered going to Wiki for it? It won't burden you in overly much science speak, and it's not bad if you want to understand the gist of evolution.

Pfft.

Of course. If you could have, you would have.

It won't burden me "in overly much science speak" huh? Well, that's a relief.

I will just have to get by with what I do know.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Pfft.

Of course. If you could have, you would have.

It won't burden me "in overly much science speak" huh? Well, that's a relief.

I will just have to get by with what I do know.

And if you had the slightest interest in what evolution really was you would have done so by now. But your post tells me what I already knew: you don't want to know. And you know how I know that? Because everybody who walks into these threads and doesn't know what evolution is resists every attempt to learn it. You would have made me type out pages and pages of information just so you could hand wave away every last word while safely maintaining your ignorance. You're not unique. You're a statistic.
 
Last edited:
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

So now the questions.

How does random beneficial mutation create a functioning organ? How many mutations would it take to create a venom gland, for example?

It doesn't. At least, not spontaneously. The eye is brought up often as an example of something that couldn't just form because you need several different parts. But it's not actually true.

So, picture first a species evolves a type of cell that is sensitive to light. It's just a flat cluster of cells on a patch of skin, or whatever you call the surface of this early critter. By itself, this doesn't do much. All it does is sense a change in ambient light levels. But that's useful, isn't it? A flicker of shadow might warn this creature of an approaching predator - or prey. It's not much yet, but it only has to be slightly beneficial to provide just a little survival benefit to eventually become a dominant feature. Next, one of these critters has a mutation that makes that patch of cells curved a bit. The curved shape starts to give some directional cues. Oh, it's dark over that way. Now this creature "sees" better than before. Although it's still primitive sight, just sensing dark and light. More curvature would lead to better directional cues, eventually you get an almost eye-socket-like shape. Then maybe the light sensing cells start to differentiate a little bit, start to pick up color. Or muscle structure forms around it, able to open and close the opening slightly, acting like a primitive iris. Over time, incremental changes result in incrementally better visual acuity, which has an obvious survival benefit.

It seems to me that evolution, as described above, would proceed at a fairly regular and steady pace over the many hundreds of millions of years that life has been "evolving". Wouldn't you agree? But if im not mistaken, the rate at which new species or phyla appear has not been steady at all has it? When was the last time a new phyla appeared? How would the 30 million years that preceeded today compare with other periods of earth's history as it regards the appearance of new species or phyla?

I don't see any reason it should be steady. These are random mutations, after all. That incrementally better adaptation might occur in 10,000 generations one time, and 50,000 generations the next. A change that is substantially beneficial would dominate faster, and a change that is only slightly beneficial would dominate slower. Plus, factors that affect the mutation rate aren't necessarily steady. For example, the amount of cosmic radiation the earth is receiving changes as our solar system travels through the galaxy. Or the sun itself has never been a particularly steady output of radiation. Atmospheric conditions change too.

What is the rate of mutation for dna molecules?
Probably a far broader question than you realize.


It seems to me there may be plenty of good reasons to be skeptical about evolution as an answer to the question of our existence. Please understand, I know that animals evolve. I know evolution is real, for what that is worth. I can see fossil evidence that horses were small and now they are big, for example. Hehe. But that is far from turning a single cell organism into Sophia Vergara in a mere 4.6 billion years.

I would suggest that 4.6 billion years is a ****load of time. You're the first person I've ever heard of describing 4.6 billion years as "mere." It's not "mere," it's an amount of time that stretches the limits of human understanding.

by the way. How many of those "dead end species" have we found fossil evidence of so far?
I guess you could say every single species we've found that isn't still around. Over a long enough time frame, you either go extinct or you continue.

edit: Although the dinosaurs' inability to adapt to GIANT ****ING METEOR is understandable.
 
Last edited:
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I don't see any reason it should be steady. These are random mutations, after all. That incrementally better adaptation might occur in 10,000 generations one time, and 50,000 generations the next. A change that is substantially beneficial would dominate faster, and a change that is only slightly beneficial would dominate slower. Plus, factors that affect the mutation rate aren't necessarily steady. For example, the amount of cosmic radiation the earth is receiving changes as our solar system travels through the galaxy. Or the sun itself has never been a particularly steady output of radiation. Atmospheric conditions change too.

Some species have been so well suited to their environments that, for all intents and purposes, they've stopped evolving altogether. The jellyfish is half a billion years old, while the sea sponge clocks in at 760 million years.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Well, I am not a republican or a christian. I am a libertarian

and an atheist. That said, I am a bit skeptical of evolution as an explanation for how we all came to exist here on planet earth.

