• 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!

Evolution

Does evolution happen


  • Total voters
    70

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
 
It is real; however I cannot tick the evolution happens box because of the "its random" part, it is not random since the process it operates by is natural selection which negates the randomness.

On the higher power question, I do not think a higher power guides it, nor do I think that one set it in motion and left it running on autopilot- I could be wrong, but Occam's razor applies here. This part of the question will fall under the "There is not enough information to know for sure", but I will not work under the assumption that there is a higher power behind it since there is nothing that warrants taking that position, and I would not bet on the higher power line regardless of the odds offered me (unless one was to really stretch definitions and consider natural processes like natural selection itself a "higher power")

I will go with the unavailable "other" option since none of the above really fit for me.
 
Last edited:
Evolution happens, it's clear that the earth's environment and organisms upon it have changed over time. Is it random? Maybe not purely, it could very well be response to environmental stress and pressure which causes mutation. Not all the mechanisms behind evolution are understood yet. I don't think there is a higher power guiding it because...well I don't believe in a higher power at all. It seems to me that a natural cause is well more probable than an supernatural cause.
 
Well, this is quite an interesting question, and one that I find difficult to answer.

Some of it depends on how one defines "evolution" per se.

I believe God was and is in control of the creation and development of life, whatever the details might have been. Was some sort of evolution, Divinely guided, involved in some sense? Perhaps. I'm tempted to click "Evolution happens and is guided by a higher power" on that basis.

Yet at the same time, I don't know that evolution is really proven beyond reasonable doubt. Humanity has not yet scientifically observed one species genetically transform into another substantially different species with which it cannot interbreed... only various fossils can be pointed to that supposedly show transitions from this to that... say Eohippus to Mesohippus to modern horses. Of the transitions themselves we remain lacking in direct observation, and in my opinion a number of questions remain unanswered about such transitions.

Evolution is science's current "working theory" on how life developed, much like Relativity is the working theory on the interrelationship between matter, energy, velocity, and time... until perhaps it is modified, or replaced, by a better theory.

I wasn't there when Earth was born or when life first squiggled out of the mud. Can I really KNOW what happened? Not entirely; not with certainty. I can look at the evidence and the theories and speculate, but barring that infinitely-improbable time machine I can't KNOW.

I can take evolution as a natural phenomenon, or a Divinely guided one; or I can accept Genesis literally, or metaphorically... or try to blend them both.

The only thing I can say for certain that I believe is that God was in charge of Creation from start to finish, whatever the details. The rest I have to take with a question mark.

If we're talking about biology, and the context is purely scientific, I'm capable of entertaining the idea of Evolution as a working theory, without necessarily accepting it. When speaking of religious matters, I am likely to talk of the Genesis account as if it were literal... even though I allow for the possibility that it was a metaphorical explanation for something the people of the time were incapable of comprehending.

When all is said and done, I suppose I belong in the "I don't know" category... not from lack of interest or declining to think about it, but simply in acknowlegement that I think there are things we don't understand about the genesis of life on Earth, regardless of which viewpoint one takes.
 
I don't believe in the theory of evolution and as of now I do not believe it was guided by a higher power. There is no solid evidence for evolution, no experimental evidence, and mainly speculation and theory.
 
Well...see, I didn't see the option I wanted. Evolution happens, but I don't think it's necessarily "random". That isn't to say there's a higher power pulling the strings and turning the knobs. I think, instead, that evolution occurs on the basis of necessity. Adaptations and species diversity occur in response to environmental needs.
 
It is real; however I cannot tick the evolution happens box because of the "its random" part, it is not random since the process it operates by is natural selection which negates the randomness.

The engines of evolution are genetic drift, selection pressure and mutation. For all intents and purposes, randomness is ever present. With selection, the randomness is related to the micro-environment that dominates. The world is filled with millions of micro-environments so if you frame your reference on the organism, then you'll find it in random environments subject to localized selection pressures.
 
