Majority of Americans Reject Theory of Evolution

[Nordmadr]

The numbers in this strike me as off, but perhaps I have a different perspective from most, which is entirely possible, I've never been much of a conformist and make a clear distinction between religion and spirtiuality. I do not consider myself a christian, but do entertain the idea of hope for some form of transition of life after the death of our current bodies. That could just be a hope though. From the earth and to the earth.


Article:

NEW YORK (Oct. 23) - Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.

This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.

The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.



http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019


It strikes me as amazing that 51% of this country believes evolution had no role in modern human development and that we apparently just plopped onto the planet someday out of the blue because some grand being had a bout of creativity. I would be curious to know how many believe in evolution when not used in relation to humans. Are we not still animals? I always find it the height of arrogance to assume we are the end all and be all of animal development. We might just be the "beta" version.

All this additionally considering homo sapiens are widely accepted within the scientific community to have been around for 200 -250 thousand years.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homosapiens.htm


Olaf

[Caution]

1. If this is true it is utterly pathetic

And people keep bitching at Americans like Michael Newdow saying things like "there are more important issues than the pledge" yeh there are but that issue is indicative of the inflow of religion into our educational system which is in turn destroying the advantage we as a country used to have in the sciences.

[seejanerun]

2. They have been carefully trained to submit to authority,

whether it be God or the government. This is a very useful attitude for a fascist state.

[smoogatz]

3. Education is the answer.

We do a crappy job of teaching science in general and evolution in particular in the public schools. In Europe, evolution is pretty much universally accepted.

[BonnieJW]

7. evolution

It doesn't matter if 51% of the people in this country "believe" in evolution. It isn't up for a vote. Just because a majority of people believe in a fairy tale, doesn't make it so.

[Nordmadr]

8. I suppose that

Homo neanderthalensis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis

...just of the "homo" genus...were just God's little crumbled papers in the wastebasket.

"Damn me...I got the shoulders too broad on this one..." <crumble>, <toss>.

Olaf

[smoogatz]

23. All those "bones" and "fossils" and stuff?

Put there by God to confuse the sinners.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Could gravity be next?

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

[MindPilot]

5. It's not something you get to "reject"

Evolution exists, period. It is observable phenomena just like gravity, weather, and magnetism. 51% of the population quite simply rejects reality; I would have to assume they are the same 51% percent who rejected the reality of Bush being a miserable failure and voted for him a second time.

Thanks, Christians! Thanks for setting scientific advancement back yet again. Thanks, now go away and drink some blood or something; you've done enough damage this millennium.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Exactly

All they're doing is closing their eyes and ears and going "la la la". So sad really. Just because there is evolution doesn't mean I have to stop believing in God and my beliefs.

[Nordmadr]

15. I don't mean for this in any way to be a general

Christian bashing thing, because Christianity has alot of value in many areas, but damn folks, can't you see the teachings of the prophet (Jesus) have just been used by those seeking power and control to manipulate lives for the last 2000 years or so; tainting the message of what appears to have been a fine deep thinking pacifist.

Olaf

[dime.end]

28. observable?

I am convinced that Evolution is a cogent philosophical theory.
I don't buy into the idea that it is science however.

I think some people confuse it with genetics, which is science.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the major tenets of Darwinian evolution the idea that simpler organisms evolved into more complicated organisms? Can you tell me when and how that was observed?

[Nordmadr]

29. I think there is often a misunderstanding of evolution.

Individual creatures do not generally evolve.

A particular subset of a species may have a characteristic they are born with that is not present in many of the others of the species(mutation). In a circumstance where this characteristic is beneficial, this subset may find itelf more likely to reproduce and therefore become more prevalent within the species population. Now this may happen several times over several generations, and eventually lead to a group that can no longer be classifeid as part of the original species. This is evolution. This promotes diversity over different geographic areas, which anyone with ecological knowledge, will admit is generally good for various populations.

In college we used fruit flies to conduct experiments to support this due to their quick reproductive rate and relatively short life cycle.

Simply look at a number of the differences in people. Skin pigmentation, height, build, etc. are all very linkable to the environment to which a particular human population was indigenous.

Olaf

[dime.end]

30. I believe you are referring to micro-evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

Macro evolution is a little more problematic as science

[Nordmadr]

34. I am not seeing the dilema.

From the link you provided...

Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.


From this Berkley quote, it states that Macro-evolution is simply lots of micro-evolution over a VERY long time and a large number of mutations, migrations, genetic shifts and natural selection.