Darwin's theory of evolution has benefitted greatly in this grand debate by the simple fact that it's primary(only, really) competitor is something as absurd as the biblical creation story. Of course evolution looks like a slam dunk winner next to that. Anyone who dares question evolution, let alone reject it, risks being labeled a crackpot bible thumper regardless of the fact they may never have indicated support for the creation story.
...so there is that. It has gone largely unchallenged in the broad secular world. Is there any other competing scientific theory? Not that i know of. Perhaps the debate was so polarizing that the instict to defend evolution has stifled healthy skepticism.

My understanding of Darwins theory is basically this;random genetic mutations lead to more successful reproduction, thus the mutation is passed on, so on and so forth. Natural selection favors those individuals among a given species who have the beneficial mutated gene, so over time they branch off from the species and the group that does not have the mutation eventually becomes extinct. (Darwins "dead end" species) right so far?

So now the questions.

How does random beneficial mutation create a functioning organ? How many mutations would it take to create a venom gland, for example?

It seems to me that evolution, as described above, would proceed at a fairly regular and steady pace over the many hundreds of millions of years that life has been "evolving". Wouldn't you agree? But if im not mistaken, the rate at which new species or phyla appear has not been steady at all has it? When was the last time a new phyla appeared? How would the 30 million years that preceeded today compare with other periods of earth's history as it regards the appearance of new species or phyla?

What is the rate of mutation for dna molecules?


It seems to me there may be plenty of good reasons to be skeptical about evolution as an answer to the question of our existence. Please understand, I know that animals evolve. I know evolution is real, for what that is worth. I can see fossil evidence that horses were small and now they are big, for example. Hehe. But that is far from turning a single cell organism into Sophia Vergara in a mere 4.6 billion years.

by the way. How many of those "dead end species" have we found fossil evidence of so far?

Jayar

Well, it highlights a big misconception about evolution...that it's driven by genetic mutation but A for effort. Here's some clarifications I made earlier:

The biggest misconception in understanding evolution is the belief it's based on genetic mutation.

It is not. That is a minor factor and more often has negative rather than positive consequences

Evolution is simply a population's genetic complement *changing* in response to environmental influences.

If there are no significant environmental changes or stresses, then the population...or even species...will remain unchanged. See: horseshoe crab.

I'd say their [mutations] 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 population and support their propagation thru our influence.

And here, by negative I mean mutations that would not enhance a population's adaptation and survival.

Welcome to the forum :)
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Because I have faith in God.

No one caused evolution to happen. There was no cause. It occurs because of the structure of organisms and the way life interacts on Earth. It is a spontaneous occurrence.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Ok, so just trying to understand here, so when these people say this:

"This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.
Regarding the chemical origin of life, Kuhn points to the Miller-Urey experiments and correctly observes that "the experimental conditions of a low-oxygen, nitrogen-rich reducing environment have been refuted." Citing Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, he contends that "the fundamental and insurmountable problem with Darwinian evolution lies in the remarkable complexity and inherent information contained within DNA." Kuhn also explains that "Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life," but no other known cause can organize the information in life.

Dr. Kuhn then turns to explaining the concept of irreducible complexity, citing Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box and noting that "irreducible complexity suggests that all elements of a system must be present simultaneously rather than evolve through a stepwise, sequential improvement, as theorized by Darwinian evolution." Further, "The fact that these irreducibly complex systems are specifically coded through DNA adds another layer of complexity called 'specified complexity.'" As a medical doctor, Kuhn proposes that irreducibly complex systems within the human body include "vision, balance, the respiratory system, the circulatory system, the immune system, the gastrointestinal system, the skin, the endocrine system, and taste." He concludes that "the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis."

Kuhn also explores the question of human/ape common ancestry, citing Jonathan Wells's book The Myth of Junk DNA and arguing:

DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.
In Dr. Kuhn's view, this poses a problem for Darwinian evolution because the "[t]he ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins."

Kuhn also observes that a challenge to neo-Darwinism comes from the Cambrian explosion:

Thousands of specimens were available at the time of Darwin. Millions of specimens have been classified and studied in the past 50 years. It is remarkable to note that each of these shows a virtual explosion of nearly all phyla (35/40) of the animal kingdom over a relatively short period during the Cambrian era 525 to 530 million years ago. Since that time, there has been occasional species extinction, but only rare new phyla have been convincingly identified. The seminal paper from paleoanthropologists J. Valentine and D. H. Erwin notes that the absence of transitional species for any of the Cambrian phyla limits the neo-Darwinian explanation for evolution.
Despite Texas's call for discussing the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, Kuhn closes by noting, "In 2011, when new textbooks were presented to the State Board of Education, 9 out of 10 failed to provide the mandated supplementary curricula, which would include both positive and negative aspects of evolution (44)." Citing Discovery Institute's Report on the Texas Textbooks, he laments:

everal of the textbooks continued to incorrectly promote the debunked Miller-Urey origin of life experiment, the long-discredited claims about nonfunctional appendix and tonsils, and the fraudulent embryo drawings from Ernst Haeckel. In essence, current biology students, aspiring medical students, and future scientists are not being taught the whole story. Rather, evidence suggests that they continue to receive incorrect and incomplete material that exaggerates the effect of random mutation and natural selection to account for DNA, the cell, or the transition from species to species.
Kuhn concludes, "It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm."

