Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?

[XenoEnsi-14]

Honestly I don't really see whats the point of this Creationism vs Evolution debate !

Kicking the hornets nest to see what happens.

Do you accept evolution as a fact?

1. *
   Yes
   56 vote(s)
   81.2%
2. 
   No
   13 vote(s)
   18.8%

Polling bias.

My Religion don't contradict with Science....

Doesn't some of your Gods intervene? I think that contradicts with science, Divine intervention is a breaking down and rebuilding of natural laws. You just simplified evolution to the point of non-existence.

Technically the only religion that doesn't contradict with science is Deism, in Deism scientific thought is required.

 

[ZooZoo]

Doesn't some of your Gods intervene? I think that contradicts with science, Divine intervention is a breaking down and rebuilding of natural laws. You just simplified evolution to the point of non-existence.

Technically the only religion that doesn't contradict with science is Deism, in Deism scientific thought is required.

My religion doesn't contradict, Though the religious ppl does.. Those who doesn't understand my religion (ill educated ppl) created Fables..

I will give one more example :

In Hanuman Chalisa, it is said : "Yug sahastra yojan per Bhanu! Leelyo taahi madhur phal janu!! 1 Yug = 12000 years 1 Sahastra = 1000 1 Yojan = 8 Miles Yug x Sahastra x Yojan = par Bhanu 12000 x 1000 x 8 miles = 96000000 miles 1 mile = 1.6kms 96000000 miles = 96000000 x 1.6kms = 1536000000 kms to Sun.

Where as ill-educated ppl (from my religion) understand it differently (Act of God).

 

[ayesha.a]

There is faith in science.

When I flip the light switch, I have absolute faith that the room will be awash in light. The internal combustion engine is one of man's greatest inventions and when I turn the key, I have complete faith that my Jeep will start. Scientific faith is faith that is based on repeated trials and errors, not of unknown and/or uncertainty. If my Jeep failed to start, I will not immediately suspect demons but depending on the sounds, it could be either a bad battery or weak starter.

I agree with what (I think) you are trying to say, but it is misleading to use the word "faith", in that context. Science does not rely on "faith" in the same meaning of "faith" that religions use it. 'Expectation', 'trust' etc might be more appropriate.

To most religious people, "faith" means believing without any reason. You don't have "faith" in the ICE without any reason - you trust it because it has worked for a hundreds of years. And you also know how it works. (If not you, the people who make it know how it works - there is no magic involved.)

The reason I'm highlighting this distinction in the usage of the word "faith" is because a person who is very religious and doesn't know much about science will think that what you mean is that both science and religion are faith based. They are not, at least not in the same maening of the word "faith".

If Darwin contends that the human race evolved from monkeys, then how come the monkeys we see have still not started wearing pants?

That's like asking "If adults grew up from children, how come the children we see today are not adults?"

BTW the theory of evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans evolved from homo erectus, which evolved from homo habilis, which evolved from australopithecus.

Humans and monekys share a common ancestor - and so does every single life form.

Some of the reputable members here have said it in their posts. The Theory of Evolution is but a scientific conjecture.

Nope. The very fact that it's called the theory of evolution, should tell you that it's not conjecture any more. It's a theory - which means that it is deeply understood, and accepted to be true.

If it was only conjecture, it would be called "conjecture of evolution" or "hypothesis of evolution". That stage has been left b ehind a long time back. There has been overwhelming evidence for us to accept evolution as a theory. That is, accept it to be the correct explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

I don;t think the challenges of evolution could apply to the very first life form, it will simply die off and there will be no more life.

What "challenges" do you mean, for the first life form?

The first life form was ntohing more than a self replicating molecule.

So, why has evolution stopped.

It hasn't.

In fact, evolution has even been observed and documented. Read about the works of Richard lenski, for instance.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard Lenski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Agni-5]

Aliens

 

[ayesha.a]

Just because evolution happens over hundreds of millions of years, and hence cannot be examined under a microscope for verifiable proof, doesn't mean it is not happening.

Actually, it has been verified by direct observation. Richhard Lenski's experiment that I wrote about above is one such instance.

Did potatoes evolve from tomatoes? A genuine question...

No.

Were apes the first beings?

No. The entire ape family descended from Australopithecus. "Apes" have been around for about 5 million years, but life has been around for 3.5 billion years. Dinosaurs, fish etc existed long before apes evolved.

It is still theory, like big-bang theory or theory of Either, M-Theory and Theory of Relativity. It is not "FACT" because of which by and large, it will be a matter of belief instead of "acceptance".

A very common misunderstanding. Theoy and fact do not mean the same thing in science as it does in everyday language. The theory of gravitation is also a theory - that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Evolution (like gravitation) is both a theory AND a fact.

Facts are the raw data that scientists collect from nature. Theory is the explanation they form for those observed facts.

