Do you believe in darwin`s theory of evolution?

Question

Do you believe in darwin`s theory of evolution?

Answer 1

I know this is not the answer you are looking to get, but there are no good arguments that can refute evolution.

It is close to 150 years since Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", and during that entire time it has been tested by naturalists, biologist, geologists, paleontologists, physicists, etc. and not only have they been unable to falsify natural selection (which was Darwin's great insight), but their research has lead to the strengthening of evolution to the point that it is one of the main underpinnings of science.

Darwinian evolution has amassed an enormous amount of evidence in support. To give only a few examples:

There is a great deal of evidence for pathogens evolving resistance under selective pressure of antibiotics--the so-called superbugs.

Additional evidence for evolution can be found in looking at populations that are in the process of speciation. Since evolution does not proceed quickly enough to show that entire process in a human lifetime or even in several human lifetimes, you have to look at several examples:

1. Ligers and tigons: these are offspring of lions and tigers. Ligers are offspring of lionesses and male tigers, tigons the offspring of tigresses and male lions. Lions are known to have overlapped in range with tigers in the near past--the last 10,000 years or so (see third link below). Even now there are reports of rare crosses in the wild but normally crosses are in captivity and often by means of artificial insemination (the 3rd-5th links below). Only the female crosses are fertile.

2. Mules: Offspring of horses and asses (donkeys) are mules, well know for being sterile.

3. Herring Gulls: In England, The Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull coexist but do not interbreed--the sign of different species. However, if one follows the Herring Gull populations westward, around the Arctic Circle, one finds that the populations change in appearance, becoming more like Lesser Black-backed Gulls. By the time you reach England again, there are two species, even though up to that point, each population of gull can and does interbreed with it's neighbors. There are other examples, such as the salamander Ensatina in the US pacific coast (see the 6th and 7th links below).

Another major source of evidence is of course the fossil record.

1. The evolution of life before 600 million years ago: It is well known that there was an (apparently ) enormous and sudden flowering of life in the Cambrian period, with little or no evidence of life in earlier rock. This for years has been used by creationists to attack evolution, but a great deal of research has been done in the last fifty years, and there is a good record now of life on earth going back to about 3.6 billion years ago. An excellent book on this topic is Andrew H. Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth" (see the 8th link below).

2. Evolution of Tetrapods and Cetaceans: A great deal of research, spanning paleontology, molecular genetics, ontology and other fields in Biology has been done on the evolution of land vertebrates (tetrapods), and a clear picture has emerged.

This has included many testable predictions (one of the elements of science--theories [that is, well-tested explanations] will generate testable hypotheses), such as predicting that one should find fossils of vertebrates in the process of adapting to life on land in rocks around 375 million years old-- a prediction that did happen.

No more interesting than the process by which vertebrates evolved to live on land, is the process by which the cetaceans evolved to live a fully aquatic life. Again, research in the last thirty years has clarified how this happened.

A good account for both of these is Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea" (see the 9th link below).

3. Human Evolution: This is of course the elephant in the corner. If evolution did not imply that humans evolved, there would be no fight at all. Without going into a HUGE amount of detail, I'll note that two of the most famous paleoanthropological finds were made by workers who predicted where fossil hominid remains were and then went out and found them: Eugen (or Eugene) DuBois and Pithecanthropus (now known as Homo erectus) in Java, and Louis Leakey and his hominid finds in East Africa (see the 10th-13th links below).

Before moving on to Creation, I want to emphasize several points.

First, the word "theory" has a different meaning in science then it does popularly. In science, a theory is an explanation or set of explanations for which there is a considerable body of supporting work, usually over a considerable period of time. Darwinian evolution, or, more exactly, the NeoDarwinian synthesis, now has 150 years of testing behind it. The popular meaning of "theory" is a yet untested or unsupported idea. This is closer to what science call a hypothesis, if it isn't a wild guess or assertion of opinion. A lot of confusion can be avoided if this difference is kept in mind.

Second, the NeoDarwinian synthesis is not something to just toss aside. It is the basic organizing theory in biology. There is very little in biology now that does not depend on or bear on evolution. Further, much evidence supporting evolution is basis in other scientific disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry and so forth. Further, there are other fields, such as medicine which depend on the insights gained from evolution.

Third, if you examine the links below, you'll find lots of disagreements among evolutionary scientists. This is not a weakness, but strength. This is how science works. Ideas are presented, supported, tested, pulled apart, argued over until the idea is rejected, or tentatively accepted.

Classical physics was a set of explanations that had developed over a thousand-plus years. However at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries, it was found that it could not explain certain phenomena and was disproved. Yet we are still taught physics as new theories were proposed, tested and refined which incorporate what classic physics explained and also those phenomena that it could not.

Regarding Creation, I cannot build any case for its acceptance. We tend to equate "creation" with a more or less literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

There really is nothing here to intersect or debate on. Either you believe in that interpretation or not. There is nothing that science can test for.