Am I missing something here? At the macro level of thinking we begin thinking about changes that eventually lead to a new species being created. A primary indicator of this is an inability for breeding resulting in offspring.

Olaf

[dime.end]

36. Here's where I have a problem...

With your fruitflies, all the ingredients were already in the package, so to speak. By selective breeding, you are able to bring out different demographic representations of those attributes. But you didn't actually get any fruitflies with a brand new attribute like hands or halos or hoofs. Not surprisingly, at the end of the day, you ended up with fruitflies.

The following statement is entirely theoretical and unable to be observed or tested by experiementation:
"The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time"

Altough it is interesting, it falls outside the realm of sciences since it is not possible for it to be observed or tested.

( it seems like evolution has more in common with religion/philosophy than with science, since neither can be observed or reliably tested)

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Geological record, heard of it?

If you have you will be able to see it in the record

You may want to do some readying on it, and it is not philosophy, it is WELL ESTABLISHED science....

I know why some have a problem with this, and it is a poor education in the sciences, a very poor one, don't blame the child, blame the schools

[dime.end]

48. I agree a lot of people think that evolution is true.

that does not make it science.
A lot of people believed the earth was flat. When people started testing and observing that theory, it was soon discarded.

And in fact, evolution might be
true. Or maybe the greek gods formed the earth. In any case, since the evidence isn't there, we only have speculation, not science.

Considering the slow rate of change that we *observe* in species, the existence of transitional species should be massive and easy to find. Instead it is almost non-existent. And where is exists, it is not conclusive

I think that the reason Americans are ahead in most fields is that we don't subscribe to groupthink. I don't suppose you are endangering your child by making him conform rather than think, but neither do I think it wise.

By the way, you may want your child to help you with spelling.
"readying" is incorrect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. 'transitional species' don't come with a label on them

There are many cases where we're not sure if two populations are distinct species, or one is just a sub-species. You know that when groups of sexual organisms are unable to produce fertile offspring they are separate species; before that stage is reached, the matter is open to debate. If left isolated, the populations may become separate species.

You say "the existence of transitional species should be massive and easy to find"; I've not heard that put forward as an argument before. Can you put some figures on it?

No, science isn't made by popularity; it involves investigation, testing, hypothesising, reviews of the hypotheses by others, and so on. People studying evolution do these; there is a science of evolution.

The basic evidence for evolution is the fossil record. Different organisms are found in different aged rocks, and there are clear steps in the development of features as time goes by. We also see evolution happen in things like drug resistance in bacteria, or the mutation of flu viruses.

I don't think Americans are less susceptible to groupthink than the people; the selling of the 'evidence' of WMD is my prime exhibit. Americans fell for it more than Europeans.

[Nordmadr]

43. Yes, but in my fruit fly experiment I irradiated the flies!!

Not really, that was a joke.

I see where you are coming from, and don't claim to have all the answers, just trying to do my best to explain where I am coming from.

It does not seem such a big jump for me to imagine lots of small changes over a LONG time creating major change in living things.

Plate tectonics makes lots of small lanscape changes in the earth every day. Geologic evidence shows that these small changes over time have greatly changed the lanscape of the earth as we know it, to the extent that no one alive would have recognized the land formations on this planet millions of years ago. We did not actually see the earth the way it was, yet we have a pretty good picture of how it looked. These small changes built up over time to make some really large changes. While this may not be a perfect analogy, I do not think it is a bad one. It could also bring up a whole Gaya arguement and whether or not the earth can be itself considered a living organism on a macro scale vs. micro scale, but that would start to make my head hurt.

Olaf

[dime.end]

49. thanks.

by the way I don't want to leave the impression that I think this is a religious issue. I can't think of major religious text that is very specific on this.

As a stiff necked skeptic, I do find evolution extremely hard to prove, and impossible to include under the field of science.

The weakest part of evolution is the general assumption that species develop from simpler to more complex species. A false example of this a baby developing into an adult human. Biologically they are equally complex.

As a general rule, in the long run, things tend to fall apart and become less organized over time. This applies to physical objects such as planets and Fords and my own body. Proponents of evolution don't seem to think that this principle should apply to species.
It seems a rather glaring departure from reality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. The "assumption that species develop from simpler"

"to more complex species" is Lamarckism, and has not been held by by any significant number of people for 100 years or so. Darwin's theory of natural selection was what superseded it.

Your idea of "things fall apart" is not really relevant. No-one has proposed an organism that lives forever. A species is not a physical 'thing', which is what the idea of "things fall apart" applies to - as you yourself said. There are other examples of things that don't generally fall apart, such as human knowledge.

