Do you believe in evolution?

[Sarcastro]

Of course, Stoofer.

Oh, unless you're talking about countries that aren't theocracies. Then no (although I find it hilarious that Vatican City endorses evolution).

Seriously, people need to learn more before they proclaim themselves super-clever goddamn scientists who are capable of dismissing hundreds of years of evidence simply because they think the idea that humans are related to other animals is weird.

Evolution is a fact. It's really that simple. I'm sorry, IH, but you're simply ignorant if you think otherwise. I'm not saying that as an insult, but simply as a statement of fact that you clearly do not know enough about biology to make an educated judgment.

[Nightson]

Err, no, anything can be called a theory. I think a quasar is actually masses of living organisms emitting radio waves. Thats a theory.

No IH, despite the unfortunate fact that that's what theory has come to mean in the common vernacular, that's not what theory in the scientific sense means at all. In science a theory is

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

[Save The Dragons]

I'd like to point out that things taught in chemistry ten to twenty years ago were probably wrong just because we didn't have enough information. From an objective standpoint, evolution could be completely and utterly wrong, but it should still be taught because it's the most conclusive thing we have on the subject.

Stanley Miller (and probably many others) has created organic material in a laboratory in 1953. It doesn't take much to create organic material. Life is not very complicated; the difference between it and inorganic matter is that there's cells that can reproduce and do gas exchange. With such an unflattering look at life, evolution is no big deal.

I think evolution is misconstrued into something horrific and ugly, and I think people misunderstand it. Natural selection and macroevolution happen because we have observed it. But these aren't things that have to be the origin of our species, or any other.

[ChannelDelibird]

Evolution is a fact. It's really that simple. I'm sorry, IH, but you're simply ignorant if you think otherwise. I'm not saying that as an insult, but simply as a statement of fact that you clearly do not know enough about biology to make an educated judgment.

QFT

[Dani Banani]

Natural selection and macroevolution happen because we have observed it.

i understand that we've 'observed' natural selection (wolves being domesticated, and becoming dogs), but how have we 'observed' macroevolution?.. i'm not trying to argue, i'm seriously curious... i'm the 1 person so far who answered 'Unsure'... i was taught creationism since the day i was born basically, so it's a big jump for me to totally abandon everything i've been taught, even though everything i've seen seems to 'prove' evolution as scientifically correct...

[Sarcastro]

Just for the record, wolves becoming dogs is artificial selection, not natural selection. We have still observed natural selection, of course, that's just not the best example.

[Yosarian2]

Adaptation does not=evolution though I think. The organism may change slightly to adapt, but it's never mutating into an entirely different virus or such. Just a different strain, right?

Well, I tell you one thing. A lot of viruses that have existed for the past several hundred years (smallpox, for example) simply can not have existed before civilization; smallpox only lives in humans, and as those who survive it get an immunity to it, it needs a large, fairly densly concentrated human population to survive; smallpox could not exist in nomadic groups of humans, it's not possible. Therefore, it must have evolved from an enterly different strain, an entirely different species, sometime after the development of farming.

[Yosarian2]

But there are still faults with the origin.

If chemicals produced it in the first place, why isn't it being reproduced today? Why can't we reproduce it?

We can reproduce it by creating conditions similar to ancient earth. It's been done in labratories; it's quite fast for amino acid chains to start forming. Now, the next step would be going from that to more complicated amino acid chains capable of reproducing themselves, which probably took thousands or tens of thosands of years on Earth, and no, we have not yet managed to reproduce that in a labratory.

I continue to feel like the generations is still something thats just going "BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT!"

Let me put it this way. Evolution, natural selection, the development of modern species from ancient ancestors, has been quite well proven, on a genetic level, on a biological, by the fossil records, by experements and studies. The actual details of the orgin of life is still a matter of some scientific speculation, sure, but that's a completly different issue then the question of how you get from the origion of life to the current diversity of life in the world.

Not only that, but alot of evidence points that the earth is not that old. Like the degeneration of the magnetic fields. Etc Etc.