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Stephen Jay Gould writes, "...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."[33]
• Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."[34]

Archea and bacteria divide (on average) every 15-20 minutes, that is some 72 times in 24 hours and a single bacterium would give rise to 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 bacteria after 24 hours. With such a high generation turn over why do they fail to evolve into more intelligent forms? These are the questions I ask to myself as a Molecular Biologist.

What makes you think that evolution necessarily has to move towards intelligence? Many life forms that are unintelligent are success stories, from a survival point of view. Intelligence is only one beneficial aspect. There are several times more beatles than humans, desite humans having intelligence.

And if you want to see evidence for bacteria evolving, do read about Richard Lenski's fascinating experiments, which I linked to earlier.

Okay---then why dont you see half formed people or animals. If the proces is continuous then there should be some complete some in between specimens available.

What is 'complete' and what is 'half formed'? You are assuming that there is a perfect, idealized thing, and a half perfect thing. These are value judgements that humans make. There is no such thing as perfection, for life forms.

You are slightly different from your parents. Your children are slightly different from you. That is all that evolution is. Neither you, nor your parents, nor your children are perfect or complete or incomplete.

Evolution is just change, not change towards some predetermined perfection.

Sir,

Please allow me to say that your post does not have much seNse?

The poster had genuine question, so should one stop asking because someone is saddened. The question remains why some species go thru a supposed change and others dont.

And why dont we see half transformed species. And alongwith automotive engr i also have a backkground in microbiology, bio chem and human physiology.

All species undergo change. Can you name any species that has not undergone change?

The thing that seperates evolution from other hypotheses is its foundation in centuries of observational studies, genetic proofing, and biological research.

And for those reasons, evolution is not a hypethesis anymore - it is an undeniable fact, with very strong theoretical foundations.

 

[gambit]

I agree with what (I think) you are trying to say, but it is misleading to use the word "faith", in that context. Science does not rely on "faith" in the same meaning of "faith" that religions use it. 'Expectation', 'trust' etc might be more appropriate.

To most religious people, "faith" means believing without any reason. You don't have "faith" in the ICE without any reason - you trust it because it has worked for a hundreds of years. And you also know how it works. (If not you, the people who make it know how it works - there is no magic involved.)

The reason I'm highlighting this distinction in the usage of the word "faith" is because a person who is very religious and doesn't know much about science will think that what you mean is that both science and religion are faith based. They are not, at least not in the same maening of the word "faith".

Respectfully -- I disagree.

Say that you know next to nothing about Bernouli (differential pressure). Did you stop flying ? The vast majority of the flying public have absolute faith -- in the religious sense -- every time a person board an aircraft. Yes, the words 'expectation' and 'trust' are appropriate, but to me, no more than the word 'faith'.

That said...Being 'without reason' is not the same as 'without experience'. The flying public do have a wealth of previous experience in aviation so the current generation have no need -- or reason -- to distrust the aircraft manufacturer, the airline, and finally the captain, every time they step on an aircraft.

 

[ayesha.a]

you and @syedali73 need not to indulge with this one liner genius and a lucky one too because I was thinking I should use negative rating or issue him a warning but his post got deleted earlier

fascinating subject we are discussing and I allow myself to digest all the theories while also having my own sets questions

theory of evolution/ process of natural selection and how one specie wins the race in some cases or continues to coexist as dominant specie e.g us homo sapiens and apes are genetically same but also very different.
I think we can continue to theorize without the fear of getting bullied by the religious or antitheist blowhards

We are not "genetically same" with apes. Many genes are different.

Respectfully -- I disagree.

Say that you know next to nothing about Bernouli (differential pressure). Did you stop flying ? The vast majority of the flying public have absolute faith -- in the religious sense -- every time a person board an aircraft. Yes, the words 'expectation' and 'trust' are appropriate, but to me, no more than the word 'faith'.

That said...Being 'without reason' is not the same as 'without experience'. The flying public do have a wealth of previous experience in aviation so the current generation have no need -- or reason -- to distrust the aircraft manufacturer, the airline, and finally the captain, every time they step on an aircraft.

Funny - from what I gather, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying, but you say you disagree with me.

Yes, the vast majority of people who board aircrafts do not know Bernoulli's equations or fluid mechanics. But they board that flight, because - and this is important - they know about aircrafts flying and carrying passengers for a long time now. As you correctly state, their trust that the aircraft will fly is because of prior experience - knowledge that aircrafts have been flying for more than a century.

I don't think the average person living in 1850 would repose the same trust that an aircraft can fly safely.

In short, their belief has a rationale - they don't simply believe because they want to believe. On the other hand, when religious people say thy have "faith" in something, that faith doesn't arise from prior experience. It is simply another way of saying "I believe because I ought to believe."

 

[Mujahid Memon]

Do you accept evolution as a fact?

In its present stage; No. But things will change soon

 

[ayesha.a]

Who knows maybe Rosseau's 'first cause' argument was spot on.

The 'first cause' argument was propounded long before Rousseau. In Europe, it was Thomas Aquinas who first made it famous.

 

[gambit]

Funny - from what I gather, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying, but you say you disagree with me.

