What do you think of Evolution

[X-TruthorDare-X]

Well basiclly the tittle says it all
Any ways like Charles Darwin I am a Religious man( well kindof) who also believes in evolution i read his book and watched any program that has him envolved on it. I also have talked about him to other people who think of him as a great man who had a very good idea....yet sadly due to the Christian church (btw not a Christian) other ppl think that this a retarted theroy yet they do not understand that Evolution never says that there isn't a higher power that causes us to well evolve.......i would like to hear your guyses opinions on this topic

[theShamanOfSexy]

kinerinninja1

Well basiclly the tittle says it all
Any ways like Charles Darwin I am a Religious man( well kindof) who also believes in evolution i read his book and watched any program that has him envolved on it. I also have talked about him to other people who think of him as a great man who had a very good idea....yet sadly due to the Christian church (btw not a Christian) other ppl think that this a retarted theroy yet they do not understand that Evolution never says that there isn't a higher power that causes us to well evolve.......i would like to hear your guyses opinions on this topic

All that people have to do is look around and open their minds to other possibilities. A question: if a man said he wasn't the father of a child and a DNA paternity test proved with a 97% accuracy that he was the father would you believe he was the father?

Interesting that most people would say yes since we share that much DNA with chimpanzees. But that's just a coincidence i suppose...

If you look close enough there's evolution in human beings. On the equator, where it's blaring hot year round, people are born tanner than those born in Alaska. I'm not talking about people that gets tans themselves, but the ones BORN that way. There's no sun in the womb...

It also amazes me that most people who believe in evolution think it's possible for animals to evolve over millions of years, but not humans. We had to start somewhere. We didn't just pop here out of thin air...

[X-TruthorDare-X]

u r right if we couldn't have just popped into excistence by some unkown force and the evidence is ther look at our dna it is basicly the same as chimps

[Le Surgeon]

kinerinninja1

The tittle says it all!

[Reclusiarch Grimaldus]

I think the biggest problem people seem to have with evolution is understanding what it means.

Many people that I encounter who deny evolution seem to have the misconception that evolution has something to do with planetary sciences, cosmology, or any other sciences apart from biology for that matter. I honestly have no idea where they're getting this. Evolution applies only to the gradual change of species over time. It also says nothing of the origin of life (people probably get confused since Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" by which he meant the origin of the diversity of life, not life itself) that would be Abiogenesis, which itself is a very sound theory.

Additionally, most people seem to generally attack "evolution" itself, confusing it with Darwin's theory. Evolution isn't a theory proposed by Charles Darwin, it's an observable trend in the fossil record. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, however, is the theory proposed by Darwin which details the mechanism which produces the observable trend of evolution. Evolution and Natural Selection are not inseparable. This however doesn't make Darwin's theory any less reputable or true. After many years of refining Darwin's initial proposition, scientists have by in large concluded that the theory as it stands now has been proven to be demonstrably true, remaining a theory only to compensate for new data or future modifications which may not be evident to us now.

Those who imply "it is only a theory and can therefore be entirely wrong" do not understand what a theory is (for instance, gravity, black holes and even germs that cause diseases are still theories.) Those who look at the fossil record (though often choose not to,) observe the ways in which humans produce the same effects artificially (the various breeds of dogs or the existence of cattle as they are today, for instance) and even partially delve into the plethora of other evidence for the existence of evolution while still with-holding the position that it doesn't have a modicum of merit are willfully ignorant and stupid.

Makes my blood boil.

theShamanOfSexy

Interesting that most people would say yes since we share that much DNA with chimpanzees. But that's just a coincidence i suppose...

Phylogeneticly speaking, sharing that large of a percent of DNA with another species is definitely not coincidence. Granted, since we all stem from the same origin, every species on earth shares certain percent of DNA similarity (we even share a certain portion of our genes with trees! Something like 40 percent. I can't remember exactly) but a >98% genetic similarity is undeniable proof that chimps and humans most definitely shared a common ancestry in the not-too-distant past.

theShamanOfSexy

It also amazes me that most people who believe in evolution think it's possible for animals to evolve over millions of years, but not humans. We had to start somewhere. We didn't just pop here out of thin air...

That's right. Most people say "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" (a question that gives me a terrible migraine, to be honest) to which I reply "because we're still monkeys now."