Well...see, I didn't see the option I wanted. Evolution happens, but I don't think it's necessarily "random". That isn't to say there's a higher power pulling the strings and turning the knobs. I think, instead, that evolution occurs on the basis of necessity. Adaptations and species diversity occur in response to environmental needs.

A mutation doesn't arise in response to necessity.
 
Yet at the same time, I don't know that evolution is really proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Science doesn't work this way. Science is about falsifying hypotheses. We can never know with certainty any scientific hypothesis.

Humanity has not yet scientifically observed one species genetically transform into another substantially different species with which it cannot interbreed... only various fossils can be pointed to that supposedly show transitions from this to that... say Eohippus to Mesohippus to modern horses. Of the transitions themselves we remain lacking in direct observation, and in my opinion a number of questions remain unanswered about such transitions.

Science, and scientists, also have not "scientifically observed" mountain ranges being formed. The fact that we cannot observe over the span of one human life the process under question is not a valid basis upon which to declare a hypothesis falsified.

We have plenty of evidence of the speciation in progress.


A demonstration of how small changes can lead to species-level differences is provided by ring species, in which two reproductively isolated forms are connected by a chain of intermediate populations. We review proposed cases of ring species and the insights they provide into speciation. Ring species have been viewed both as illustrations of the history of divergence of two species from their common ancestor and as demonstrations that speciation can occur in spite of gene flow between the diverging forms. Theoretical models predict that speciation with gene flow can occur when there is divergent ecological selection, and geographical differentiation increases the likelihood of speciation. Thus ring species are ideal systems for research into the role of both ecological and geographical differentiation in speciation, but few examples have been studied in detail. The Greenish warbler is a ring species in which two northward expansions around the Tibetan plateau have been accompanied by parallel evolution in morphology, ecology, and song length and complexity. However, songs have diverged in structure, resulting in a lack of recognition where the reproductively isolated forms come into contact in Siberia. Our analysis suggests that these differences could have arisen even with gene flow, and that parallel rather than divergent ecological changes have led to divergence in sexually selected traits and subsequent speciation.​




The evolutionary divergence of a single species into two has never been directly observed in nature, primarily because speciation can take a long time to occur. A ring species, in which a chain of intergrading populations encircles a barrier and the terminal forms coexist without interbreeding, provides a situation in which variation in space can be used to infer variation in time. Here we reconstruct the pathway to speciation between two reproductively isolated forms of greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These two taxa do not interbreed in central Siberia but are connected by a long chain of intergrading populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south. Molecular data and climatic history imply that the reproductively isolated taxa came into contact following expansions northward around the western and eastern sides of the plateau. Parallel selection pressures for increased song complexity during the northward expansions have been accompanied by divergence in song structure. Playback experiments show that the two Siberian forms do not recognize each other's songs. Our results show how gradual divergence in a trait involved in mate choice leads to the formation of new species.​
 
To me its a mix between the first two options haha... kind of a paradox but i think a higher power initiated the possibility of life/evolution to happen in this universe of uniformity, and i think that higher power knew exactly what original seeds of life would turn into wherever they were able to pop-up... and the potential of these life forms are only limited by the bounds of the physics around them(whatever the first sparks of life were like random proteins/ bacteria.)

With this theory of mine i don't see how i could think of any life-form as better then another. All life is holy and has a "soul" to me... and this i pretty much the very basis of why i am a deist.
 
Last edited:
The mechanisms of evolution are in place. All domestic plants.and animals have been modified by humans from their naturally occuring state BY these mechanisms.

I want to say that some evidence has been found in island and cloud mountain ecosystems of species that have varied widely from the root stock. Don't know if that's all the way to unable to reproduce. I do know one of the avenues of combatting viruses is to attempt to get them to mutate away from the ability to reproduce. Is that right Digs?

That said, I've always felt the universe was a "made" thing. Who made it and why I suspect is not supposed to be completely knowable. Or the very nature of the universe may be substantially different than we currently conceive it.