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Then they are lying?


From your link:
THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

They call intelligent design a "Scientific Theory". Their entire motive is to promote Intelligent Design . . . the entire scientific motive behind evolution has been to disprove it . . . that is how science works. One guy makes a discovery and another tries to prove him wrong. While those rallying behind intelligent design, and who want to equate it with science, spend their entire time manipulating information to fit their view.
 
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?



I reject evolution. I think it's crap.

Also, did you know that there was once a debate between two guys named Wilberforce and Huxley, and Wilberforce asked Huxley "Was it through your grandmother or your grandfather that you're descended from a monkey?"

Just thought I'd throw that historical gem out there for the sake of knowledge.

Also, did you know that there is an Australopithecus named Lucy who some believe is an ancestor of us all? Far out huh?
 
I reject evolution. I think it's crap.

Also, did you know that there was once a debate between two guys named Wilberforce and Huxley, and Wilberforce asked Huxley "Was it through your grandmother or your grandfather that you're descended from a monkey?"

Just thought I'd throw that historical gem out there for the sake of knowledge.

Also, did you know that there is an Australopithecus named Lucy who some believe is an ancestor of us all? Far out huh?

We did not evolve from monkeys. That is a common misunderstanding from those not familiar with the Theory of Evolution. I'm not saying you are not familiar, I'm just saying that a lot of people who are less informed on the subject seem to suggest this all the time.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

No one caused evolution to happen. There was no cause. It occurs because of the structure of organisms and the way life interacts on Earth. It is a spontaneous occurrence.

Ok.........
 
If people do are do not believe in evolution, is irrelevant, and impacts almost no one.
I would more concerned about the number of people who believe the Goverment
is the solution to their problems.
 
If people do are do not believe in evolution, is irrelevant, and impacts almost no one.
I would more concerned about the number of people who believe the Goverment
is the solution to their problems.

What a craptacularly worthless and inane post.
 
I reject evolution. I think it's crap.

Also, did you know that there was once a debate between two guys named Wilberforce and Huxley, and Wilberforce asked Huxley "Was it through your grandmother or your grandfather that you're descended from a monkey?"

Just thought I'd throw that historical gem out there for the sake of knowledge.

Also, did you know that there is an Australopithecus named Lucy who some believe is an ancestor of us all? Far out huh?


#1) We did not evolve FROM chimpanzees.

#2) Do you reject gravity?
 
I reject evolution. I think it's crap.

Also, did you know that there was once a debate between two guys named Wilberforce and Huxley, and Wilberforce asked Huxley "Was it through your grandmother or your grandfather that you're descended from a monkey?"

Just thought I'd throw that historical gem out there for the sake of knowledge.

Also, did you know that there is an Australopithecus named Lucy who some believe is an ancestor of us all? Far out huh?


I'm not sure if you're being serious, but read this and this to understand who we actually evolved from and our relation to primates.
 
We did not evolve from monkeys. That is a common misunderstanding from those not familiar with the Theory of Evolution. I'm not saying you are not familiar, I'm just saying that a lot of people who are less informed on the subject seem to suggest this all the time.

I'm not the one who said that, that would be a direct quote from Bishop Wilberforce back in the 1890's.

To answer the question you asked me on the other thread, the reason I don't believe in evolution is:

1.) The law of probabilities suggests our very existence via natural selection is unlikely (human beings are incredibly complex).

2.) History has shown us that scientific theories are constantly changing and being disregarded as new ones take their place. Odds are (there we go with probabilities again) that within a few years science will abandon the current theory of evolution for something else.

3.) Our understanding of how DNA and genetics work is in its infancy, to say the least. We have really just begun to scratch the surface there. How can we possibly think we have an understanding of evolution when the building blocks of what makes us evolve, our genes, are so poorly understood?
 
If people do are do not believe in evolution, is irrelevant, and impacts almost no one.
I would more concerned about the number of people who believe the Goverment
is the solution to their problems.

It impacts everyone. If, as a society, we do not accept evolution, then it's all the more probable it won't end up being taught in schools or, even worse, it'll be taught "alongside" bullsh*t like creationism.
 
Back
Top Bottom