[dime.end]

56. just curious

1.Where do you see evolution as beginning?
Some people believe it all started with a single cell organism.

2.You have grossly over simplified Lamarckism. It was all wrong of course, but your characterisation is incorrect, if it is meant to be a summary of Lamarckian evolution.

3.In what sense is a species not physical?

4. Human knowedge dependably falls apart.
Examples would include the Dark Ages, the loss of ancient wisdom when the Library of Alexandria was destroyed ,the destruction of virtually all documents written by the Aztecs and the ability to build a Saturn 5 rocket. ( a researcher at JPL has told me that no one knows how to make a Saturn 5 rocket anymore).

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Answers

1 Yes, I'd see it as beginning with a single cell organism. Abiogenesis is, I would say, a separate area. Until you get something that reasonably reliably reproduces, it's difficult to call it 'evolution'.

2 "simple to complex" is a basic part of Lamarckism. It has no place in any post-Darwin theories of evolution. I wasn't saying that was the whole concept of Lamarckism.

In 1809 he published his most famous work, Philosophie Zoologique. This volume describes his theory of transmutation. The theory that Lamarck published consisted of several components. Underlying the whole was a 'tendency to progression', a principle that Creation is in a constant state of advancement. It was an innate quality of nature that organisms constantly 'improved' by successive generation, too slowly to be perceived but observable in the fossil record. Mankind sat at the top of this chain of progression, having passed through all the previous stages in prehistory. However, this necessitated the principle of spontaneous generation, for as a species transformed into a more advanced one, it left a gap: when the simple, single-celled organisms advanced to the next stage of life, new protozoans would be created (by the Creator) to fill their place.

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/lamarck1.html

Darwinism does not believe 'progress' drives evolution, it believes 'adaptation' drives it. That can include simplification.

3 You cannot touch a species. That it how it is not physical. It is a category. Applying physical laws to it is useless.

4 Coming up with a few isolated examples of loss of knowledge does not show it 'dependably falling apart'. We continue to know how to write, start fires, how a wheel works, that the earth goes round the sun, and so on. We also know more now, overall, than at any time in the past, and that has been a general tendency.

[dime.end]

59. thanks for the response.

I'm hope I'm not too irritating by not conforming to the generally accepted opinion. My parents were very big on us thinking for ourselves.

but back to being stubborn and unconformist...
1. So in your view we have evolved from a simple one celled creature to a more complicated multicelled creature. I thought this "simple to complex" thing has no place in Darwinism.

3. I think things can be physical without being touchable.
For intance, the act of throwing a ball is a physical act.

4. Do you know how to start a fire? I mean our ancestors could do this with two sticks, but I wouldn't know where to begin. A lot of people in Aztec and Inca areas can no longer write in those languages. Although my grandfather could speak German, I cannot.
In general, knowledge dies unless a lot of very dedicated people keep it alive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. and further responses

Darwinism doesn't say that 'simple to complex' doesn't happen; but it's not a principle of it.

Physical acts don't deteriorate. Sporting records are usually broken.

Human knowledge as a whole expands. Yes, it takes dedicated people to keep it alive; just as it takes dedication to keep species alive. It's called sex.

[dime.end]

62. again with the stubbornness

I don't think is reasonable to ignore Darwinism's inevitable conclusion that the existence of complex creatures is the result of evolution acting on simpler creatures. Which gets into a set of problems for the Darwin crowd. Perhaps the easiest way to deal with a problem is to ignore it after all.

But you are right, that is not the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, but you have to admit that I didn't make that claim.

Sure physical acts deteriorate. My sister starts with great swing but it always deteriorates into a aimless swat. My father used to throw a football a long way, now he can't. And of course, none of this proves the statement that species aren't "physical", but I do find myself impatient with false generalizations.

In our personal history, human knowledge has expanded.

We have no way of knowing if this has always been true.
We have no way of determining if previous civilizations were knowledgeable in areas that we are ignorant of. In fact, in these areas, our knowledge may have contracted.

There is no guarantee that human knowledge will continue to expand, or in fact that humans will continue, regardless how much sex we dedicate ourselves to.


Thanks for your patience.
I'm sure you deserve better.

[ErisFiveFingers]

68. Stubborn?

"I don't think is reasonable to ignore Darwinism's inevitable conclusion that the existence of complex creatures is the result of evolution acting on simpler creatures."