Yes, the vast majority of people who board aircrafts do not know Bernoulli's equations or fluid mechanics. But they board that flight, because - and this is important - they know about aircrafts flying and carrying passengers for a long time now. As you correctly state, their trust that the aircraft will fly is because of prior experience - knowledge that aircrafts have been flying for more than a century.

I don't think the average person living in 1850 would repose the same trust that an aircraft can fly safely.

In short, their belief has a rationale - they don't simply believe because they want to believe. On the other hand, when religious people say thy have "faith" in something, that faith doesn't arise from prior experience. It is simply another way of saying "I believe because I ought to believe."

I disagree in the sense that I believe scientific faith can have the same fervor as religious faith.

Let us take religious conversions for example. In a conversion, essentially you take that person's claimed experience as foundation and reason for your conversion to his religion. Somehow some ways, whatever he claimed to experience made sense to you. Likewise, a person can have absolute faith in starting his car or board an aircraft based upon others' claimed experience.

The point and difference I am making is that when it comes to the Deity (upper case), we did not make Him/Her, whereas with things scientific and technological, we do make those things. That is why I have no problems believing (conversion) that it is safe for me to board a thing called an aircraft even though I may have no experience flying before. The type of faith is the same but not the foundation of it. If we can time transport someone from an age where aviation did not exist, if that person sees enough of aviation, he will develop the same type of faith.

 

[ayesha.a]

What is science ? Observation.

No, science is a lot more than just observation.

My religion is based on Observation. My Religion don't contradict with Science....

My religion says many incarnation of Lord Vishnu ()

Fish : Among first species on earth
Warthog: Mammal
Lion-Man: caveman
Wise-Man : Modern man

Humans did not have warthogs as their ancestors. "Cavemen" were also humans just like you, and not a different species. They were not "lion men".

BTW, you conveniently "forgot" some incarnations - like the tortoise. Humans never had tortoises for ancestors.

What you are doing is trying to fit old fables into modern scientific knowledge. Your religion was certainly not explaining evolution of life, when those fairytales of Vishnu's avatars were written. It was simply a set of stories, which you are now trying to link to evolution.

 

[livingdead]

I dunno what people are on about; the theory of evolution is not just a 'theory' as its understood to be in the English language. Evolution is a 'fact' supported by an abundance of evidence out there; the only 'theory' portion is how evolution happened - Whether through natural selection or through some other mechanism !

But 'evolution' did happen; we did evolve from a common ancestor and anyone who thinks otherwise should stop using medicine when they get sick because diseases out there too evolve they don't just drop out of the sky !

Furthermore believing in Evolution neither affirms nor denies the creation of man and by extension the existence of a Creator; it simply talks about how man found himself in his present physiological condition and not whether he was or he wasn't created for that is a metaphysical question that Science can never answer as it does not deal with abstract philosophical questions.

Who knows maybe Rosseau's 'first cause' argument was spot on. Who knows maybe the mention of Adam and Eve and other creation stories are allegorical in nature. Who knows maybe creation began at the conception of the Universe and that process has continued ever since according to the principles of science as opposed to an abrupt one-off event.

The bottom line is that those are metaphysical questions that can never be answered by science nor can metaphysics tell you what the chemical structure of a carbon atom is - They're both addressing different types of questions !

So take knowledge as it comes and enrich your understanding of the world, of your existence and whatever purpose you think your life holds !

Honestly I don't really see whats the point of this Creationism vs Evolution debate !

@SvenSvensonov @Nihonjin1051 @Víðarr

it seems around 40 percent americans believe in some form of creationism, and many want it in school curriculum as alternative to theory of evolution. I am guessing its higher in many other countries.
Huge number of people believe in exceptionalism of human species and personal deity (we are specially made, and I am personally special coz god talks to me, listens to my prayers and makes finer adjustments to universe sometimes due to that), and the theory is highly corrosive to those ideas.

Ask any lay man why he/she believes in personal god, and first thing you will hear is, who made all these, plants, animals, earth, sky(?)... who cured the tumour of my aunty?
So the question is not settled in real world, as you seem to suggest. Ask two self confessed scientists here, you will be surprised.

 

[Koovie]

In its present stage; No. But things will change soon

Why? It has been verified over and over... thats why its a theory and not a hypothesis.

 

[ayesha.a]

it seems around 40 percent americans believe in some form of creationism, and many want it in school curriculum as alternative to theory of evolution. I am guessing its higher in many other countries.

In the developed nations of the western hemisphere, belief in evolution is higher in the USA than in other countries. The percentage of people who want to introduce creationism in school curricula in Britain, France, Sweden etc is far lower.

 

[livingdead]

In the developed nations of the western hemisphere, belief in evolution is higher in the USA than in other countries. The percentage of people who want to introduce creationism in school curricula in Britain, France, Sweden etc is far lower.

you are right, but vast number of people live in asia and africa. Western europe (and china?) are probably only place where there is general acceptance of evolution among masses.