How many people here actually believe in the theory of evolution?

[genius]

Poll question: How many people here actually believe in the theory of evolution?

The Democrats have become known as the party of gay marraige, abortion and evolution. I consider it simply to be the party of open-mindedness and equality. So I thought I'd check out what percentages of Democrats are stereotypical (according to Republican-created stereotypes).

[niyad]

1. well, I do tend to believe, but then the rethuglicans, like bush, tend to

make me doubt that they evolved from anything.

[Trajan]

2. Most reasonable explanation ...

for observable evidence .....

[frogmarch]

8. Absolutely

[daninthemoon]

23. Way cool graphics dealy.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. Lovely! I believe!

Evolution is one of the most elegant theories around. If there is an Intelligent Diety, he/she/it definitely dreamed up evolution.

Probably the only debate left is whether the double stranded helix came first or whether certain basic enzymatic proteins come first in the cosmic soup, which in turn tend to reproduce themselves using the a double helix of nucleic acids. I have seen biologists argue themselves blue in the face on that one. I go for the proteins came first and they used nucleic acids to reproduce themselves.

[firefox]

3. People that believe in evolution do not call it a theory n/t

[Carla in Ca]

11. Right on

Remember the story about a month or so ago regarding the elephants in China and India now being born without tusks?
Something you can see is way beyond theory. Also, how does the Catholic church explain the dinosaurs? I assume they do not believe they existed at all.

[tocqueville]

20. the catholics don't have a problem with dinosaurs

remember that the New Testament is central for Catholics. The Old Testament is more considered as a source of inspiration, not a factual representation... specially Genesis.

[Carla in Ca]

31. Thank you for explaining that

I admit I'm not a religious-minded person but I do appreciate learning and understanding all points of view.

[JDPriestly]

110. Same as mainstream Protestants who read

the Bible in its historical context.

[bklyncowgirl]

48. The Catholic Church came to terms with evolution many years ago.

Evolution is taught as established science in Catholic schools. What's ironic is that if the Fundies have their way, the only way for your kid to get a proper education in biology will be for you to enroll him or her in a Catholic school.

[Psephos]

13. However, scientists who believe in evolution do call it a theory

A well-supported theory, and a theory I firmly trust, but a theory nonetheless.

That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. BTW, our understanding of gravity is also a theory. So is our concept of electromagnetic radiation. So is our idea of how the Sun and other stars produce heat and light. So is....etc. etc.

Peace.

[Demoiselle]

76. In this case, "theory" is used to mean a coherent system

of solid evidence leading to a certain conclusion. The operable word is "system"...and we see this system at work everyday in petri dishes in labs all over the world where germs mutate into other germs. If and when the bird flu crosses the line and can transmit itself from human to human instead of bird to human...we will have once again witnessed a mutation that is absolute concrete evidence of evolution. That said, I believe that evolution is certainly not "proof" there is no god...I just think we need to imagine god considerably grander and bigger and more mysterious than our tiny minds can really contain. I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Psephos]

78. I rather like your soapbox :-) nt

[China_cat]

17. People who know evolution to be a fact

also know the scientific definition of 'theory'...and it ain't "wild assed guess".

Evolution; the change in allele frequency over time.
Theory; the explanation for observable phenomena which is subject to change as understanding increases.

Creationism: god dun it. Not subject to testing, change or questioning.

[Trajan]

24. Gravity is a reality ...

and how it is caused is a theory .... subject to change when new information is found ....

[Admiral Loinpresser]

38. Perhaps you are being ironic,

but the term "theory" as used by scientists, shouldn't be confused with the colloquial use of the word, which would be more akin to speculation or hypothesis.

In a scientific context a theory is, roughly speaking, an explanation of phenomena. A successful theory, such as evolution, gravity or special relativity, is one which is progressively confirmed and expanded by experimental data.

I have heard pseudo-intellectuals on the right, e.g. Tucker Carlson say evolution is "just" a theory. All that demonstrates is their lack of education.

[bowens43]

51. There is the fact and the theory.

The fact is that evolution has occurred , is occurring and unless we destroy all life on this planet, will continue to occur. The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the fact of evolution.

[Roland99]

90. Two separate things. Evolution, itself, is a FACT. The Theory involves HOW

it works.

[Birthmark]

4. "Believe in" evolution?

Yeah, the same way I "believe in" gravity. :)

[firefox]

34. Is that the theory of gravity? n/t

[Birthmark]

41. Yup.

And the theories of chemistry, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and a host of other unproven theories. :woohoo:

[tk2kewl]

5. it's not a matter for belief or disbelief

its a scientific theory that has been tested and upheld by evidence

[WindRavenX]

6. ^^what he said

[genius]

9. Actually, it has never been proven and is usually fails the tests.

That's why the theory itself keeps evolving.

[WindRavenX]

14. no, it's that's not why it "fails"

The hypothesis of evolution- that is, that small changes accumulate over time to result in speciation- is one that cannot be PROVEN, but it also has not been disproved. That's how hypothesis work.
We know the speciation exists vis a vis natural selection and allele frequency; we just don't know the further mechanics

[HereSince1628]

88. Small changes accumulating over time is a very small part of evolution

Technically the name for one species evolving into one other species is called anagenesis. It has a problem with respect to generating diversity... it doesn't. One species turns into one other species you end up with exactly the number of species you started with.

Anagenesis may well occur but for obvious reasons biologists consider cladogenesis rather more true to the evolution of species and for various reasons they are quite sure cladogenesis (one species branching into more than one) much more common. Cladogenesis is typically modelled as one species turning rather abruptly into two. This process can increase the number of species and it or something like it is responsible for species diversity.

Also, the theory of evolution typically isn't tested as a whole. Rather, specific predictions of it are. I am not aware of the basic framework of the modern synthesis of evolution every failing.

However as a biologist I am well aware that it isn't perfect. If it

[Dr Fate]

64. And I suppose ID would be a static theory with no new ideas, ever?

Interesting.

And changes in gene frequencies HAS been proven- did you sleep through the lesson on meosis in high school biology? It is observable through a simple microscope.

Are you suggesting that meoisis has not been occuring for the millions of years that life has existed on this earth?

[Ediacara]

70. I'm sorry buddy, but this is a lie

It's not a misstatement, it's not an interpretation of the facts, it's a lie. You may not know it's a lie, but it is. There are literally thousands of recognized examples of observed speciation.

I am going to give you a list of references describing observed speciation. This list is by no means exhaustive, I simply got lazy and I didn't want to type.

Auffenberg, W and W W Milstead. 1965. Reptiles in the Quaternary of North America. In: Wright, H E and D G Frey (eds.), The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, Pp. 557-568.

Beadle, S C. 1991. The biogeography of origin and radiation: Dendrasterid sand dollars in the northeastern Pacific. Paleobiology 17: 325-339.

Cheetham, A H. 1986. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: Rates of morphological change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology 12: 190-202.

Greenwood, P H. 1965. The cichlid fishes of Lake Nabugabo, Uganda. British Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Zoology) 12: 315-357.

Greenwood, P H. 1974. The cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria, East Africa: The biology and evolution of a species flock. British Museum (Natural History) Bulletin, Suppliment 6: 1-134.

Johnson, M W. 1953. The copepod Cyclops dimorphys Kiefer from the Salton Sea. American Midland Naturalist 49: 188-192.

Johnson, T C, C A Scholz, M R Talbot, K Kelts, R D Ricketts, G Ngobi, I S Beuning, and J W McGill. 1996. Late Pleistocene desiccation of Lake Victoria and rapid evolution of cichlid fishes. Science 273: 1091-1093.

Miller, R R. 1950. Speciation of fishes in the genera Cyprinodon and Empertrichthys inhabiting the Death Valley region. Evolution 4: 155-163.

Miller, R R. 1961. Speciation rates in some fresh-water fishes of western North America. In: Blair, W F (ed.) Vertebrate Speciation. Austin, TX. University of Texas Press, Pp. 537-560.

Trawavas, E, J Green, and S A Corbet. 1972. Ecological studies on crater lakes in West Cameroon Fishes of Barombi Mbo. Journal of Zoology 167: 41-95.

Zimmerman, E C. 1960. Possible evidence of rapid evolution in Hawaiian moths. Evolution 14: 137-138.

[bee]

83. hmm yes. as opposed to religion. Now I see your point.

if only science had faith to lean on. Proving things is for suckers. no? :shrug:

[ChoralScholar]

58. That sounds a bit like the fundies' views on God

"It doesn't matter if you believe it... it's true anyway."

Not bashing you... just reading your subject line struck a familiar chord.

[tk2kewl]

79. 'cept one has evidence the other does not

that is the point about science... theories are supported by evidence and repeatable scrutiny

if one chooses not to believe a theory, without actually having contrary evidence and repeatable results through experimentation then one is not to be taken seriously

[gratuitous]

7. Actually, evolution isn't a theory

It's an observed fact that organisms change or evolve over time. The "theory" part of the explanation for that observable is whether these changes are the result of natural selection, survival of the fittest, punctuated equilibrium, some combination of these factors, or something else.

But I answered your poll "yes" anyway.

[genius]

21. I have a response to that.

It would relate to the lack of evidence that any species has ever evolved from another. However, I'm don't really care about convincing anyone of my point of view on this. I just wanted to see where people stood on the theory. To me, arguing evolution is like arguing religion and I think that that is why it has hurt our party so much. Also, no one is going to convince anything when it comes to this. People have to make their own decision as to what they believe.

[WindRavenX]

26. Species don't evolve from one to another

We didn't evolve "from" apes or monkeys; we share a recent common ancestor with apes.

Species diverge- they don't evolve from one to another.

:banghead:

[genius]

27. You are entitled to your theory.

This is just a poll.

[WindRavenX]

28. No, it's not just a theory

This is based on factual, testable, evidence.
It's not a theory.

I suggest you attempt to educate yourself on some basic principles of evolutionary biology before you try to pass science as "just opinion".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[buddysmellgood]

108. But your can't have your own facts. You have to share facts.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

47. The way I learned it, there have been some evolutionary dead-ends

which became extinct, ie Neandertal.

On the other hand, there were other species in the course of evolution that were on the same line that we are on, and they did over a long period of time become a new species, eventually homo sapiens.

And there were other species that were the ancestors of today's "Great Apes," : Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps.

Those earlier species are also gone.

There are "primitive" primates alive today, (other than the neocons), like the lemur and loris which are believed to be similar to some of the earliest species of primates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. But if that common ancestor was an ape

then surely we evolved from an ape - just not a present-day species of ape. My understanding of normal biological classification is that we, in fact, are still an ape, being a member of the superfamily Hominoidea.

[WindRavenX]

62. yes we are still "ape"

But the way that the original poster worded it, it sounded like we evolved from the apes that around *today*, which is incorrect :hi:

[Tom Bombadil]

115. So by the same theory

domestic dogs have not all evolved from the wolf as I previously thought? Their common ancestor may have been a wolf-like creature.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

80. Yep we're among the Great Apes with only a small

difference in DNA from the chimp, like I've heard 2% difference somewhere.

[Dr Fate]

66. The reason you dont want to argue it is because you are wrong. n/t

n/t

[Ediacara]

71. Speciation HAS been observed

Please see:

Auffenberg, W and W W Milstead. 1965. Reptiles in the Quaternary of North America. In: Wright, H E and D G Frey (eds.), The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, Pp. 557-568.

Beadle, S C. 1991. The biogeography of origin and radiation: Dendrasterid sand dollars in the northeastern Pacific. Paleobiology 17: 325-339.

Cheetham, A H. 1986. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: Rates of morphological change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology 12: 190-202.

Greenwood, P H. 1965. The cichlid fishes of Lake Nabugabo, Uganda. British Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Zoology) 12: 315-357.

Greenwood, P H. 1974. The cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria, East Africa: The biology and evolution of a species flock. British Museum (Natural History) Bulletin, Suppliment 6: 1-134.

Johnson, M W. 1953. The copepod Cyclops dimorphys Kiefer from the Salton Sea. American Midland Naturalist 49: 188-192.

Johnson, T C, C A Scholz, M R Talbot, K Kelts, R D Ricketts, G Ngobi, I S Beuning, and J W McGill. 1996. Late Pleistocene desiccation of Lake Victoria and rapid evolution of cichlid fishes. Science 273: 1091-1093.

Miller, R R. 1950. Speciation of fishes in the genera Cyprinodon and Empertrichthys inhabiting the Death Valley region. Evolution 4: 155-163.

Miller, R R. 1961. Speciation rates in some fresh-water fishes of western North America. In: Blair, W F (ed.) Vertebrate Speciation. Austin, TX. University of Texas Press, Pp. 537-560.

Trawavas, E, J Green, and S A Corbet. 1972. Ecological studies on crater lakes in West Cameroon Fishes of Barombi Mbo. Journal of Zoology 167: 41-95.

Zimmerman, E C. 1960. Possible evidence of rapid evolution in Hawaiian moths. Evolution 14: 137-138.

[progressive_realist]

25. That's my answer, too.

Even well-informed people often overlook the distinction.

[CarbonDate]

10. Yes. I also believe in gay marriage and abortion rights.

Don't you?

[mestup]

12. "Then why are there still monkeys and apes on earth, huh?"

I swear to God, this is my evangelical neighbor's reason for stating "evolution is made up."

LOL!

[Vickers]

15. Tell him, "Well GIVE 'em a few years, huh?"

"They'll come around!" :spank:

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. Did you ask him how a Chimp got in the White House?

Oh wait.... that was fraud, not evolution.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Why are there still Englishmen?

[rfrrfrrfr]

89. You don't believe or not believe in evolution.

Science is not a belief system. It is a process for explaining observed FACTS. You may choose to prefer one explanation (theory) over another for a set of observed facts, especially in a case where not all the facts are known and assumptions are made like in the Theory of Evolution.

Fundies always get confused because they look at science as a belief system in conflict with their own belief system. That is not the case

[Speck Tater]

16. OMFG! You are kidding right?

Do you believe in Newton's Theory of Gravity? It is only a theory, you know, and has been proven false to boot! Einstein's theory of Gravity is a little closer, but still just a theory.

So do you believe in the theory of gravity? Can you levitate?

Oh, wait. Gravity is an observed FACT, and the various "theories" of gravity are attempts to explain the observed FACT of gravity.

Just as the various "theories" of evolution (there are more than just Darwin's) are various attempts to explain the observed FACT of evolution.

People who don't know the meaning of the word theory shouldn't be allowed to utter it! Sheesh!

[TheFarseer]

18. It's pretty obvious

from fossil evidence and so on that evolution is a pretty air-tight theory. Is it possible that God started evolution? Yes. Possible enough that it should be taught in school? No way.

[BillZBubb]

19. Evolution is a fact.

As someone else noted, the only issues still be to decided involve the exact mechanisms involved. Is the primary driving mechanism mutation/natural selection or something else? Is the process continuous or punctuated? There are theories about these issues.

Evolution, though, is not in doubt. It happens.

[wiley]

35. Exactly.

It is extremely rare that theories get disproven, if only because those scientists who have novel concepts or ideas rarely get the support of the scientific community to either generate evidence to either support or not support a theory. Consider the recent winner of the Nobel prize who suggested for decades that a bacteria could cause ulcers. To say he was treated in a hostile manner by the scientific community is an understatement. The theory of evolution is extremely well supported. If the public had access to the original documents that were written by early religious leaders, such as the Bible before King James edited it for political purposes, we could easy disprove the whole concept of creationism or whatever they are calling it now. Religions are belief systems. I don't see the need for any religion to prove or disprove any hypothesis, since it's not science in the first place. Unless of course they are trying to do so for political or social manipulation purposes.

[Lexingtonian]

22. you might want to

distinguish between "personally believe in" and (something like) "impersonally believe in", should you try further pollings.

I'd be interested in the age distributions. My impression is that there is a very strong correlation with generation.

But it's a nice and interesting poll. My compliments.

I'm one of the people who finds Evolution the respectible material explanation, but I see value to the creation myth(s) as serious attempt(s) at psychological explanation(s) of the world.

[ochazuke]

29. How sad

that we live in a country where there are so many idiots. An old acquaintance phoned me up the other day. She doesn't believe that we came from apes. Well isn't that special.

[mrdmk]

104. Primates is a better word, but then again some fundy may think we

are just having sex all of the time.

In truth this could be a power grab playing on other peoples ignorance or by simplifying the world into black and white with no shades of grey.