Not quite sure what you mean by that...the magnetic field of the Earth is caused by the mostly iron core in the center of the earth and the intense heat in the center of the Earth, and while it will change over time in suble ways it's remained mostly stable for billions of years now.

Besides, the evidence for the approxomite age of the earth being around 5 billion years old is quite strong. Geology has very strong evidence of the age of the Earth. Using our understanding of nuclear fusion and extensive observations of the stars around us, we can figure out the approxomite age of the sun by measuring spetographically the ratio of hydrogen to helium, and comparing that to the ratio of hydron/helium present in the universe at large, because the heat from the sun comes from hydren being slowly fused into helium through physcial processes that are fairly well understood. We can see that there are other stars that are much younger, and stars that are older. Through our observation of of the moon and other planets, we know that there was a period about 3-4 billion years ago, after the planets were formed, when there were a lot more large chuncks of rock flying around the solar system, hitting plantary bodies, and leaving massive craters, then there is today. How old a specific crater is can be measured by how much metoritic dust has settled there. How long ago a specific rock was formed can be measured by measuing how radioactive certain elements present in the rock are.

I could go on, if you want; the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth and the solar system is quite extensive.

[vollkan]

If chemicals produced it in the first place, why isn't it being reproduced today? Why can't we reproduce it?

As Yosarian and others have said, Stanley Miller and others have created organic materials. They haven't been able to produce life and, think about it, it would be very odd if they did.

It is exceptionally improbable that all of the chemicals will manage to be sequenced in precisely the right way to form a replicator like DNA or RNA. Hence, even if the basic units like amino acids etc. can be produced, it requires tremendous amounts of time and space (as in lots of the chemicals) for it to even be possible and even then it is still highly improbable.

We haven't found life on any other planets thus far, which indicates that the process for life forming (at least for DNA/RNA lifeforms) is exceptionally improbable. The primordial soup theory meets this improbability.

Basically, it is not the case that you simply add chemicals and stir the beaker and that makes life.

Not only that, but alot of evidence points that the earth is not that old. Like the degeneration of the magnetic fields. Etc Etc.

You'll find that every one of these arguments is by some lunatic religious group pushing their insane agenda. Just read further and they are all inevitably wrong or telling half-truths.

Yosarian has already pointed to the evidence for the earth being "old". I want to rebut the magnetic fields thing.

The magnetic polarity reverses at points in time (one reversal is predicted in the next few thousand years). The creationists who use the magnetic fields as an "argument" use data from the last 150 years to extrapolate backwards, ignoring the fact that the fields reverse over time.

Which brings me back to the main point of this thread, which is talking about teaching it in schools, right? The spin thats getting put on it is that Evolution is right, you're stupid, shut up, at least from my viewpoint, when Evolution is a highly inconclusive theory, and needs to be taught objectively if they insist on teaching it.

The more you read in this area, the more you will see the evidence for evolution. Creationism and intelligence design (IDiocy) have no place whatsoever in a science classroom, other than as exemplars of "How not to think".

No scientist claims evolution is the "definite" truth, as in, that evolution is unassailably correct. However, there is no evidence against the theory and an overwhelming amount in support of it. Evolution should be taught with the same certainty as anything else in science is taught.

My problem with this apparent "Evolution v Creationism/IDiocy" is that it actually implies there is a debate, which legitimises the competition.

I don't believe it myself, but if they insist on teaching it, then thats how I believe things should go about.

Why don't you "believe" it? As in, is it due to apparent conflicting evidence or an apparent lack of evidence?

Just for the record, wolves becoming dogs is artificial selection, not natural selection. We have still observed natural selection, of course, that's just not the best example.

Yeah, there are 3 types of selection (that I know of and I may well be missing some):
1) Natural selection - Most of us know what I mean here.
2) Artificial selection - Dogs
3) Sexual selection - This is based not on survivability but on the favouring of certain traits for breeding. It is this one which has given rise to the different "races" of people. Over time, certain cultures favoured certain appearance traits which led to those traits being reproduced more. Hence, there is actually no basis for "Social Darwinism" or any of that other racist garbage that was once associated with evolution.

