Do You Believe in Evolution?

[Jäger]

Hey everyone,

in a recent thread I made the notion that by not believing in Evolution things as race get declined.
This, I admit, was not correct, better put, by not beleiveing in Evolution things as race can be more easily declined, since the only counter movements to Evolution seem to be religious ones.

Siegfried then made the remark that

There is a positive statistical correlation between acceptance of evolution and knowledge of biology.

Therefor I am starting this poll, and by evolution I mean Macroevolution (Thanks to Horagalles )

[Janus]

Argh...

Why should I believe at all? So far it as a theory and why should I believe in a theory. It's one of the major mistakes of modern mankind that it takes theories for facts and has this either-or mentality. I prefer another way. I'm not taking anything for fact untill it is proven. Why would I have to decide between several possible theories? I prefer to make more than just one or two theories about certain issues and I'm already quite near at the truth. Unfortunatly I have no clue at all which one the truth is so eventually I do not make dogmatic assumptions.

[Jäger]

So far it as a theory and why should I believe in a theory.

For a premise.

[Bridie]

I think that Wikipedia definition is biased (and crap).

It's not so much unlikely that random genetic mutations will occur within a species, and then that some of those "mutant" characteristics will be advantageous for the individual's or species' survival - thereby ensuring that those characteristics/individuals will be "naturally selected", so to speak, and shape a new sub-species or variations within a sub-species.... what's unlikely imo, is that these genetic mutations could be so vastly numerous and seemingly intelligently determined, as to lead to the creation of billions of forms of insect, bird, fish and animal life from one single cell life-form.

[Siegfried]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

"This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."

For an online HTML version, click here.


I would like to add that when voting, one should distinguish between evolution itself and the theoretical mechanisms and forces that may drive it.

[Zyklop]

It's not so much unlikely that random genetic mutations will occur within a species, and then that some of those "mutant" characteristics will be advantageous for the individual's or species' survival - thereby ensuring that those characteristics/individuals will be "naturally selected", so to speak, and shape a new sub-species or variations within a sub-species.... what's unlikely imo, is that these genetic mutations could be so vastly numerous and seemingly intelligently determined, as to lead to the creation of billions of forms of insect, bird, fish and animal life from one single cell life-form.

Evolution is a process that took billions of years. How can the human mind grasp such a span of time and then judge what is likely or unlikely to happen during it?

[Siegfried]

Do you believe modern flora and fauna, as well as mankind, evolved from earlier forms of life? And, given that this is a heathen forum, how does your opinion on evolution tie in with your religious views?

[Sciz]

Evolution for me!

Argh...

Why should I believe at all? So far it as a theory and why should I believe in a theory. It's one of the major mistakes of modern mankind that it takes theories for facts and has this either-or mentality.

I think the problem lies in the fact that when the general public speaks of a "theory," they actually mean "hypothesis," which is a different animal than a scientific theory.

Compare

Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

to

Scientific Theory:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws."

Perhaps it's subtle, but the underlying diference is of great importance when used in a scientific setting.

Other scientific "theories," which are the basis of modern science include:

Gravitational Theory:
That any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Atomic Theory:
Explaination of the structure of the atom.

Theory of Relativity:
That space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts.

Germ Theory:
That contagious diseases are caused by microorganisms.

Cell Theory:
That cells form the fundamental structural and functional units of all living organisms.

Without these "theories" our understanding of the world falls apart and we go back superstitions like demonic possesion as the cause of illnesses and the spontaneous generation of flies from animal feces.

Out of polite curiosity, what would you propose as a logical replacement for evolution? I'm open to new ideas, but as of yet, I haven't seen any contender that can stand up to the scientific method.

On a second note, if evolution is not a correct theory, how does one explain readily identifiable facts such as the differences in racial and sub-racial taxonomies?

[Bridie]

Evolution is a process that took billions of years. How can the human mind grasp such a span of time and then judge what is likely or unlikely to happen during it?

Well when I said "likely" or "unlikely" I was merely theorising. But nevertheless, you make an important point - I can't truly grasp it at all, (and neither can any other human) which is why I don't commit myself to believing in the Theory of Evolution.... I remain skeptical. On the same token, you must acknowledge then that the human mind cannot grasp the true reason for, significance of, nor mechanisms that control the universe and life itself - so how could one be so convinced of the process in which life came to be organised?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could jump in a time machine and go back and see what happened for ourselves? This is the only way that anything could ever be proven as a fact. Until then Macroevolution remains an unproven theory.

So those of you that believe in (the random nature of) evolution think that the presence and forms of all life on earth is a mere co-incidence? Imo, the time scale is of no consequence really.... it is more of a question of whether or not it seems reasonable that all life on earth as it is has just "accidently" come about. If one can believe that there is no "intelligence" behind the order of the universe or not. To some people this "intelligence" will be God, to others not - depending on personal beliefs.

I'm assuming you all believe in the "Big Bang" theory too?

[Bridie]

Scientific Theory:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws."

1) "Well-substantiated" does not = factual.
2) "accepted knowledge" implies that it is trendy at the time, and not fixed. Facts are fixed.... "accepted" knowledge is not.
3) "theories can incorporate facts and laws" - implying that theories are not factual, nor laws in their own rights at all - but they can incorporate them. Does a cake = an egg just because eggs may be used in the recipe?