Science can only work with material causes and material phenomena. Why is this? Because science takes an explanation and tests it, trying to disprove it (you can't prove something is true, you can only disprove it).

How can you test creation? Every piece of evidence mentioned above can be met by the statement: "God in His wisdom has ordained it to be so".

Why then the "controversy"? It is because some people of belief feel that the concept of evolution is so contrary to belief that it should not be taught, or if it does that creation should be taught too.

In the US, there is now almost forty years of case law that concludes that Creation is a specific form of religious belief and cannot be taught in public schools as science (see the 14th and 15th links below).

Most recently, creationism has been repackaged as "Intelligent Design", with the more modest goal of "teaching the controversy", by which they mean the "scientific" controversy.

Intelligent design got its day in court in the case Kitzmiller vs. Dover, where all parties wanted the judge to rule on whether ID was or was not science. Judge Jones clearly ruled that ID was not science, only creationism--i.e. religion renamed. (see link 15 below for links to all the case documents, and link 16 for Judge Jones' decision).

One of the most damning exhibits presented was proof that the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" was really a Creation Science textbook, with ID language replacing Creationist language. In fact a poor job was done, so that the term "creationists" was replaced with "cdesign proponentsists" instead of the intended "intelligent design proponents" (see links 17-21 below).

So if creationism is religion, not science, where do they draw a scientific case. The blunt fact is that they don't. Their "case" is based on misrepresenting the work of evolutionists, selective quoting to make individuals say things other then they actually said. They want to get some form of creation into the schools (currently this form is Intelligent Design) to effect a societal change, not to teach science. (this is not really denied by the creationists, they quite openly have their strategy, called the "Wedge Strategy" on the web, see link 22. For more on creationist tactics and their refutation, see "Panda's Thumb", link 23 below).

To conclude, evolution is a well-supported scientific theory with almost 150 years of scientific study backing it up. Creation is a religious belief, incapable of scientific testing. The "controversy" is to try to promote religion in society under the guise of science.

To the extent the controversy should be taught, it should be taught in social science classes.

wl

Answer 2

Since it is a theory as is creation, I choose to believe creation.  It makes more sense.

Answer 3

Here is an extended answer for those who think they have a corner on understanding the words of Jesus.

"Jesus: the Greatest Evolutionist Ever"

http://niabingypappy.blogspot.com/

Answer 4

To say I "believe" in it would imply that there are other stances to take with as much or more evidence to support them.  This is not the case.  I accept that evolution is true.

Answer 5

No. I think the duck God laid an egg which turned into earth.

Answer 6

Nope.  I accept that it's the best explanation of the available evidence.  I don't need faith to do this, beyond faith in human logic and the relevancy of our senses.

Answer 7

Yes, it's the only thing that makes logical,and or scientific sense to me. That's the way I think. I do however respect the the other view,and those who believe it. Who am I to p**s off the Pope.lol

Answer 8

I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true.  There is no reasonable doubt.

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

Darwin was a brilliant man. He has done good things for the human race. We should all comend him!

Answer 11

noooo

Answer 12

Not all the monkies live in the Zoo!

Every day, you will meet quite a Few!

Answer 13

somewhat; outside of out a certain extent, i don't.

Answer 14

There is no doubt that evolution has been at work since the time of Lucy, a fossil humanoid from about three million years ago.

Before that the pìcture becomes much more obscure and presupposes that the blueprints for all of creation reposed in the humble amoeba which seems rather far fetched.

Answer 15

Evolution has been demonstrated through selective breeding, deep ocean core samples, fossils and the known history of life on the planet. That's just a few of the sources.

        Creationists spend a huge amount of their 'research" trying to find errors in evolution. In the 150 years since it was published, no major part of evolution has been disproven.

The best site to learn about evolution is:

National Academy of Sciences: (Guidebook on Evolution)

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

To quote from this source:



"Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

"Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Here's an example: It's been raining for the last week. You look outside and see it rain. A friend comes in wearing rain gear and soaking wet. The remark on how wet it is. Your "theory" is that they were out in the rain. But it's ONLY a theory!!! A creationist would tell you theres a gut out in the hallway with a fire hose! Then tell you it's not possible to explain the transition between the door and the outside, or that it's too complicated for your friend to put on rain gear and walk in the rain.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

A common comment is that man "descended from the apes." Consider:

"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

Answer 16

I ...B E L I E V E !  I...B E L I E V E  !!

Now, let us join hands and...PREY !

Oh! Wait a minute...believing in a fact is completely unnecessary; reality does not require...belief.

Only fantasy requires it!

Answer 17

Yes..and it does not imply there is no GOD so people need to calm down

Answer 18

Heck no.

We came from the ice and fog, which lead to the titians, and the  the gods of Asgard who then created humans.

Odin said it, I believe it and that settles it.