[JackWisps]

theShamanOfSexy

It also amazes me that most people who believe in evolution think it's possible for animals to evolve over millions of years, but not humans. We had to start somewhere. We didn't just pop here out of thin air...

That's odd, cause most people I've seen that accept evolution are just fine with humans evolving from something else. Maybe I just view a biased group.

however humans should be having a harder time evolving now, simply because we have such a large gene pool, we mate for reasons other than survival, and we tend to adapt our surroundings rather than ourselves, and can change our location at a drop of a hat (in many cases). however, we do isolate ourselves within cities where generation after generation is from the same area and never leave (mimicking smaller gene pools), and we have seen signs of evolution, so it certainly does still happen, but I would assume we've slowed its effects a fair bit.

[Reclusiarch Grimaldus]

JackWisps

That's odd, cause most people I've seen that accept evolution are just fine with humans evolving from something else. Maybe I just view a biased group.

A couple of people I've spoken to have told me that they accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. As in, they'd accept the evolution that produces the different breeds of cats, dogs, fish, etc. but not speciation (which is an absolutely laughable assertion to make.) This is their way of saying "Yeah, animals can change a little over a short period of time, but cannot change a lot over a long period of time," which, if you condense it even more, is a way of saying "Animals? Sure, you have a pit bull, I have golden retriever; this sort of proof my tiny brain can cope with. Humans? omg no wai"

[Damnati]

JackWisps

theShamanOfSexy

It also amazes me that most people who believe in evolution think it's possible for animals to evolve over millions of years, but not humans. We had to start somewhere. We didn't just pop here out of thin air...

That's odd, cause most people I've seen that accept evolution are just fine with humans evolving from something else. Maybe I just view a biased group.

however humans should be having a harder time evolving now, simply because we have such a large gene pool, we mate for reasons other than survival, and we tend to adapt our surroundings rather than ourselves, and can change our location at a drop of a hat (in many cases). however, we do isolate ourselves within cities where generation after generation is from the same area and never leave (mimicking smaller gene pools), and we have seen signs of evolution, so it certainly does still happen, but I would assume we've slowed its effects a fair bit.

The larger the gene pool and the lower the death rate, the slower the rate of change. First off, ten thousand years ago, someone with Sickle Cell wouldn't reproduce. People with bone disorders likely wouldn't live long enough to reproduce. People with poor eyesight wouldn't. SO on and so forth. Because the death rate was so high, only the most fit could survive enough to reproduce. And since it was such a small gene pool, it took a relatively small amount of time for a trait to spread among a majority of the population. Now, however, our death rate is too low. Too many people are being born, and too many of them can reproduce. Just about the only thing not able to be passed on are the diseases that kill at birth, or a young age, or causes infertility. Just about everything else under the sun can spread, good or bad. And it has to spread through the entire gene pool, which is hundreds of times larger than it was previously.

So yes, evolution is happening to humans at a much slower rate than it has in the past.

[Damnati]

Reclusiarch Grimaldus

JackWisps

That's odd, cause most people I've seen that accept evolution are just fine with humans evolving from something else. Maybe I just view a biased group.

A couple of people I've spoken to have told me that they accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. As in, they'd accept the evolution that produces the different breeds of cats, dogs, fish, etc. but not speciation (which is an absolutely laughable assertion to make.) This is their way of saying "Yeah, animals can change a little over a short period of time, but cannot change a lot over a long period of time," which, if you condense it even more, is a way of saying "Animals? Sure, you have a pit bull, I have golden retriever; this sort of proof my tiny brain can cope with. Humans? omg no wai"

I can't stand people who say that. I always use the analogy of look at an infant. Every day itty bitty tiny changes are made. And if you then look at the same individual fifty years later, those itty bitty changes caused radical and extensive changes, so that you likely would never be able to guess it was the same person.
The same happens in evolution. Those tiny micro-evolutionary changes are constantly happening. And as enough of them build up, they add up into large changes.

I always figured it was common sense, but it seems as though a lot of people have a deliberate mental block against it.

[VoijaRisa]

Just because we're not reproducing for survival doesn't mean evolution is coming to a grinding hault for humanity. It just means the selection effects are changing. Instead of going for peacocks with the brightest plumage, we're going for biggest tits, for the fastest car, for all sorts of other traits which are still being selected for, even if it's not directly for survival. But regardless of what's being selected for, it's still natural selection and it's still altering the allele frequency through successive generations. So evolution is still hard at work, even though it might not be "bettering" the species. Unless you really like big tits that is....

[AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug]

VoijaRisa

Just because we're not reproducing for survival doesn't mean evolution is coming to a grinding hault for humanity. It just means the selection effects are changing. Instead of going for peacocks with the brightest plumage, we're going for biggest tits, for the fastest car, for all sorts of other traits which are still being selected for, even if it's not directly for survival. But regardless of what's being selected for, it's still natural selection and it's still altering the allele frequency through successive generations. So evolution is still hard at work, even though it might not be "bettering" the species. Unless you really like big tits that is....

I agree. Evolution hasn't come to halt for humans. If you look at it. We are actually degressing. Look at all the cases of obesity and the rising count of cancer cases. Our evolution is degressing because of over population in so many areas, the average life span of humans may seem like it is going up, but i relity we are degressing.

[VoijaRisa]

AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug

I agree. Evolution hasn't come to halt for humans. If you look at it. We are actually degressing. Look at all the cases of obesity and the rising count of cancer cases. Our evolution is degressing because of over population in so many areas, the average life span of humans may seem like it is going up, but i relity we are degressing.

Hardly. Our population continues to increase. We may be fat and disgusting, but we're still uniquely adapting to our environments, but making the environments adapt to us. Our population is skyrocketing. In an evolutionary sense, that's still progress.

This nonsense about "devolution" is just the philosophical masturbation of people who don't know what they're talking about.

[JackWisps]

Damnati

Reclusiarch Grimaldus

JackWisps

That's odd, cause most people I've seen that accept evolution are just fine with humans evolving from something else. Maybe I just view a biased group.

A couple of people I've spoken to have told me that they accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. As in, they'd accept the evolution that produces the different breeds of cats, dogs, fish, etc. but not speciation (which is an absolutely laughable assertion to make.) This is their way of saying "Yeah, animals can change a little over a short period of time, but cannot change a lot over a long period of time," which, if you condense it even more, is a way of saying "Animals? Sure, you have a pit bull, I have golden retriever; this sort of proof my tiny brain can cope with. Humans? omg no wai"

I can't stand people who say that. I always use the analogy of look at an infant. Every day itty bitty tiny changes are made. And if you then look at the same individual fifty years later, those itty bitty changes caused radical and extensive changes, so that you likely would never be able to guess it was the same person.
The same happens in evolution. Those tiny micro-evolutionary changes are constantly happening. And as enough of them build up, they add up into large changes.

I always figured it was common sense, but it seems as though a lot of people have a deliberate mental block against it.

I like that analogy too, but it does have a side effect. Some people may look at it and consider evolution to occur within the individual (ie, one day it is a fish, but by the end of its life it could walk). plus a person at birth has many of the same characteristics as one at an old age, so a person may still wonder how a fish could become a mammal, simply because we look so different.

[Reclusiarch Grimaldus]

JackWisps

I like that analogy too, but it does have a side effect. Some people may look at it and consider evolution to occur within the individual (ie, one day it is a fish, but by the end of its life it could walk). plus a person at birth has many of the same characteristics as one at an old age, so a person may still wonder how a fish could become a mammal, simply because we look so different.

That is true, but then again, no matter the analogy that you use (or even the factual evidence you use,) they'll distort it to fit their predisposition. It's infuriating sometimes.

VoijaRisa

Hardly. Our population continues to increase. We may be fat and disgusting, but we're still uniquely adapting to our environments, but making the environments adapt to us. Our population is skyrocketing. In an evolutionary sense, that's still progress.

This nonsense about "devolution" is just the philosophical masturbation of people who don't know what they're talking about.

This. It makes for a cute joke every now and then, but de-evolution isn't possible. It's kinda appalling that people think it's true. neutral

[Motor Cop]

theShamanOfSexy

All that people have to do is look around and open their minds to other possibilities. A question: if a man said he wasn't the father of a child and a DNA paternity test proved with a 97% accuracy that he was the father would you believe he was the father?

Interesting that most people would say yes since we share that much DNA with chimpanzees. But that's just a coincidence i suppose...

I'm not a biometrics person, and I don't have a background in biology, but I'm pretty sure that's not quite how DNA tests work.