Does anyone truly believe in Darwin's theory of evolution ?

Question

That we evolved from apes?..I don't.

Answer 1

I never read the part where he said that and, further more he was only concluding this from what he observed on the Galapogos Islands, He also said he himself was wrong about some of his theories. You may want to read his work if you haven't yet and also another really good one is De Anime by aristotle. you may find some real good information. Good question.

Answer 2

Darwin never claimed we evolved from apes. Neither do supporters of evolution. What he wrote about  was natural selection. Individuals with traits that allow them to be successful will pass those traits on.

Your definition of theory isn't the scientific one. In science it means explanation. Consider:

It's been raining for a week. You look out the window and see it's still raining. Your friend comes into the room, he's dress in rain gear and is soaking wet. He says "It's wet out there."

Your "theory" is he's been outside in the rain. Then I come along and ask you to "prove" it. That  the hallway sprinkler system and that's why he's wet. I also claim you don't know what's happening on the other side of the building or that you can't track each step your friend took, so your theory is wrong.

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.

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.

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 3

I don't think so.

Answer 4

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.

Also, there is a lot of evidence that insects have evolved resistance to pesticides such as DDT.

Peppered moths are a great example of natural selection as well as how science works. The original research was widely excepted, but other evolutionary scientists found problems with the way that research was done. The research was redone, addressing the problems in methods, and reconfirmed the conclusions. (see first two links below).

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. There are so many examples, that it is hard to single out just a few examples, but I'll try.

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, the 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 field, 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. Generally, creation is based on the belief in a God or Gods who acted to bring the material world into existence. More specifically, 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".

There is really nothing to be said further, there is no point where they come to grips.

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).

Creation supporters want creation in some form taught to oppose evolution. They have tried to repackage creationism as "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism", they have tied to get equal time for it in the classroom, and the courts have in each case declared it to be religion, not science.

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.

1. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005...

2.http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/...

3.http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/R...

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

5. http://www.geocities.com/pride_lands/Lig...

6. http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/08/01/...

7. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...

8. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Young-Planet-...

9. http://www.amazon.com/At-Waters-Edge-Fin...

10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lle...

11. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/...

12. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lle...

13. http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/?option=...

14. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/article...

15. http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=5

16. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/20...

17. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

18. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

19. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

20. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

21. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005...

22. http://www.antievolution.org/features/we...

23. http://www.pandasthumb.org/

wl

Finally, I hold two degrees in paleoanthropology (human evolution). Also, I am a Christian, active in my congregation and former member of the church council.

Answer 5

A theory is NOT just a thought up idea. A theory is a system of ideas which unite and explain OBSERVED FACTS and can be modified as new information becomes available (the antitheses of religion). The huge amount of data supporting Darwin's theory  is undeniable - including transitional fossils which are denied by creationists. Try jumping off a sky scraper and tell yourself gravity is only a theory on the way down.

Answer 6

nope

Answer 7

I think that a lot of people who don't believe in evolution are afraid that God will somehow be mad at them if they do.  It's a funny reason not to believe something, but whatever floats your boat.

Answer 8

Darwin's theory is more than the idea of man coming from other primates. His idea of evolution means change and it is evidenced all around us. I'll give you an example. There were a species of squirrel near the grand canyon. As the canyon widened, the animals became separated and evolved differently. Now those squirrel ls  are changed so much they can't even mate. It takes millions of years plus to make changes in life forms. So, yes, Darwin was not completely off base.

Answer 9

Evolution is the process which best explains the diversity of life on Earth. If you think some deity is responsible I would suggest you go over to the Religion and spirituality section and feel at home there.

Answer 10

I believe in evolution, as do 99.86% of America's scientists. And most of the rest of the planet.

Sher, Darwin did no such thing. He said he knew his theory was imperfect, not the same thing. It's an outright lie to say he recanted, put about by Creationists.

Answer 11

I agree with Bravo Zulu.  One thing that really irritates me is the number of people that are marginally (apparently) educated who claim we didn't evolve from an ape but a common ancestor.  I doubt that Lucy Australopithecus is in our ancestry but her name Australopithecus means "southern APE".   We evolved from an ape that was a common ancestor to us and existing great apes.  We are in fact, the last in a long line of bipedal apes.  A truly subjective analysis would label humans as apes but since we set the rules, we place ourselves apart arbitrarily.

Answer 12

yea

Answer 13

I agree with you 100%. I don't believe it either.

Answer 14

DArwin debuked his own theory. I bet no one told you that. At the end of his research he concluded the whole theory impossible.

Answer 15

Thousands of years ago when God created the Earth and animals and Humans,don't you think that he would have had the forethought to give His creation the ability to progress and adapt to their surroundings , so the generations of each species could survive through the years. (natural selection)

if evaluation is true why isn't there part slug and part weasel and such mix and match things around?, because wouldn't evaluation be a revolving event and happening at this moment?.

Answer 16

Do I think we evolved from apes? No. I do believe that we have an ancestor in common. Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was heralded as the greatest find in human evolution. She was "the ape who stood up". The first bi-pedal "ape" in the evolutionary chain. The statement that we evolved from apes is misleading anyway. There was an event that caused the apes to stand up and split from the ancestors that still live in trees. This more than likely took millions of years for this event to happen & it probably wasn't like one day A. afarensis just went "you know, I want to stand up". Evolution takes time & lots of it. Our (homo sapiens sapein) DNA is similar to chimpanzee DNA in like 95 out of 100 categories. I'd say that's pretty close.

