do you believe in evolution?

[Babur]

In light of the thread about Ida, I would like to know what TWC thinks of evolution.

[♔DARTH LEGO♔]

.....imho how can it be denied.......

saying that though it is one of the greatest theological/scholastic debate of our century, so i dont think its gonna be solved any time soon.

[Babur]

.....imho how can it be denied.......

saying that though it is one of the greatest theological/scholastic debate of our century, so i dont think its gonna be solved any time soon.

yeah the evidence is too strongly in favour.

however as long as religion interferes in politics and science, I don't think it will be resolved.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

.....imho how can it be denied.......

saying that though it is one of the greatest theological/scholastic debate of our century, so i dont think its gonna be solved any time soon.

Its a scientific issue, and should be addressed in that light. As such, I think their is very little evidence to support evolution from one "class" (can't think of the technical term atm; Family I guess?) to another. Animals vary somewhat among their own families, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence showing the evolution of one sort of animal to a completely different kind, no matter how many years you give it. As such, I have to regard it as an interesting idea, but nothing more unless people present some serious evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.

But how many more of these threads are we going to have? This forum should be renamed the "Atheist, Evolution, and existence of God debate" forum, as thats all that gets talked about for the most part.

[black-dragon]

Its a scientific issue, and should be addressed in that light. As such, I think their is very little evidence to support evolution from one "class" (can't think of the technical term atm; Family I guess?) to another. Animals vary somewhat among their own families, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence showing the evolution of one sort of animal to a completely different kind, no matter how many years you give it. As such, I have to regard it as an interesting idea, but nothing more unless people present some serious evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.

But how many more of these threads are we going to have? This forum should be renamed the "Atheist, Evolution, and existence of God debate" forum, as thats all that gets talked about for the most part.

"Family" is three orders lower than "class" in the biological classification of species. Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. And what is a "kind"? You said it's a scientific issue and should be "addressed in that light". Shouldn't this include proper scientific terminology?

Seriously, if you want evidence, just google "evolution+evidence". There's an infinite + 10 amount of evidence. If you don't, at least stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.

[Kiljaden]

Its a scientific issue, and should be addressed in that light. As such, I think their is very little evidence to support evolution from one "class" (can't think of the technical term atm; Family I guess?) to another. Animals vary somewhat among their own families, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence showing the evolution of one sort of animal to a completely different kind, no matter how many years you give it. As such, I have to regard it as an interesting idea, but nothing more unless people present some serious evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Its a scientific issue, and should be addressed in that light

It is, of course. Evolution is the most parsimonious explanation that adequately explains all of the evidence and is contradicted by NO evidence, and makes repeatable testable claims that are tested and repeated and verified in labs and in the field every day of our lives. That's what you call a strong scientific theory.

Intelligent Design fails because it is horridly unparsimonious, makes absolutely no testable claims except ones like Irreducible Complexity which has been demonstrated to fail at every turn, and provides no framework from which to make predictions about the world -- which is the primary use of science in the first place!

As such, I think their is very little evidence to support evolution from one "class" (can't think of the technical term atm; Family I guess?) to another.

You are correct. That is because no class or family every evolved into another class or family. Anyone with a Kansas high school education in evolution could tell you that.

Animals vary somewhat among their own families, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence showing the evolution of one sort of animal to a completely different kind, no matter how many years you give it.

I totally 110% agree with you. Let me demonstrate.

No kind of animal can evolve into any fundamentally different kind of anything. It is impossible, and evolution never makes any claim of the sort. Indeed, if an animal changed into a different "kind" of animal, then evolution would be falsified!

You are still a eukaryote.
You are still a coelemate.
You are still a deuterestome.
You are still a gnathostome.
You are still a chordate.
You are still an animal.
You are still a primate.
You are still an ape.
You are still a human.

These are nothing more than words we assign to a given set of traits. Anything that evolves from us will STILL BE ALL OF THESE THINGS. These are all traits that developed many millions of years ago, turned out to be advantageous, and were inherited by all their descendants.

As such, I have to regard it as an interesting idea, but nothing more unless people present some serious evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.

...

Let me put it this way. Evolution happens. This is proven. As successive generations arise, mutations and shuffling of the gene pool modify the DNA of the next generation and varies the frequency of certain alleles (traits, essentially). This is known. With ridiculous amounts of evidence. Get over it.

Another thing to mention... DNA evidence proved conclusive that evolution happens, since we suddenly had a naturalistic, quantifiable process for alleles to be inherited (many people thought there was a homunculus in the sperm )

All you need is a 65 million years and evolution from a small underground mammal to a human doesn't actually seem that far fetched. I mean, do you even realize how much time that is? Think of how many years human civilization has been on this planet.. 15,000, maybe 30,000 at best? 5,000 we have good written records of. Think of how much change has happened since then. How far removed from the ancient Egyptians do you feel? How surreal does their existence feel to you?

13,000 5,000 year intervals were required to get us from a small mammal to a human. I wonder what our descendants will be in another 13,000 intervals of 5,000 years.

The stupid part would be to think they'd be no different from us.

[Chaigidel]

saying that its a great theological/scholastic debate is wrong in my eyes--- it is an absolute non issue, only a tiny fringe resists the facts.

[Visna]

I for one can't wrap my head around why science and religion somehow have to be mutually exclusive. Religion is an emotional matter, something you feel in your heart, and whether one chooses to believe in Yahwe, Shiva or Allah shouldn't have any influence on whether they think that dinosaurs actually existed, and that we humans didn't always look the way we do now.
(And just for the record. I'm completely aware that the heart is a muscle and thus is unable to have capacity for storing feelings.)
And another thing, I object to the thread title. We don't have to believe in evolution. We know evolution exists.
So yes, I know evolution exists, and I believe in God.

[Barry Goldwater]

We can't believe in science, as it is not a religion

Anyway, I trust the theory of evolution, but I do not know why science and religion must be mutually exclusive. Personally, I believe in both (evolution & creationism)

[Chaigidel]

religion interferes very little in all truth--- and then only through individuals who make it a religious motivation; so what has the "religion" actually done? ---- nothing at all, it is a philosophy and you cannot blame it for the actions of people, I know athiests who dont think human beings are animals.

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

I believe in the evolution of life. It is happening right now, in everyone's individual life, even in yours. Evolution is the work of the Creator who gives Unconditional Love. If you believe that you are the result of an explosion or worse still that you created yourself, you are going to have a lot of trouble with life.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Believe?
Well, if you put it that way no i don't "believe" in the Theory of Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation we have today for the biological world we see today. If tomorow someone explains it better then i'll support that instead. So far nothing has been pointed about the biological world that the theory of evolution could not be used to explain.

If you believe that you are the result of an explosion or worse still that you created yourself, you are going to have a lot of trouble with life.

Oh yeah?! Pffff, people been saying that to me for some 2 decades now... One day they may be right! However i've seen many of them having horrible problems themselves and apparently their "belief" hasn't helped at all...

saying that though it is one of the greatest theological/scholastic debate of our century, so i dont think its gonna be solved any time soon.

It's not... There is zero debate among specialists. Just go through biology magazines and you'll find zero articles explaining phenomena in a creationist way. It is pure propaganda from creationist fundamentalists that there is a live scientific debate. This issue was settled in the 19th century. Only religious fundamentalist questions this theory. I haven't seen a single person who did not support evolution that did not had a religious motivation behind it, not one, and i've been around this subject, observing and participating for some 15 years.

I haven't met a single atheist that doesn't support evolution. And if the magnum skeptics don't have a problem with it and all the scientific data in solid in favour i cannot see how can someone doubt it happens.

[Helm]

I think you'll find that evolution is more a matter of rather than faith.

[Junius]

It is wrong to say that any belief comes into it. There is evidence to support it, so belief is unnecessary. A better question would be whether or not you accept evolution. A small, but distinct, difference.

I accept evolution as being the way in which new species develop and adapt to their surroundings.