Right, but you may be supposing that complex creatures are the *only* outcome, or an inevitable outcome. Let's do this with numbers. Lets say "1" is the starting creature. So, you have a colony of:
1 1 1 1 1

Eventually, there's some genetic change, and you get a larger colony of:
.5 1 1 .5 1 1 2 1 1 2

Note that you now have both more complex, and less complex, creatures. If the ".5" species variant breeds with another ".5" species variant, they can start a colony of ".5". Likewise with the "2".

Now we may have:
.5 1 2 3 1 .5 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 .5 3

That's four different species (.5, 1, 2, 3), all from one species. Any one of those can die off, because they are too simple, or too complex. Let's say a disease only affects the "1", or original, species, we are left with:
.5 2 3 .5 2 2 .5 3

Thus, more simple (less than 1) and more complex (greater than 1) species can exist. Complexity is not a "goal" of evolution, it's merely an artifact of the process.

Edit: spelling, my fingers are poorly evolved. Must be "Stupid Design"

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. You did make the claim about "evolution"

you said "The weakest part of evolution is the general assumption that species develop from simpler to more complex species". I pointed out this hadn't been an assumption since Darwin suggested otherwise. Yet you called it a general assumption, and used the present tense. If you're going to argue against historical beliefs that no-one holds now, you'd be better off doing it on a history forum.

If you still think that a species is a physical object, I suggest you get some English lessons.

[ErisFiveFingers]

61. Uhm...

1. It's not about simple to complex, or big to small, or dumb to smart. It's about variation. So, each generation can be more simple, or more complex, or the same. There are *more* simple lifeforms than a cell, that exist today (virii). There are multi-celled organsims which die out, and single celled organisms which die out, and non-cellular forms of life which die out. Evolution is not "going" anywhere, it's a description of how things wind up the way they are.

3. Species is an arbitrary mental constuct. This is why a fruit fly can, indeed, grow hooves, and one person can argue that it is a new species, while another person can argue that it is the same species.

4. The whole "entropic" creationsist argument (which is the usual point of such odd questions) requires a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, and thus, does not quickly drift into chaos. (When the sun burns out, that's a new game). And yes, I know several ways of starting a fire. :)

Welcome to DU, BTW!

:hi:

Edit: Spelling fixes.

[Stockholm]

6. What?

:wow: :rofl:

[Zensea]

9. I.Q. is a median

which means that 50% of people have an I.Q. below 100.
Think that explains it?

[FreedomAngel82]

10. I heard about this yesterday

I thought it was so sad. There's way more proof of evolution. There is no proof of God. You can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist. That's why it's called faith and a belief system.
I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution. Why? I believe God created everything including evolution. When I study evolution I believe I'm studying God. Same thing with astrology.

[FlashHarry]

14. Yes!

I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution. Why? I believe God created everything including evolution.

Bingo.

If this keeps up, in a couple hundred years (or much less, perhaps), we'll be living in log cabins and protecting our families with Kentucky long rifles. That's the "conservative" movement for you: they want to party like it's 1799.

[Nordmadr]

22. See, now this is something I can understand.

I guess what really disturbs me is dogma. When people cease to question and think, and instead simply accept. I thought we had gotten passed that for the most part, but the nation seems to have had a violent relapse.

The Bible was written by people.

My current thinking is that if there is any kind of entity, that it is all around us. I find it most in nature. That is my church.

Olaf

[tyedyeto]

11. I find it hard to believe that so many believe the Earth is only 6,000

years old.

I'd like to see a companion poll as to how old they believe the Earth is. I do know the more Fundy they are, the more likely it is that they actually think humans and dinosaurs walked this earth together.

[wtbymark]

12. it is a question of education....

i saw a post yesterday that was quoting some fundie and i can't get out of my head what she said, "we're not animals, we're human", I almost took my shoe off and beat myself in the head with it. And maybe homo sapien sapiens have been around for a couple hundred thousand years, but homo sapiens have been around for 1.3 million (Lucy, right?). Another problem is these people write columns that have no education themselves, they have good writing technique, but horribly ill-informed content.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. I reject the theory of gravity...can I fly to work now?

And avoid the traffic?

[dime.end]

27. Go ahead and reject it...

science has benefited in the past because this theory was not treated as law.

Although as early as Aristotle, philosophers were aware that "what goes up must come down", a scientific formulation had to wait for Sir Isaac Newton, and he had to invent calculus to document his observations.

However, Einstein had to reject this theory in his formulation of General Relativity. His skepticism furthered our knowledge of the universe.

And still, leading edge scientists still don't take Newton's observations for granted. Quantum mechanics requires a new theory of gravity.
http://quantumrelativity.calsci.com/

In my opinion, the theory of gravity has developed so radically in the years since Newton because it falls in the realm of science, that is, the realm of observation explained by theory and tested by experimentation. Evolution ( in the larger Darwinian sense) does not fall within the realm of science because no one has ever observed a species evolve from a simpler organism to a more complicated organism, and since there is no observation, there can be no testing.
Science can't stand on the single leg of theory. Without observation and testing it belongs in the realm of philosophy

[Nordmadr]

31. That is why we have scientific "laws" and scientific "theories".

Both backed by serious scientific evidence, hypothesis, and investigation.

Religion does not generally stand up to this kind of scrutiny, but is often based upon a degree of fact and truth.

People want and need religion to comfort them due to the fact that we have the knowledge that we will eventually reach our end. Religion eases fear, while often compounding it. It strives to give meaning where answers are often lacking. It functions to control a large mass of people that might eventually say...you know what, I have had enough of this shit.

I support open minds and open hearts from people of all religous backgrounds. However, religion often works to supress critical thinking while teaching a particular dogma, and working to exclude "others". As we can see, it can be divisive. My God is better than yours. My God says you will all suffer eternal agony if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your saviour. So what about all those millions of poor saps that never even knew about a Jesus.

Well, MY God doesn't care how long your hair is.
My God doesn't care what color you are, or who you choose to have sex with. My God says do no harm; my God says try to leave the world a little better than when you got here. My God is within me and around me in all things and I need no Church or alter for that.

To thine own self be true.

Rant-off. :)

Olaf

[dime.end]

32. ?

so your argument is that Evolution is science because religion is bad?

Sorry, I'm just not following your logic. I'm sure I'm just being dense. Can you clarify a little?

I am trying to make a connection between your Subject line and the body of your message, and not making sense of it.

Thanks.

[Nordmadr]

37. I am sure you are not being dense, and that I am instead being

scattered in my thoughts. I am simply skipping between why I believe the study of evolution to be good scientific theory and why I believe that many religous folks don't believe this to be the case.

As far as laws vs theories, I was simply TRYING to point out that evolution is a scientific "theory", based on research, hypothesis, testing, etc. With all the best evidence we have, it seems to be the most logical explanation. It may not be perfect and may have some unanswered questions...thus keeping it from being the "Law of Evolution".

People following a particular religous doctrine are often willing to completely and whole heartedly accept something with significantly less proof. They call it faith. It makes them feel warm and fuzzy; comforted. Evolution is not warm and fuzzy or make anyone feel any better about where they will be after death. So religion persists. Religion that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, protected and safe is a good thing for many people. It can provide hope. It just doesn't work for me with lots of the other baggage that often accompanies it.

How depressed would a large portion of the world be if some alien species came down and provided reams of proof that earth was just some big science experiment on their part, including people. Some would accept that happily, some would accept it begrudgingly, and some would say...yeah, but who made the aliens? Some would also probably yell "kill the heretic blashpheming space creatures"

Now that could allbe both a religous question AND a scientific question.

Olaf

[dime.end]

44. evolution is the warmfuzzy for the agnostic set

Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of God.

Evolution takes God out the equation.

Which makes evolution popular with a certain mindset, but it doesn't make it science. It is not science because it cannot be observed and is not testable.

In the same way this theory:
"How depressed would a large portion of the world be if some alien species came down and provided reams of proof that earth was just some big science experiment on their part, including people."

is not science because it cannot be observerd or tested.

I'm not saying either Evolution, or this second theory is wrong. It just isn't science.

[Nordmadr]

46. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Evolution does not make me feel warm and fuzzy. It seems to logically provide some answers to how we may have gotten to where we are...but does not answer all questions. I can not pray to evolution or Darwin to keep my family safe. Evolution does not offer me solace that on my death bed I will elevated to another existence. Evolution does not provide me hope when I am hopeless.

If it looks like science, sounds like science, uses scientific methodolgy and research, I'm gonna have to vote for it being science. Even if you want to say it is not science. It seems to have far more relevance and place in public schools in our supposedly free yet artificial society than religion. Especially if that religion is ONLY Christianity. Open that Pandora's Box at your own peril.

The Romans had a society and God's. The Greeks had a society and God's. The Norse had society and God's, and many many more. Those societies are gone...evolved if you will, and their God's are mythology now.

Olaf

[ErisFiveFingers]

65. Evolution does *not* take god out of the question....

It simply provides for saying that there's an option besides "I dunno, maybe god did it somehow?". Gravity theories did not take god out out of the question, they simply explained how something worked. It's *quite* viable to say that evolution is the *method* god used to create so many species, and many fairly religious scientists are quite happy to say so.

As far as evolution being tested and observed, new species *have* been created, by mere pressure of selection, in a lab. It's been tested, and retested, and retested, and nothing seems to disprove it, as a whole, so far.

What makes it science is that several things can be tested:
1. Given a set of organisms, do they all stay totally identical over multiple generations. (No.)
2. If that set of organism variations has form of pressure that favors one variation over another, does the population stay the same (No.)
3. Given enough generations, and enough selective pressure, does a organism which is distinctly different than the starting organism get created. (Yes.)

That's the raw science. Until it can somehow be proven that (a) organisms are stable, and do not mutate, or (b) that there is no such thing as selective pressure (like weather, heat, etc.), or (c) that new organisms do not occur which are different, evolution remains scientific. It can be observed, and tested, using the above guidelines.

[dime.end]

71. thanks for the well written response.

but since I am disinclined to believe everything I read, can you point me to more information on these new lab created species?

All of what you described can be explained using the science of Genetics, without relying on evolution.

What Genetics cannot explain would be the appearance of new species over time. Evolution provides an interesting solution, but it cannot be observed, and cannot be tested in this area.

[ErisFiveFingers]

72. Sure, examples of lab evolution?....

(Note to mods: this thread is in the wrong forum?)

Talk-origins has good coverage:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

What I said can be explained through genetics, of *course*, because genetics is a major mechanism of species inheritance, species change, and to some extent, what determines a species. Genetics is one of the backbones of Evolution, and the modern discovery of genetics was based on evolution (indeed, genetic discoveries have further reinforced Darwin's ideas... he had no idea what the exact underlying chemical principles were).

I'm not sure what you mean by:
"What Genetics cannot explain would be the appearance of new species over time. Evolution provides an interesting solution, but it cannot be observed, and cannot be tested in this area."

The above has quite a few instances of observed new species appearing over time, specifically focusing on genetic changes... are you looking for understanding of why genetics works this way, as a part of the evolutionary process?

A very short explanation is that each species varies in genetic composition over time, due to hybridization, or transcription errors, or other things that alter the genetic makeup of members of a given species.

Edit: spelling

[dime.end]

73. thanks for the link

I will take some time to read the whole thing before commenting further, but my first impression is that these species only occured by introducing intelligent design: ie the scientists had to create the situations where the new species occurred. These do not seem to be the sort of events you would be likely to see in nature, but I'll have to read this a little closer before I make that judgment.

Evolution is supposed to a random event, not a directed event, right?
On the other hand, you may have provided some proof for the ID crowd.
(not that either approach qualifies as science)


2.I'm not sure what you mean by:
"What Genetics cannot explain would be the appearance of new species over time. Evolution provides an interesting solution, but it cannot be observed, and cannot be tested in this area."

A: Genetics provides with the reasons why a particular organism ends up with one set of attributes common to its species as opposed some different set of attributes. It can explain why some brothers are blondes and some are brunettes. It can explain why some dogs are big and some are little. It can't explain why a new species would appear.
It has provided us with significant advances in our understanding of biology, but people need to know that genetics and evolution are separate. (altough evolution does rely greatly on the science of genetics to explain its mechanism)

Genetics is science because it is based on observation hypothesis and testing.

Mendel ( who figured out the mechanism of genetics long before Darwin came along) could mathematically express why certain variations of peas appeared. He did not have any way of expressing how peas would morph into new species of vegetables. He always ended with peas, despite a great deal of experimentation.

Genetics does not have a mechanism to adequately describe how new species would occur, suddenly screwing up the gene map.
Mutation is an obvious answer, but most mutations die out, and the situations that create positive mutations will probably create more negative mutations in the organism than postive mutations.

[ErisFiveFingers]

75. A nice, slow, mellow discussion!

"my first impression is that these species only occured by introducing intelligent design: ie the scientists had to create the situations"

When you get more time to examine the studies, some cases were directed evolution, (i.e., the scientists were acting as mediators), and other cases evolutionary changes randomly occurred, and were noted, when the scientists weren't trying to "design" changes. Of course, if the ID crowd wants to state that God controls randomness itself, I have no problem with that... but that's not the argument that they usually make.

"Genetics .... can't explain why a new species would appear."