[norml]

32. It's the reality and fact based party verses the party of make believe.

I guess that makes me close minded within the confines of your loaded question?

[Hardrada]

33. Letter on Intelligent Design I sent to Des Moines Register

Dear Editor:

I am continually puzzled by the attempts by the Christian Right to attempt to include Creationism or its more subtle variant, Intelligent Design, in the curriculum of public schools. I fail to see how that would advance their purposes. Even if one could somehow get past experimental science and reason to come up with some kind of Divine Watchmaker or Celestial Mechanic, one would still be only at the point of Jeffersonian Deism. It is totally inconceivable that one could then equate this remote Being to any of the menbers of the Holy Trinity as carefully delineated in the Ecumenical Creeds of Christendom: the Apostle's, the Nicene and the Athanasian. The distance to be travelled is too great. In fact, it would almost be better for those religious leaders who prosper on unanalyzed beliefs (Faith alone etc.) not to even make this kind of demand since it might actually lead to some uncalled-for speculation by some members of their flock!

[IndianaGreen]

36. Fundies believe that Noah had dinosaurs in his Ark

Fundamentalists are proof that evolution can sometimes cause some species to go backwards in their development.

[Bridget Burke]

73. No, they were too big to fit!

That's why they all died.

[Clarkie1]

37. Yes, we are the party open-mindedness.

We are also the party of science and reason, and that's a good thing.

[frogmarch]

39. Defender's Guide

to Science and Creationism:

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/4.html


Introduction:

While creationists may disagree with one another about the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, they are unanimous in rejecting evolution. Strictly "biological" arguments are dealt with in this section; arguments concerning the fossil record are dealt with in section V; and moral, theological, and philosophical objections are dealt with in sections VI and VII.

Good link to keep handy if you're surrounded by IDers, as I am!

[ET Awful]

52. Any explanation that includes two chapters like

4.10: Mutations are always harmful.

4.11: Mutations are rarely beneficial, so they cannot drive evolution. Would you want your house built by a carpenter who made 99 bad houses for every good one?

These directly contradict each other (you can't have something be "always harmful" and "rarely beneficial" at the same time).

Sorry it's simply more hokus pokus mythology.

edit: Ooops, I hadn't read the chapters themselves, just the headings :). My apologies :)

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The_Casual_Observer]

42. It's a law of nature not a theory.

Calling it a theory makes it sound as though it is a construct. Evolution, like Newton's laws would be in action regardless of the existence of man.

[dweller]

43. nah, don't believe in anything

eventually everyone will all reach the same point of reference/view.

is that evolution?

dp

[BlueCaliDem]

45. I'm A Democrat, A Christian, and I believe that Evolution is Fact...

...so what category do I get to be placed in?

It's a myth that it's impossible to be a liberal Democrat, a person who believes in christianity, and one who can also believe that there's enough evidence that proved evolution as fact beyond any reasonable doubt (although I never liked science, and was BAD in it) both scientifically, as well as in her private life.

Evolution happens everyday, to everyone, and just about everything and contrary to what religious doctrines try to tell people, evolution is very much supported in both the old as well as the new testament (or more correctly known as "Hebrew and Greek scriptures").

[Solon]

46. While I voted for believing the theory of evolution...

the current one, that is, I do not think that those words are appropriate. Its not a matter of BELIEF so much as a matter of fact and observation. The evidence to support the theory is out there, all you have to do is look. That's all Darwin did, look at the World's various species, with no preconceptions, and decided to try to explain what he saw that would explain how all species on Earth came to be. This was before genetics, before microscopes were in wide use, and before we had computers, Babbage's machines excepted(Never used though). All he had was two eyes, two ears, a brain, and a pen and paper, and with just those tools he turned the entire world upside down, as many great discoverers before him and after him were wont to do.

[0007]

49. What else is there, besides fairy tales?

[bowens43]

50. There is FACT of evolution and there is the Theory of evolution.

Evolution is fact. There is no doubt of that. Life changes over time. The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain that fact. As new evidence emerges the theory will change. As far as theories go, the Theory of Evolution is probably one of the best theories science has ever had. It really has nothing to do with belief.