So I guess I have to pick other too.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Tess on this issue. Yes, evolution happens... but is it purely random? I don't think so. Evolution appears to be, as Tess said, adaptation and mutation, with the most successful adaptation/mutation continuing on as the least successful versions become extinct. I also believe that certain stressors, like significant meteorites, volcanic eruptions, floods, climate change, provides the impetus for certain species to adapt.

So I don't believe evolution is in itself random, but the results of millions of years of adaptation/mutation, during which time the stronger species survive. Case in point, the common cockroach, a design so successful that fossils of cockroaches from hundreds of thousands of years ago are nearly identical to species alive today, while other ancient animals have perished or evolved into something almost unrecognizable from their ancestors... example dinosaurs versus today's birds (yes, I know the genetic link is not categorically proven yet, but it's a fairly well accepted theory amongst much of the scientific community).

I'm not going the higher power route. I accept that there is more to the universe and dimensional space theorum than I will ever understand in my lifetime; however, understanding that I do not know the answer and believing in an answer without empirical evidence of its existance are two entirely different things.
 
To be clear: Mutations are random, and are what allow changes. "Survival of the fittest" isn't really random, but it is also not directed(assuming no higher power). It's a clever phrase to describe what mutations tend to flourish. WHen I said "evolutiuon is random", I meant kinda all of that, but did not explain clearly. My apologies to any who answered wrong based on that.
 
Evolution makes a lot of sense to me, and I believe it is at the very least the mechanism for the development of our known universe. But what is beyond me is how matter itself came to be. I can follow it back to the Big Bang, but how did the materials for the big bang come to be? It gets to big for me to comprehend, so I leave it alone.
 
To me its a mix between the first two options haha... kind of a paradox but i think a higher power initiated the possibility of life/evolution to happen in this universe of uniformity, and i think that higher power new exactly what original seeds of life would turn into wherever they were able to pop-up... and the potential of these life forms are only limited by the bounds of the physics around them(whatever the first sparks of life were like random proteins/ bacteria.)

With this theory of mine i don't see how i could think of any life-form as better then another. All life is holy and has a "soul" to me... and this i pretty much the very basis of why i am a deist.

And, a creator of space-time would exist outside of it and observe all events in a spacetime universe as a simultaneity. The beginning and end, alpha and omega. Whether its name is yahweh and behaves like a dick is an completely separate issue.
 
Last edited:
Science doesn't work this way. Science is about falsifying hypotheses. We can never know with certainty any scientific hypothesis.



Science, and scientists, also have not "scientifically observed" mountain ranges being formed. The fact that we cannot observe over the span of one human life the process under question is not a valid basis upon which to declare a hypothesis falsified.

We have plenty of evidence of the speciation in progress.


A demonstration of how small changes can lead to species-level differences is provided by ring species, in which two reproductively isolated forms are connected by a chain of intermediate populations. We review proposed cases of ring species and the insights they provide into speciation. Ring species have been viewed both as illustrations of the history of divergence of two species from their common ancestor and as demonstrations that speciation can occur in spite of gene flow between the diverging forms. Theoretical models predict that speciation with gene flow can occur when there is divergent ecological selection, and geographical differentiation increases the likelihood of speciation. Thus ring species are ideal systems for research into the role of both ecological and geographical differentiation in speciation, but few examples have been studied in detail. The Greenish warbler is a ring species in which two northward expansions around the Tibetan plateau have been accompanied by parallel evolution in morphology, ecology, and song length and complexity. However, songs have diverged in structure, resulting in a lack of recognition where the reproductively isolated forms come into contact in Siberia. Our analysis suggests that these differences could have arisen even with gene flow, and that parallel rather than divergent ecological changes have led to divergence in sexually selected traits and subsequent speciation.​