Abiogenesis (?), the origin of life, however, is a different matter. While I do not accept the view that there was a creator, who initiated and guided life, I have not come to a conclusion on how life started. That does mean that it automatically means there was a supernatural origin to life, it just means we have not found the natural origin of life. A bit OT, I know, but sometimes people link the two issues.

[skag]

Abiogenesis (?), the origin of life, however, is a different matter. While I do not accept the view that there was a creator, who initiated and guided life, I have not come to a conclusion on how life started. That does mean that it automatically means there was a supernatural origin to life, it just means we have not found the natural origin of life. A bit OT, I know, but sometimes people link the two issues.

You can find this strange, I find it strange also, but that's what they teached me:

The origin of life can be explained as an enthalpic process against entropy (you know everything thends to entropy, exept if enthalpy is more favorable, for a process)

Molecules behaviour is random.

There are simple chemical reactions where a molecule, if it reacts with something specially, replicate the same molecule.
You can extrapolate this to a molecule which was very look alike RNA !!! (why RNA and not DNA ? because RNA is more simple, more affected by mutation => more likely to mute in a favorable manner).

Some experiences have been made by making a big solution with amino acids (it has been prooved that you can have amino acids in a solution with some external condition) And they found some molecules very close to RNA, without anykind of external selection, living selection. Only conditions (temperature, pression, voltage, etc).

simple RNA => replication reaction => selection => interaction with amino acids => selection =>production of macromolecules =>selection => simplest form of life => evolution => mankind

As "easy" as that.

I would add that the only way to marry religion and science, in my honest opinion, is believing that all of that, simply due to probabilties and statistical behaviour due to the immuable and very right laws of mathematics, and energy/entropy competition and eveyr kind of forces that exist in our world (gravitational, coulombian/electromagnetic, and VdW forces). More simply : natural laws, are God himself, because this laws must comes from somewhere/someone.
Who said that gravitation forces would go on (1/square distance) for example. If it was different, everything would be different

[Kiljaden]

The origin of life can be explained as an enthalpic process against entropy (you know everything thends to entropy, exept if enthalpy is more favorable, for a process)

Actually, there is much study on this issue, and it may be the case that life, in fact, increases entropy.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit.../30/2003204990

[Chaigidel]

I will now amend the way I refer to God and its acceptance---- you cannot believe, you may only accept or deny.

[Junius]

I will now amend the way I refer to God and its acceptance---- you cannot believe, you may only accept or deny.

You can accept the evidence at hand, or deny it. The thing about faith is that it does not matter about the evidence. God is a matter of belief, and therefore faith. He exists outside of the natural, therefore no evidence can ever be brought forward, for either his existence or non-existence. That is why you believe in God, or don't.

Evolution has been put forward as a natural, observable phenomenon and thus relies on the evidence gathered to affirm is actuality. You can either accept that, which I choose to do, or deny it.

[Kiljaden]

I believe in the evolution of life. It is happening right now, in everyone's individual life, even in yours. Evolution is the work of the Creator who gives Unconditional Love. If you believe that you are the result of an explosion or worse still that you created yourself, you are going to have a lot of trouble with life.

Evolution is a word that has many specific meanings, with a broad general application "change over time". You may be able to construe the word to say planets evolve, individuals evolve, and rocks evolve; but it completely misses the point.

Evolution of Life is the concept that allele frequencies vary across time in a given population. This has been demonstrated to be true countless times, and there's no reason to think it's not true.

If you believe that you are the result of an explosion or worse still that you created yourself, you are going to have a lot of trouble with life.

Big Bang was not an explosion.
There is nothing that can create itself.

I find that the idea that I, myself, am composed of nothing more than stardust as a very humbling idea that connects me directly to the majesty of the universe. I don't have to believe in anything supernatural (like gods, spirits, ether, psychics, etc) to be spiritual

I will now amend the way I refer to God and its acceptance---- you cannot believe, you may only accept or deny.

A third option, ignorance, must be present. If you are ignorant of what God is, you can neither accept nor deny it. Of course, ever-present is the quandary of which god, out of the hundreds, do you accept?

[GuineaPig]

I don't believe in evolution.



The evidence is irrefutable; I don't have to.