What it all boils down to is where did what we call "human" life start? If you think that it started at the sapien level, then no the evolutionary theory that Darwin set down all those years ago is incorrect. However, if you look at the findings in the past several decades (The Leakeys were 1920's or there about), then the evolutionary chain is still in tact.

I am not going to say that what you believe is wrong. I am merely telling you what I know & what I believe. If my information is wrong, please tell me. I believe that there are 2 sides to every argument. This is what I know now. I am going to go back to school for this specific reason. I hope that this has at least made people want to look at this issue further.

Good question, btw.

Answer 17

I simply don't understand how apes could evolve into the art of using reason to understand something in the first place. And I think the reason they can't find the 'missing link', is because there isn't one. However, many other things are highly evolutionary in nature. Go figure.

Answer 18

Darwins theory is more based on natural selection, which is that with in a species those best adapted to the environment reproduce more successfully, and following generations possess more of those favorable traits. In his book "Origin of Species",which he wrote during his voyage on the HSM Beagle to the Galapagos island, he only ever mentions the word "evolution" on the very last page. By evolution he means "a gradual change in a specie over time due to natural selection"

And to address your comment that we evolved from apes I'm sorry to tell you that you have been miss informed that theory has nothing to do with Darwins Theory.

Answer 19

Even the Catholic church has accepted evolution: in the christians, those who don't are mainly in the fundamentalists, from the "bible belt" in the USA. You have misunderstood: we never evolved from apes. All primates evolved from a common ancestor, which is why Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes (the chimpanzee) have 96% of their DNA in common: less with gorillas, which diverged around 2,000,000 years before, and even less with the orang utan. Face facts: you have been indoctrinated into a belief system, rather than systematically examining the evidence: the many thousands of fossils, the dating by potassium/argon, uranium/lead, electron spin resonance, photoluminescence, geomagnetism, rock strata, and DNA, all of which support evolutionary theory. Your beliefs are as valid as those of the "flat earthers". There is a section for you in "Religion and Spirituality", where you would feel more at home. You certainly have no place in this social SCIENCE section.

Answer 20

There are 3 major flaws here....

1.  You seem to lack an understanding of the scientific method, including the definition of a scientific theory.  It's not something that's just made up after a night at the bar.  It's an explanation of documented phenomena that has been tested and supported by a great deal of research.

2.  There have been many advances in science, including biology, since Darwin's time.  Thus, while many of Darwin's ideas have stood the test of time, others have not.  Our understanding of evolutionary processes has...well, evolved...in the 150 some years since.  That's the beauty of science; it continually tests and revises itself as new information is discovered (see previous statement about the scientific method).  You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a legitimate biologist who views Darwin's ideas as entirely correct today.

3.  You also misunderstand evolutionary theory.  Humans and apes share a common ancestor.  Humans did not come directly from apes.

Answer 21

yes i do,

Answer 22

You are showing a little naivety here kitty, and the evolutionists are going to ridicule and insult you in their high-handed, superiority complexed, normal fanatical way.  Evolutionists, for example, have upgraded the term "theory" to mean "fact", unless their many 'thoughts' (hypothesise) are proven wrong. And, according to them, we didn't come from the Ape, we came from a "common Ancestor" of the ape and us humans.  God knows what it was, what it looked like or even what it is called.  They don't know themselves, so we've got no chance of locating it.

Nevertheless, stick to your guns, you are right, regarding the theory of evolution and they are so wrong.  (Watch all the 'thumbs down' now, to prove it).

Answer 23

Dummy, a scientific theory is not a thought or idea. It's the highest level of certainty of evidence, even beyond a law. It's unfortunate that anti-science try to exploit the confusion between a scientific theory and a layman's theory.

Answer 24

We didn't evolve from apes, we are apes who evolved from a common ape ancestor.  You don't seem to have a good grasp of the concepts behind the origin of species.

Answer 25

It isn't even doubtful at all that we evolved from apes and share common ancestors with apes and ALL life on this planet.  There is absolutely no sane doubt, except ignorance of the evidence, that dating of fossils, change in species, and radiation of new species is a fact.  It was a done deal before genetics gave mathematically certain proof of shared common ancestors.  The only argument you can make against it is something you might tell a gullible 7 year old that Satan put the evidence there to test your faith.  You could cite the double-speak that has be masquerading as legitimate science called intelligent design but NONE of the arguments against evolution have any rational basis.

Answer 26

We ahev not exactly evolved from Apes but the starting point may be similar. Evolution is happening every day as you look around. Look how animals and even humans have to adapt to cahnging environments of today, that is evolution.

Answer 27

I can't believe that people are dumb enough to NOT believe it.

Answer 28

Sure. It is a theory like "the theory of electricity" lol!

You obviously do not understand even the basics if you think it states that we evolved from apes.

evolution is "the observed changes in populations of organisms over time"

If you have ever heard of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) then you should be aware of evolution as a fact. MRSA evolved to be resistant to our current antibiotics.

Now, go to Wiki and learn more about it rather that spending time here proving your ignorance.

Answer 29

Absolutely, that's how it happened. And when you die, you are dead and gone.

Answer 30

Just smart people...know any?