Agreed. *Why* a species would appear presumes that there is a *reason* for a new species to appear, which genetics does not tackle. Evolution tackles it by stating that reasons are selective pressures and random genetic variation... this leaves some folks dissatisfied if they want to have a more interesting, or profound, reason.

"Mendel ( who figured out the mechanism of genetics long before Darwin came along)"

Uhm.

Mendel Lived from 1822 to 1884. Darwin Lived from 1809 to 1882.... they were contemporaries, though Mendel's work (which focused on heredity and hybridization) wasn't really noticed until the early 1900's, by DeVries, Correns, and Tschermak. In contrast, Darwin's work was noted during his lifetime, as Origin of Species was published in 1859 (Mendel didn't even write his now famous paper until 1865). Mendel had read Origin of Species (underlining several passages) before publishing his paper, but after completing his experiments...

Chromosones were then discovered in 1903, and Bateson was the first to call this expanding field "Genetics" in 1905, with "genes" being found on chromosones in 1910, long after the death of both Mendel and Darwin. They both scratched the surface, but neither really knew what was happening on the mechanical level.

"Genetics does not have a mechanism to adequately describe how new species would occur, suddenly screwing up the gene map."

It's usually a matter of transcription "error" (changing the gene map), combined with a later pressure favoring one variation over another. Depending on the difference (or "error") in species, it can occur in only one generation, (such as significantly altering the number of chromosones), or it can be the product of many generations.

"Mutation is an obvious answer, but most mutations die out,"

Yes and No. Most humans, for example, have 1-2 system-wide mutations that their parents do not have. There's a 50/50 chance that the specific mutation (if not lethal or rendering the carrier sterile) will be passed to the next generation. Of course, most of those mutations are not noticed until there is some specific selective pressure.

"and the situations that create positive mutations will probably create more negative mutations in the organism than postive mutations."

Well, cancer comes to mind as an example of our chronic negative mutation problems... :) Of course, mutations that are not system-wide are not usually inherited, though, and in humans (along with a number of other species), some number of fertilization attempts fail in-between fertilization and reproduction due to a non-viable mutation. However, there are also a large number of mutations in current society that go largely un-noticed as "mutations".

Let's take the "skin color" mutations seen around the world, for one positive/negative example. The mutations which conferred a benefit for a given region survived in various regions, and were passed on, until humans looked (to early researchers) as if they were significantly different "species". While the benefit factor is slowly receeding, the mutations continue to exist (though a form of reverse mutation, or normalization, is taking place.)

Another, far more interesting (to me) mutation, is one often found in Africa, that replaces glutamic acid with valine... which means that the carrier is much more immune to malaria than other people. This is the "positive" effect. The "negative" effect is that it's also known as sickle-cell anemia.

Thus, labeling mutations as "positive" or "negative" or "meaningless" can depend entirely on the environment (or put another way, selective pressure) placed on a species. The list is fairly long when it comes to "mutations" which have some positive, and negative, benefits, but have not "died out". The human genome is filled with variation in some areas, but extremely consistent in others, because some mutations have died out, where others haven't shown enough detriment to the species to matter (yet?).

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. No but your attempt at Kuhn Failed miserably

You see the structure of scientific revolutions requires that you first accept the scinece, which yuo think it is only philosophy

By the by, the way that Darwin wrote evolution has changed over the last 100 years, how about that darn cute scientific literature and the geological record...

[AlCzervik]

17. Is it that people cannot grasp the concept of evolution?

[smoogatz]

26. Europeans can.

But they have much better public schools than we do, and evangelical Christians haven't seized control of their educational bureaucracies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. For the same reason they cannnot speak two langauges fluently

our schools are designed to fail, period

[seabeyond]

18. the question that HAS to be asked. is the earth 6009 yrs old

because if you go with the definition of today creationist story, the fact..... for them...... is this universe is 6009 years old.

it has to be asked this way, to make people think about what they are saying.

i will not have this taught to my child as a fact.

just wont

[HughBeaumont]

19. Meanwhile, India is thriving to start up nanotech and biotech

. . .while 51% of lib'rul science-hatin' Dumberica still chooses to refute facts to believe stories about sky spooks. And these same 51% will be wondering why America's economy is in the shitter in 10 years.

[Bigmack]

20. There's an hypothesis...

... that's says a country can get "frozen" in intellectual time and history when it forms.

When we were founded, we were 2 countries in one... the educated, intellectual aristocracy like Jefferson, and the other composed of uneducated, anti-intellectual backwoodsmen.

The anti-intellectuals have outbred the intellectuals.

