• 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!

Do you reject evolution?

Do you reject evolution?

  • Total voters
    114
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...

Because it was a hoax. It was fabricated. I also suspect that you do not know the difference between macro and micro evolution. They are both empirically verifiable and are fundamentally the same processes on different time scales.
 
I love people sometimes...

Grrrr, 1/3rd of the country is stupid and don't believe in evolution. This makes me angry!

- people then proceed to say they believe in evolution, but not in the EXACT same way

Grrr! People don't believe ievolution happens EXACTLY as I believe. This makes me angry!

As to my own stance...yes, I accept evolution is highly probable in terms of a macro level and is absolutely mfactual on a more micro level of the term and it's implications. Yes, I don't proport to know or claim definitively in either direction if the various natural laws of this universe was designed by a divine entity, given "life" of sorts by a divine entity, are the direct machinations of a divine entity, or are entirely random in practice/nature/creation.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That's what theories do in science. One more step and you're there.
Click to expand...

Take that step and you're no longer a scientist. You're an advocate for the Church of the Holy Darwin or some such.
 
LowDown said:
Take that step and you're no longer a scientist. You're an advocate for the Church of the Holy Darwin or some such.
Click to expand...

Channeling imaginary friends here? Data is data, and the data supporting the theory is unassailable. It's fact.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Channeling imaginary friends here? Data is data, and the data supporting the theory is unassailable. It's fact.
Click to expand...

The data is the data and the theory is the theory.
 
ecofarm said:
I'll bite. What, who and how. Ancient aliens?
Click to expand...
"Chariot of the Gods," by Erik Von Daniken presented a lot of historical artifacts that make it difficult to refute that perhaps earlier civilizations had experience with flying ships and perhaps people. No guarantees, but enough evidence that it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
 
DaveFagan said:
"Chariot of the Gods," by Erik Von Daniken presented a lot of historical artifacts that make it difficult to refute that perhaps earlier civilizations had experience with flying ships and perhaps people. No guarantees, but enough evidence that it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...

I dismiss ancient aliens out of hand.
 
ecofarm said:
I dismiss ancient aliens out of hand.
Click to expand...

Not me man.

%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0-535484.jpeg
 
I'm partial to the idea that RNA came from aliens, as opposed to abiogenesis. Given our current near ability to 'impregnate' other planets and our lack of ability to replicate abiogenesis, evidence appears to support the former.

But no visitors.
 
Last edited:
I do believe in evolution, but as humans are no longer in natural equilibrium with their environment, I think our species has a slightly different story. What that story is, is hard to know. We are apes but we have not found our common ancestor with the other apes on this planet, yet. I don't believe humans are a pure product of nature on this planet.

It seems strange that we would allegedly go from being cave dwelling hunter gatherers to building a space station within 150,000 years, when each baby step before that took millions of years to culminate.

So yes... I believe in evolution, but I will always question the anthropological timeline as put forward by modern scholars.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course we didn't "evolve from apes", we actually are apes. Sharing a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos that lived 6 million years ago, a common ancestor with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas that lived around 7.5 million years ago, and a common ancestor with chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans that lived around 10 million years ago. (going with those numbers out of memory, if one is off by a million years or so, someone please correct the record ;) ).

Also, and this is not related to your post, but if someone says I accept evolution but I believe it was guided by God, then technically that is not evolution.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Is that what it says in the Bible or is that a heathen idea?
 
LowDown said:
Unless you own a time machine I'd have to say that this is all speculation. Plausible and interesting, but speculation nontheless.
Click to expand...

Its certainly not all speculation. We know that we evolved on the African Savanna, we know that Chimps evolved in the African equatorial forests. Granted, as to why we developed greater intellect is a hypothesis, but the reason why we have the physical characteristics that we have versus what what chimps have is well established in biology. We are evolved to be runners and have the ability to traverse large areas efficiently (better than any other land animal), and chimps evolved the physical characteristics they needed to survive in the forest canopy. When you get into what percentage of our diets were meat vs plants, thats speculation.
 
shrubnose said:
Is that what it says in the Bible or is that a heathen idea?
Click to expand...

A literal interpretation of scripture is completely antithetical to evolution, which I suspect is why the majority of evangelicals don't accept evolution.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its certainly not all speculation. We know that we evolved on the African Savanna, we know that Chimps evolved in the African equatorial forests. Granted, as to why we developed greater intellect is a hypothesis, but the reason why we have the physical characteristics that we have versus what what chimps have is well established in biology. We are evolved to be runners and have the ability to traverse large areas efficiently (better than any other land animal), and chimps evolved the physical characteristics they needed to survive in the forest canopy. When you get into what percentage of our diets were meat vs plants, thats speculation.
Click to expand...

"We don't know" would be a more scientific way to put it. And more true.
 
shrubnose said:
And some people just refuse to accept the idea that a monkey might be their uncle,eh?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you being sarcastic or are you serious?
 
LowDown said:
"We don't know" would be a more scientific way to put it. And more true.
Click to expand...

What part of that do you think we don't know? We certainly know where we originally evolved and the type of environment that was.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What part of that do you think we don't know? We certainly know where we originally evolved and the type of environment that was.
Click to expand...

We don't know exactly how that environment affected our evolution. We don't even know for sure that the key phases of that evolution were on the Savannah or some orther environment.

We need to get to work on that time machine.:)
 
ecofarm said:
Tell them all to stop using the word random, every university in the Western world. Why are you on about this?
Click to expand...

Because the way the word "random" is being used is inaccurate. It is being used in such a way as to imply that (in this case) mutations happen for absolutely no reason when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Everything happens for a reason. Just because we cannot identify that reason with mechanical/electronic instruments does not mean it does not exist. It also assumes that we know all that we can possibly know. Which if that was the case then Evolution would not be considered a theory. It would be considered as a Law of fact.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because the way the word "random" is being used is inaccurate. It is being used in such a way as to imply that (in this case) mutations happen for absolutely no reason when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Everything happens for a reason. Just because we cannot identify that reason with mechanical/electronic instruments does not mean it does not exist. It also assumes that we know all that we can possibly know. Which if that was the case then Evolution would not be considered a theory. It would be considered as a Law of fact.
Click to expand...


Aliens
 
I took this question as just how the other thread (that I'm betting was the inspiration for this) said it was asked or at least how it was answered, "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time". I absolutely accept that Evolution happens and that we nor other species have existed just as we are throughout time. In fact, I am part of the proof that Evolution exists. I have no wisdom teeth and never will because it is one of those things that we are losing through evolution. We don't need them so they are evolving away.

As for the other things people have brought up, it is wrong to limit theories of evolution to just those that you agree with. That isn't even what was asked. The Theory of Evolution does encompass both directed and random evolution as possibilities because the base Theory in no way attempts to explain why the changes occur to lead to us sharing common ancestors, rather simply that we do and that we evolved from them. Expanded theories attempting to explain why and the mechanism for evolution are simply offshoots of the main Theory. The Theory itself is simply this: The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

An introduction to evolution
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because the way the word "random" is being used is inaccurate. It is being used in such a way as to imply that (in this case) mutations happen for absolutely no reason when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Everything happens for a reason. Just because we cannot identify that reason with mechanical/electronic instruments does not mean it does not exist. It also assumes that we know all that we can possibly know. Which if that was the case then Evolution would not be considered a theory. It would be considered as a Law of fact.
Click to expand...

There are no laws of fact in science. For all intents and purposes, a theory in science is what a laymen would consider a fact. It seems as though you are engaging in a semantics argument on the word random. Evolution is as much of a fundamental law in biology as gravity is in physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom