Quantcast
How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

Forums - General Discussion - How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

superchunk said:
I really think mine should be 'other' based no your reasoning as I don't think I clearly fit into ID. Evolution is definitely happening, however, it was driven by laws created by God. Not that God is continuously controlling it now. More like God determined the laws of nature/physics and set it in motion.

I kinda feel like we are all one massive experiment and God is simply watching.

 Evolution does not argue against the existence of any god. In fact, there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of any god or other super-natural being and thus there can be no theory about whether or not any such being or beings exist. Science is an attempt to understand how the universe works. Why it works that way could not be less relevant to the process. Theories set out to explain a set of observations, and never once have I heard of one good one that tries to explain why it would be that way. Why does matter attract other matter? I dunno, but I know the theory of gravity explains how it works. Your stance in regards to this thread would be evolution based on everything you posted.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
MrBubbles said:
highwaystar101 said:
MrBubbles said:
trunkswd said:
I live in the USA, am an Atheist and yes I do because there is more than enough evidence. Just look at the H1N1 Influenza and the pests that use to be killed by pesticides that have evolved a resistance to them.

 

you just killed off the ones that werent resistant...that IS evolution

FIXD

Evolution is the survival of the fittest, which means the ones best adapted to the environment survive and pass on their genes. If all the ones that were resistant got to live then the next generation and so on will be 100% resistant, that is the very definition of evolution.

The strong have passed on their genes, the weak have not

 

no...they didnt adapt at all.  there was no change.  they are still what they always were.

 

I didn't respond to this post immediately as i didn't want it to appear that i was just jumping in to beat MrBubbles down in the arguement.

Having said that i want to clear up what evolution by natural selection, the theory that i assume most evolutionists are referring to, means.

I will preface this by saying of course things don't happen in such an extreme fashion that we can easily observe it within our own life times.  I have not made this as an entirely factually accurate treatise on evolution and i know have ignored many factors which complicate this issue immensely but this is my basic explanation.

Evolution by natural selection does not imply that a creature or species changes in order to better deal with the environment and this is where many people who don't believe in evolution make their mistake.

Natural selection supposes that there is a wide range of minor genetic variation within a species.  Much of this variation may have no effect on the likelihood of the organism surviving to reproductive age, but some of it may.

For example, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the vast array of genes that encode for antibodies involved in the immune process, there are some people in the world who can produce antibodies that confir immunity to HIV.  Now these genes may have been there for 1000's of years quietly serving no purpose or they may have arisen more recently due to mutations (which happen constantly) in the genes for antibodies.

Prior to HIV existing, and assuming they had no adverse effect on survival, these genes can quietly be passed from generation, with the proportion (let's say 10%) of people with these genes neither increasing or decreasing.

Now let's assume we get a worldwide pandemic of HIV, perhaps HIV mutates to a form that is much more easily transmissable and unfortunately with 100% mortality in people without immunity.  Let's say that within 10 years we lose 2/3 of all people who lack the immunity to HIV. Now in our population 25% of people are immune to HIV and 75% still aren't.  Within another 10 years we lose another 2/3 of those without immunity; now we have a population that is 50% immune and 50% not.  Within 50 years, given the parameters of 100% mortality we now have a human race that is ~99% immune to HIV.

The human race has now evolved from the form that existed 50 years prior, they have all the attributes they previously had and now are also immune to HIV.  This is evolution by natural selection.

 

 



Evolution is a philosophy because scientific method can never be applied to it. We have no way of researching it, because we have no way of reproducing the moments in which life was created on Earth. If it is a fact then scientist would not still call it a theory.

Statistically speaking it is very improbable that random chance gave rise to order (not to mention it is against the PROVEN Laws of Science).
Darwin said that if it could be proven that life forms did not become more complicated over a series of successive improvements, then his theory would be proven wrong.

Micheal Denton an atheist wrote a book called evolution: a theory in Crisis, He spent the first part of the book ripping religion. And then went on to make his case-

And he is not alone in those beliefs other scientist believe the same.

I am not anti- science but I am Anti- Dogma and the theory of Evo. is sometimes just that.

I believe in Micro but not Macro.

The rest is more in line with Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is more inline with the ACTUAL LAWS of SCIENCE.

But this is a free country and I do not mean to step on anothers beliefs, we are free to worship as we choose...



CHYUII said:
Evolution is a philosophy because scientific method can never be applied to it. We have no way of researching it, because we have no way of reproducing the moments in which life was created on Earth. If it is a fact then scientist would not still call it a theory.

Statistically speaking it is very improbable that random chance gave rise to order (not to mention it is against the PROVEN Laws of Science).
Darwin said that if it could be proven that life forms did not become more complicated over a series of successive improvements, then his theory would be proven wrong.

Micheal Denton an atheist wrote a book called evolution: a theory in Crisis, He spent the first part of the book ripping religion. And then went on to make his case-

And he is not alone in those beliefs other scientist believe the same.

I am not anti- science but I am Anti- Dogma and the theory of Evo. is sometimes just that.

I believe in Micro but not Macro.

The rest is more in line with Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is more inline with the ACTUAL LAWS of SCIENCE.

But this is a free country and I do not mean to step on anothers beliefs, we are free to worship as we choose...

 Ok you are wrong on two major points here. First of all evolution is not a fact because theories are built upon facts. In the world of science there is nothing more important or more true  than a theory. There are very few "laws" in science because we are very, very often wrong. Simply put there is no higher form of knowledge than a theory in modern day science. You will notice gravity is simply a theory.

 Secondly evolution has been demonstrated. Not only can we see it actively in bacteria (antibiotics) but also in various experiments with fruit flies. We have little hard evidence for huge changes, but those would take some time to build up a case for or against anyways.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Evolution over the creation myth 100%.
Australia.



Playing: Borderlands(great co-op,HUGE amount of content),Too Human(better late than never lol),Saints Row 3(Penetrator ftw),Minecraft 360,Harry Potter Lego. 

Patiently waiting for:  Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2

Around the Network
CHYUII said:
Evolution is a philosophy because scientific method can never be applied to it. We have no way of researching it, because we have no way of reproducing the moments in which life was created on Earth. If it is a fact then scientist would not still call it a theory.

Statistically speaking it is very improbable that random chance gave rise to order (not to mention it is against the PROVEN Laws of Science).
Darwin said that if it could be proven that life forms did not become more complicated over a series of successive improvements, then his theory would be proven wrong.

Micheal Denton an atheist wrote a book called evolution: a theory in Crisis, He spent the first part of the book ripping religion. And then went on to make his case-

And he is not alone in those beliefs other scientist believe the same.

I am not anti- science but I am Anti- Dogma and the theory of Evo. is sometimes just that.

I believe in Micro but not Macro.

The rest is more in line with Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is more inline with the ACTUAL LAWS of SCIENCE.

But this is a free country and I do not mean to step on anothers beliefs, we are free to worship as we choose...

I would just ask out of curiosity why you believe in Micro but not Macro evolution?

Furthermore people seem to think that structured experiments are an essential part of the scientific method and while they provide harder evidence, lack of them does not mean you are not applying the scientific method.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory in the same way that we have a Theory of Relativity that refined, but did not replace Newton's theory of gravitation.  There may still be a new theory or a revision of Darwin's theory that gives an even better explanation and better predictive properties than natural selection.



Intelligent Design/Other.

MI, USA

 

EDIT: I like to keep it simple.

 

and yes Kasz called Miyamoto God. I agree.



USA - ID, but I support a majority of the evolution theory.



Australia, Evolution



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Unintelligent design