[Bridget Burke]

75. And the Theory continues to evolve.

Anyone who speaks of a Monolithic Scientific Establishment has never been around scientists. There have been many controversies about the details of evolution & controversies continue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Give me 3 days, some bacteria, and a petri dish

And I'll show you evolution in action.

[Dr Fate]

65. Exactly- changes in gene frequencies is an observable fact.

n/t

[seaglass]

54. What causes the change of seasons on earth?

My astronomy prof showed us a short film about science education. He interviewed Harvard graduates (on graduation day) and asked this question.

Every one of them said that seasons are caused by the changing distance between the Earth and Sun (and I would have answered the same before this class).

My point is that people have set beliefs that make sense to them but they are not necessarily based on evidence. How many people that disregard evolution actually know any of the evidence that supports it?

[nickinSTL]

56. I 'believe' in it, the same way I 'believe' in gravity

The problem with this question, and the rw framing of evolution as 'just a theory', is a fundamental lack of understanding among most Americans as to what really constitutes a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is not just some vague idea someone dreamed up to try to figure out how something might have happened.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an event based on available evidence.

Right now, evolution is the best explanation we've developed on how humans and modern plants, animals, etc. came to be what they are today, based on the fossil and genetic evidence.

If at some point, further evidence comes along that makes it clear that evolution isn't quite right (can't really imagine it changing significantly, though) - there will be a new theory, based on the new evidence.

The question of the OP isn't really accurate, as evolution isn't a matter of 'belief'. God is...religion is. Evolution is not. It isn't a matter of faith. It is a matter of theory based on evidence.

[ChoralScholar]

57. I believe wholeheartedly the idea

of natural selection. We can see it occurring all around us in animals and insects.

Now, as far as extrapolating that for billions of years, I'm not sure sometimes. It's a pretty big pill to swallow.

[Mountainman]

59. If people can breed dogs and other animals to get the best qualities

by mating animals with the qualities they want, why then could it not happen by accident over a long period of time?

I believe that the traits a species acquires that help it survive are maintained and passed along to future generations. The ones that don't are not maintained. It just makes sense.

The only thing that tends to put some doubt in my head is the fact that the population in this country is getting dumbed down. May be ignorance is bliss and that it is a survival trait.

[Hardrada]

61. I think we should keep this going

some more. And no one jumped in with any theology about my post! Usually people have some opinions on the topic.

[Dr Fate]

63. Supporting actual science is a stereotype I'll gladly accept. n/t

n/t

[mrcheerful]

69. Oh geeeees

I really think the invisible man did it all in 6 days and man is just a big dust bunny. Wonder why man is the only creature that the faithful has told about how he was made? Does that mean that horses are made from pork rinds and glue? Its funny how ID just says we appeared one day after god got bored playing with lions tigers bears and whatever happened to the unicorn? Myth is a story made up for why an unknown event happening so its explained and we don't have to fear it, thunder is god bowling, etc etc. Theories are stories made up because of finding something unknown and every the rory has facts to back it up, theory's change as new evidence comes in. Myth remains the same because there is no evidence to prove one way or another. If myth's were actually viable, then roman gods and greek gods and the rest should also be taken as science. Why is it that out of the world only one place came up with 3 religions, actually 2 but the third was an off shoot of The hebrews. So most of the bible only deals with one small part of the world, the middle east, though there is a reference to Egypt in Exodus, theres no mention of the rest of the world in the entire bible. Now how does that explain life and where or who created life?

[derby378]

67. There's a basic flaw with the question itself

It's not a matter of whether or not you believe in evolution anymore than you believe in gravity, photosynthesis, or plate tectonics. It's all a matter of what the evidence we discover through sound, objective research can teach us. Was there once a supercontinent that we've labelled "Pangaea?" Were the Himalayas created by the collision of the Indian sub-continent with southeastern Asia? Does hemoglobin in human blood accumulate oxygen from the lungs? The answers to all of these questions are completely independent of what our own personal beliefs might be.

Creationism, acupuncture, mesmerism, and homeopathy may exhibit patterns and procedures that are very methodical in nature and have at least the appearance of scientific grounding, but if a system is based on presupposed beliefs or some sort of exclusive dogma, you can't really call it scientific. You have to leave yourself open for any and all possibilities, including the possibility that new evidence refutes one of your favorite theories.