In the rest of the civilized world, the people generally believe in evolution, and don't believe in the religious occult.

[JHB]

21. I think it's a legacy of 30 years of word games and demonization

A similar thing happened with "welfare".

If you asked people if they supported "welfare", you'd get a number in the 20s or 30s.

If you asked people if they supported "government aid for poor families" you'd get support in the 60s and 70s, sometimes more.

The lesson: people had been taught that "welfare" was a Bad Thing, but they actually supported the concept.

[ComerPerro]

42. And most Americans oppose a "death tax"

While many of them would never be affected by the estate tax.

[cascadiance]

24. Then I guess 51% of this country isn't afraid of the Avian flu, right?

If we didn't evolve, why should viruses evolve either, right?

[tallahasseedem]

25. Lookie here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5157411&mesg_id=5157411

[Aristus]

33. In a related story, communities are preparing burning stakes

and hangman's nooses for to-be-declared heretics who propound the discredited "round Earth" and "heliocentric system" theories. Mr. I.M. Fanatical, pastor of the Church of Holy Hatred and Righteous Boodletting states: "Th' people of the YOU-nited States 'r' not gonna be taken in by this Satanic practice of science n'more! They're gonna burn NOW, 'n' they're gonna burn LATER, if'n ya know what I mean, heh-heh."

[hatrack]

35. Majority of Americans want free ponies, ice cream

Majority of Americans will clap for Tinkerbell.

Majority of Americans would like to look slimmer, younger.

Majority of Americans unable to face own mortality.

:eyes:

[ComerPerro]

40. Even if that's true, 45% belive in evolution, according to their numbers

That's the thing about intelligent design.

God or not, designer or no, its still evolution.

Which is exactly why ID shouldn't be taught in schools.

To require that the mention of "a designer" is included in any discussion of evolution is as rediculous as requiring a mention of a "designer" when discussing the Pythagorean theorum.

I can imagine it now.

Intelligent Right Triangles:

"And, come on. Look at all the order and harmony. This rule couldn't just happen at radom. A right triange will always have this relationship. You think that just happens? Its proof of some greater, higher power!"

[porphyrian]

45. Don't believe it.

See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5157411&mesg_id=5157939

[coda]

47. A list of numurous recent polls on science/religion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

[Mr_Spock]

51. See, we live in a nation of retards who believe in magic.

We can't shoot 'em all, so I guess we'll have to learn to live with 'eh. x(

[Mountainman]

53. Majority of Americans have been taught creationism by their religion and

nothing about evolution. To accept evolution means that a part of their belief system is not true and they cannot accept that.

This statement could be worded, majority of Americans believe in faith and not reason when it comes to evolution.

Truth is not what the majority says it is.

[thinkingwoman]

54. Not every poll is worth believing

Polls are only as good as their methodology, and their sample size. NOBODY will ever convince me that sampling 808 adults gives a representative sample of anything.

"This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 808 adults, interviewed by telephone October 3-5, 2005."

It's just a load of hooey. In all my 40 years of life and travels, I have yet to meet one single person who DOESN'T believe in evolution, and I live in a red state.

[Zero Division]

55. How can people who demand that macro-evolution be directly

observed in order to be proven feel completely satisfied with the fact that no one has ever directly observed a "higher being" cause humans to simply materialize out of nothing? And why would the Genesis story or something akin to it be the only acceptable alternative idea on man's origins?

Some of the debate on evolution has little to do with scientific education and more to do with simple logic. I have a difficult time believing that 51% of Americans are that dense.

[countingbluecars]

57. Then the majority of Americans

are ignorant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Follow me brothers and sisters to the FSM

(Flying Sphagetti Monsters ) cult... hey it makes as much sense, so have you been touched by the noodle yet?

[Bouncy Ball]

64. I reject the concept of oxygen.

Wait...

LOL.

IF that poll is true, which I doubt, it means the majority of Americans are stupid. Which I wouldn't be surprised by, sadly.

[gizmo1979]

66. Can we split the poll between red

states and blue states?I hate being grouped with idiots.

[Qanisqineq]

67. Those numbers seem high to me

Not counting my colleagues (biologists) but just the people I know (family, friends, acquantainces) in my home RED STATE, about 3/4 believe in either # 1 or #2. Hell, probably more than 3/4 of the people I know. The only creationists I can think of are my sister and her husband.

:shrug:

[PowerToThePeople]

69. This again? 50% US residents have sub-average IQs.

edit-fixed link.

Already been hashed out here.

[stepnw1f]

74. Schnarf... Ok (nt)