Interestingly, there is more genetic difference within populations of the same "race" than there is between races, showing how stupid the concept is.

[Kelly Chen]

Y2K bug?

[Thesp]

No its not on the curriculum. I had a couple of science professors talk about it anyways in 7th grade with his own time, but that was about it. My 9th grade teacher in biology never mentioned it, and after that I took 2 physics and 2 chemistry classes, and never really had an option to talk about it. I do know that a couple teachers talked about it anyways in class (mostly the AP/Honors teachers), and some didn't (mostly for the stupid people). Do people really teach evolution like, to every kid in other states?

Yes.

The only state I'm not sure about is Texas as they have their own textbook for everything and I dunno about the contents of their biology curriculum.

When I was in junior high and high school in Texas, it was taught. (It was presented as, "I'm not telling you to believe this, but you have to know it, as it's important to know.") It would surprise me for it not to be taught - it's a fairly significant theory in science as a whole.

Which brings me back to the main point of this thread, which is talking about teaching it in schools, right? The spin thats getting put on it is that Evolution is right, you're stupid, shut up

This is far from my experience.

I have my suspicions that evolution is an inaccurate understanding of the phenomena we have experienced, but I very well may be wrong on that, and it wouldn't shake the foundations of my world if I was.

[IH]

How is a theory a fact again?

[Elias_the_thief]

I probably should of answered this question seriously.

[Nightson]

How is a theory a fact again?

A theory is 'a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.' Evolution has been repeatedly tested to the point that the chance of the core concept of evolution (common ancestry, speciation, natural selection) being wrong is effectively zero.

[Thestatusquo]

I probably should of answered this question seriously.

QFT.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I believe in Che

[Thesp]

Evolution has been repeatedly tested to the point that the chance of the core concept of evolution (common ancestry, speciation, natural selection) being wrong is effectively zero.

I'm very uncertain that you can assert this.

[vollkan]

Evolution has been repeatedly tested to the point that the chance of the core concept of evolution (common ancestry, speciation, natural selection) being wrong is effectively zero.

I'm very uncertain that you can assert this.

Actually, I would "assert" it. There is no actual scientific evidence rebutting to "core concepts" of evolution. Any disagreement is primarily over minor subsidiary things (ie. whether or not genes are mere book-keepers or whether they are causative).

No respectable scientific doubt remains about the fact of evolution itself.

[Sarcastro]

GRAVITY IS A MYTH! It's only a theory! I choose not to believe that we are bound to the earth like mere apes! We have airplanes, ergo gravity is not real. I DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT. I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF EVIDENCE PLUS COMMON SENSE IS COMPLETELY WRONG, AS I CONSIDER MYSELF AMONG THE PREMIER PHYSICISTS IN THE WORLD! RAWR!

[Guardian]

I agree with Sarcastro.

[pickemgenius]

Shit happens

[Dani Banani]

I have my suspicions that evolution is an inaccurate understanding of the phenomena we have experienced, but I very well may be wrong on that, and it wouldn't shake the foundations of my world if I was.

i'm VERY interested in the specifics of this statement (hypothesis, theory, opinion, whatever), and also interested in reconciling how evolution fits into a spiritual belief that the Bible is the word of God...

[Zindaras]

If evolution isn't true, then what is?

[joost]

The more you read in this area, the more you will see the evidence for evolution. Creationism and intelligence design (IDiocy) have no place whatsoever in a science classroom, other than as exemplars of "How not to think".

Theology is a science and I think that is where the evolution vs Creationism/ID should take place, in a theology classroom.

The problem with this debate is that if there is God, anything's possible. God could have made the earth look like it was older than it actually is to fool poor biologists and geologists and physicists. A scientist however should not be bothered with this possibility. He should accept that what he sees is the truth and if he does not believe it he should find another job.

[zu_Faul]

I don't know what this "evolution" thing is, but yesterday a friend of mine was so drunk he said the earth was not flat. We laughed at him for two hours!