As Werner Heisenberg once said, "What we observe is not Nature itself, but Nature exposed to our line of questioning."

[GumboYaYa]

68. It seems that there are three basic and irrefutable premises

that make it extremely hard, if not impossible, to refute the fact of evolution. If you can disprove the argument without resorting to a mythical being in the sky interupting biological processes, I look forward to reading it.

1. All living things have a parent. (basic biology)
2. Some living things are different from other living things. (an obvious truth)
3. Complex creatures appeared on Earth after more simple organisms. (the fossil record provides abundant evidence of this)

Combine the three premises together and it presents a very rational argument that complex life evolved from simpler organisms. There is am amazing amount of empirical evidence that supports this. I have yet to see any empirical evidence that supports ID.

That does not explain the mechanisms of evolution, but cerainly provides a reasonable basis to beleive that it does exist.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

82. Interesting and it also makes one wonder what they

believe about other things, living or otherwise in the universe.

The universe is incredibly complex in almost all ways when examined in sufficient detail, ie microscopically for the cellular or molecular structure. Telescopes etc for the distant and large planets, stars, galaxies, nebulae that inhabit space.

So just how much of that complexity and beauty do they attribute to the "intelligent designer?"

All? Only the current human state? Or some but not all of the universe.

And why don't they just accept that whatever causal forces exist in the universe are one and the same in some sense.

Evolution happens, and why can't they believe that is part of the overall "intelligent design?"

[HR_Pufnstuf]

72. I believe what the Govt believes.

From the Govt site:



AGE OF THE EARTH
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

[Catchawave]

74. "Lucy in the Sky", my contribution here:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm

And, I believe in Lucy :)

[shance]

77. It's a fact actually and not a theory.

So say those who are experts on the subject.

[bee]

81. who doesnt? thats what I want to know. n/t

[Zodiak]

84. I am a biologist

nuff said

[judy from nj]

85. Why do you say believe?

It is based on scientific fact. The evidence goes from living systems, archiology, DNA sequencing, etc. As of this moment in time Evolution is as proven as the theory of gravity.

[Metta]

86. Long confirmed scientifically. Unquestionably so.

nt.

[hiabrill]

87. A fact or a theory...

... I'm still not entirely convinced...

Evolution is a visible fact within a specific species...

But there isn't any "proof" that one species evolved from a different species. What is the mechanism of evolution that causes one species to change to another...??????

[mrcheerful]

92. Thats because they didn't really evolve from a different species.

Though it is believed that we all had a common ancestor some where back in time. We are just evolved from an earlier animal. where your getting mixed up is from the religious saying we cross evolved. Thats not what happened, you can not cross evolve. If that were the case then man and sheep would have had off spring somewhere. You don't see kitty dogs, trust me dogs have mated with cats. The prime example of this is the mule. Its a cross between horses and donkey's. Mules are born sterile so you can't get a pure breed mule. The myths about women and great apes is just that myth. That was an attempt to explain african slaves and why they weren't fully human.

[biggles1]

93. The role of science is not to "prove".......

....it's actually to DISprove. Theories exist until enough research and analysis have been accumulated to DISprove the theory. Another then usually takes its place. In the case of evolution, there has been NO successful DISPROVING of its claims....and so it maintains.

By the way, Darwinian Evolution does NOT claim that "one species evolved from another", in such a simple fashion. It states that MUTATION occurs within species (the 'mechanism' I think you were looking for) and that these mutated forms will survive to reproduce, or not, according to the process of natural selection. Successive mutations may eventually lead to a unique lifeform, distinguishable from the original from which it originally 'sprang'.

[Crunchy Frog]

91. I believe that the empirical evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

I have never seen anything to make me believe otherwise.

I'm also rather glad to see you sporting your new tombstone. I have suspected you of being a freeper for some time. I guess I wasn't the only one.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

107. How interesting

I wondered that anyone here would take an ID such as that of the OP.

Do the moderators award the tombstones?

[Crunchy Frog]

117. I'm not sure exactly how it works.

I think it's some sort of combination of the mods and the admins. Maybe the admins need to be consulted when it's such a long term, high post count member. I'm sure the mods just zap the really obvious freepers, since they're usually taken care of so quickly.