The evolutionary divergence of a single species into two has never been directly observed in nature, primarily because speciation can take a long time to occur. A ring species, in which a chain of intergrading populations encircles a barrier and the terminal forms coexist without interbreeding, provides a situation in which variation in space can be used to infer variation in time. Here we reconstruct the pathway to speciation between two reproductively isolated forms of greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These two taxa do not interbreed in central Siberia but are connected by a long chain of intergrading populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south. Molecular data and climatic history imply that the reproductively isolated taxa came into contact following expansions northward around the western and eastern sides of the plateau. Parallel selection pressures for increased song complexity during the northward expansions have been accompanied by divergence in song structure. Playback experiments show that the two Siberian forms do not recognize each other's songs. Our results show how gradual divergence in a trait involved in mate choice leads to the formation of new species.​

Ring species also allow us to see transitional forms in life to an extent. Without using the fossil record, they allow us to say that yes, there are transitional species.

When you can use the fossil record(which you should), you get some wonderful examples like Ambulocetus.

800px-Ambulocetus_et_pakicetus.jpg


It's a walking whale.
 
To be clear: Mutations are random, and are what allow changes. "Survival of the fittest" isn't really random, but it is also not directed(assuming no higher power). It's a clever phrase to describe what mutations tend to flourish. WHen I said "evolutiuon is random", I meant kinda all of that, but did not explain clearly. My apologies to any who answered wrong based on that.

Oh. Well, I didn't answer at all based upon that, so I shall endeavor to do so now! :mrgreen:
 
Yes, I believe evolution is a real process that happens. I do not believe that it is guided by a creator, but I concede the point that it is at least possible that it was set into motion by some sort of creator and basically left to take care of itself. I don't believe this to be true, but I have no evidence against it.
 
Mutations are usually random, but environment decides which mutations will be a success. Most mutations are negative. Evolution has been observed. The most promising study of evolution, imo, is epigenetics. This phenomenon shows how our environment can change us on a genetic level in a single generation. Larger changes have not yet been observed because they take longer. However, the fossil record we do have shows that these changes have taken place.

It is unlikely that a higher power exists, but I do not deny the possibility.
 
There has actually been minor occurrences of evolution that have been observed in our lifetime. So in this sense, it is happening all around us. However, no scientific theory can be fully proven; one can only support or disprove a theory. For example, the theory of gravity is well supported; there is like a 99.99% chance that when you drop an apple it will fall to the ground ... however, there is still a chance that it will not, however minute that chance is. Simply because we have not seen an instance where gravity has no effect, does not mean that gravity exists; it only means that the theory is extremely well supported.

As for the evolution of the different species, as of now, the best possible explanation for what species currently look like is evolution. It is a well supported theory; however, like all things that we think we "know", evolution has never been proven, only well supported.

Evolution is not an entity in itself, it has no "will"; it is a process wherein random genetic mutations are selected for if they are more advantageous for the organism (advantageous meaning that that genetic mutation would lead to more of that species surviving to produce more viable offspring).

Therefore, the process of evolution is both random (the random genetic mutations) and non-random (genes being selected for on the basis of better reproduction).

Whether or not things were set into motion (i.e. some initial creation of matter and movement) by a higher power is really a matter of faith. I am of the inclination that a higher power did set things in motion and I have no idea what the term "higher power" means in this sense ... just something that is beyond my understanding.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
I think evolution happens and I think it was initiated by a higher power, but I don't think it's "guided" by a higher power.
 
I put I dont know...because no one can tell me how the VERY first life organism got here and I havent seen Jesus yet...so I just dont now...and neither do any you :p
 
Rolling dice is random; however if I were to throw a handful of dice and select the dice that come up as a six to keep, and then roll the others again it will not take many rolls at all until all the dice show 6's. Once selection acts on a random process, the result after selection is no longer random.

Underlying mechanisms behind evolution are random, but then they are forced through a filter -natural selection - once natural selection acts upon these random processes the result afterwards is no longer random.
 
Back
Top Bottom