I've never been a mod, so I'm just speculating.

[johnaries]

94. I'm a Taoist, and the Tao Te Ching says

In the beginning was the One.
The One gave birth to the Two.
The Two gave birth to the Three.
And the Three gave birth to all the myriad things of the Universe.

Sounds like Evolution to me!

[Ladyhawk]

95. Absolutely not! Everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster

created the world, trees, mountains and midgets!

[Auntie Bush]

96. Looks like we got 10 Freepers. I can't imagine any Demos could

not believe in evolution.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Actually, according to statistics that I've seen,

around 40% of people who voted for Kerry believe in Biblical creation, so it's not a problem that's just confined to RWers. Our society as a whole appears to have a major anti-intellectual, anti-science streak that crosses political ideologies.

I was actually pretty relieved to see the numbers so low on this survey. At least we know there's intelligent life here at DU.

[mandyky]

97. Voted yes, but it isn't a bellief

It has pretty much been proven. My son loves dinosaurs and all that Prehistoric stuff and it makes sense to him and me.

[CrackpotAmerica]

98. We Witness Evolution Every Day.

Ever hear of a virus?

[Czolgosz]

99. How many people here actually believe in the theory of vaginal birth?

Some Americans believe storks bring babies, and some believe in the vaginal birth theory. Still other people believe in Intelligent Birth; they don't completely dispute some aspects of the vaginal birth theory, but they believe that children should be taught both the theory of vaginal birth as well as the scientific facts which the vaginal birth theory fails to adequately explain (e.g., how can human babies fit out openings which are obviously too small for a human to fit through?). The Intelligent Birth scientists do not want to preclude all teaching of the vaginal birth theory, they just believe that American school children have the right to hear both sides of the debate and that schools should teach the controversy.

[Crunchy Frog]

100. New evidence for the FSM theory. I may have spoken too soon

in my last post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x13407

It may have been the Noodly Appendage after all.

[frogmarch]

101. poem

I never saw a fish that walked
I may not ever see one
But till Darwin I decide to mock
I'll admit I used to be one

~ by me

[Ladyhawk]

102. Ramen! In the name of the Pasta, the Sauce and the Holy Meatballs! n/t

[gristy]

105. I believe in the fact of evolution

It is as indisputable as the nose on one's face.

[buddysmellgood]

106. Believe is a word for religion. Your question should be, How many can

present evidence to refute the theory.

[flaminbats]

109. Evolution is only a fact of life..

but Social Darwinism and the New Deal are moral beliefs or political ideologies of how Natural Selection should effect our government's role.

[DaveColorado]

111. I was touched by His Noodley Appendage

nt

[pookieblue]

112. I voted yes.

But I just had to share this gem from another message board... someone posted a bit of triva


Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Eggs. Reptiles were laying eggs thousands of years before chickens appeared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

and her answer to that was

Quote:
-------------------------------------------
That's a matter of your religious beliefs.
-------------------------------------------



I guess she either doesn't believe in Dinos OR thinks that they were around with everyone else (mammaels and the like..)

[Bridget Burke]

113. "All About Dinosaurs" by Roy Chapman Andrews...

Was the first book that came to my house from the Weekly Reader Book Club. He wrote about discovering dinosaur eggs in the Gobi Desert.

So me & my sister became dinosaur fans. I'm as appalled as anyone at the Creationist ignorance. But there are still legions of young dino fans out there.

[Northwind]

114. Wow, at time of this post...

We have 10 complete idiots in here.

[catabryna]

116. I'm glad to see that...

no one has referred to as "complete idiots" the 13 people who do, or may, believe in a combination of both. Many liberal Christians see a marriage of both evolution and creationsim and believe that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I happen to believe in theistic evolution, i.e., that the birth of the tools necessary for all life to take hold were created by God and that He allowed nature to take over from there in the same manner discovered by scientists.

Then there are others who believe in "long-day" creation. I, however, haven't been able to wrap my head around that one.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate my beliefs, I just wanted to posit that for many, it's not one way or the other but a beautiful mixture of both.

Edit: typo

[AX10]

118. Evolution is a fact.