Whether you are in favor of the theory of evolution or not, people from both sides of this ridiculous argument claim that they "believe" or don't "believe in" evolution. Evolution isn't a deity and it's not something that involves faith in the slightest sense.
You either understand the process of evolution or you don't, no one, certainly not any scientist is interested in whether or not you "believe in" evolution. Commencing the release of rednecks.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
Believe - Verb
"to accept or regard (something) as true"
I accept and regard elovution as true, therefore I believe it.
To me it's just ridiculous that evolution is a controversial topic at all. The definition of evolution is changes in allele frequencies through each generation of a population of species. To not "believe in" evolution is to deny the existence of genetics and entire premise of biology.
I just don't want evolution being classified in the same context as religion, there is no faith involved in evolution so don't go boasting around saying you believe in it or not. Regardless of anyones faith concerning evolution it will still continue.
At 1/9/14 03:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
Believe - Verb
"to accept or regard (something) as true"
I accept and regard elovution as true, therefore I believe it.
It doesn't matter what you believe, evolution is true. What is important is how you understand evolution, how it's calculated for every population of species on earth much like the force of gravity between two objects may be calculated anywhere in the universe.
At 1/9/14 03:18 PM, Saen wrote: It doesn't matter what you believe, evolution is true.
No it's not. It's not definitively true. We have definievely proved the concept of micro-evolution. Through this we have definitevely proven the possibility of macro evolution. However, until we master time, we will be unable to prove our genetic ancestry. We have ton sof evidence and clues, but until we can make a direct family tree back to another species we will have not proven evolution as true.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution and I personally treat it as fact, and I see those who don't not believe it as well, pretty dumb, but I am not one to say we have definitively proven it, because we have not.
At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: You either understand the process of evolution or you don't, no one, certainly not any scientist is interested in whether or not you "believe in" evolution. Commencing the release of rednecks.
So by that logic, since I don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I don't believe that it's true.
Love your response by the way, "commencing the release of rednecks," as if you're so superior to them.
"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?
was her name tenneassi
omtish
At 1/9/14 06:51 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It's merely a wedge issue meant to divide people along stupid, arbitrary lines. However, it is not purposeless. A divided house cannot stand against an agenda.
I don't understand what you're saying. Could you be a bit more concrete? That was pretty abstract what you said.
At 1/9/14 06:57 PM, Entice wrote: Are you kidding me? Good luck explaining the fossil record without "macro-evolution".
Ugh, you people. Did I ever say there was NO EVIDENCE? Jesus Christ. I said that until we can trace ourselves back directly (i.e. every generation) to a different species we will NOT have definitive empirical proof the we evolved from another species. That said, we have tons of EVIDENCE of it.
Come on people. You're trying to argue for science yet you can't understand the simple difference between strong evidence and empirical fact. Damn.
We've traced the ancestry of thousands of species, you can't discount it just because it's not a continuous line.
I'm not discounting it. Im merely countering the post that acted as if it were 100% done and over completely proven. It isn't. However, we have accounted more than enough evidence for anyone with an ounce of reason in their brain to believe it is true.
At 1/10/14 01:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/9/14 06:57 PM, Entice wrote: Are you kidding me? Good luck explaining the fossil record without "macro-evolution".Ugh, you people. Did I ever say there was NO EVIDENCE? Jesus Christ. I said that until we can trace ourselves back directly (i.e. every generation) to a different species we will NOT have definitive empirical proof the we evolved from another species. That said, we have tons of EVIDENCE of it.
'Tons of evidence' for something, in combination with a complete lack of explanation that opposes the view, actually is as difinitive as you can get, in a scientific point of view. All we have for our theory of electromagnetism and gravity is a bunch of evidence for it without any other reasonable counterargument - would call someone foolish for claiming that it's definitively true, at that point? Evolution (there is no such thing as 'micro' amd 'macro' evolution unless you don't underand.d it conceptually) is as definitive as you get, in a scientific manner. You can say it's possible that it isn't correct, but unless you can propose an alternative (a viable one - Creationism has no evidence to support it and plenty that contradicts it, so it isn't viable) you're merely restricting yourself needlessly.
Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.
Wouldn't it be good if we could separate evolution, which is going on regardless, (I agree with you, totally) from Religion in general, which is after all a life choice and not a fact? Myself as a person do not have any particular religious beliefs, but I would like to think my religion, for want of a better word, is the way in which I conduct myself towards others. This includes humans, animals, and the environment in which I coexist. I also respect the right of other human beings to choose their way of life, as long as it does not include imposing their beliefs/way of life on others.
Just because you don't "believe in" or understand evolution doesn't make it untrue of course holy shit. What is important is that you actually understand evolution itself. Modern medicine, ecology, conservation biology, and our efforts to classify every species on earth hinges on understanding evolution. So when you're voting on issues that concern these things, it would be in your own best interest and society's as a whole to understand evolution.
You can "believe in" evolution and still be completely misinformed when it comes to voting on issues pertaining to it.
It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't understand evolution and you don't want to. That's fine, just exclude yourself from all voting, conversations, and science that involve evolution as well.
At 1/9/14 02:54 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: but their reasons are as valid as mine for accepting it. I hold nothing against them for a personal choice.
Was with you until right here, so that's why this is the only bit I'm responding to. This simply isn't true, and it is part of the apologist "can't we just all get along?" clap trap that's sprung up that suggests science and religion are compatible, or that they arrive at explanations for things in the same way. They don't. Those claiming evolution have a pretty good mountain of evidence saying "look, more likely then not, this is what happened...now, if you've got something with just as much evidence to dispute it, we're listening" those denying are simply saying "Im going to stick my fingers in my ears and scream blasphemy because The Bible is completely accurate and my pastor is the smartest guy ever and said it isn't true. So stop profaining my God because the bible says evolution didn't happen. Teh Edn". Not the same process whatsoever to arrive at the conclusion and to hold up willful ignorance and say it can stand side by side with intelligent reasoning is a dangerously negligent attitude.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
Human's Evolve this is a fact as you are always becoming better and learning or else you cease to exist.
Also another point to further your understanding of evolution and science on the whole.
You often here evolution called the theory of evolution and it is immediately discredited by conservatives as just a theory. Evolution is scientific theory and scientific theory is a process of graduation within the scientific method. No scientist has ever proposed a scientific theory, but rather a hypothesis. E.g. Newton didn't propose the law of gravity but the hypothesis of gravity. When a hypothesis may be tested and proven accurate in all environments by various scientists around the world, after much time it graduates to scientific theory. In the case of Newtons, when a hypothesis results in definitive mathematical answers throughout any application, after many years it is accepted and graduates into scientific law.
Scientific theory is just as credible as scientific law the difference is that scientific law is more exact than theory. E.G. you may calculate the exact force of attraction between any two objects in the universe.
In the case of evolution in smaller populations there is a factor called genetic drift which plays a major role in small population sizes. This factor is entirely random and is perpetuated by random changes in allele frequencies through sexual reproduction. Tracking genetic alleles in small populations to calculate the rate and direction of evolution, genetic drift is one of the factors that inhibits an exact rate or conclusion. That is why evolution is distinguished as theory rather than law.
My point of explaining all of this is that scientific theory is entirely fact and evolution shouldn't be dismissed because it is a "theory" much like Einstein's theory of relativity shouldn't be deemed wrong.
At 1/11/14 09:56 PM, Razefan wrote: So many people in this thread "believe" in evolution but don't even realize it
Humans are not evolving anymore lol
No. Seriously we aren't.
Evolve - to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolve
Indeed we are evolving. Well most of us are.
Evolution - a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution?show=0&t=1389495641
Evolution takes a long long long time. We can't say that the Human race is no longer evolving as none of us have been or will be around long enough to witness biological evolution.
At 1/11/14 09:56 PM, Razefan wrote: So many people in this thread "believe" in evolution but don't even realize it
Humans are not evolving anymore lol
No. Seriously we aren't.
Let me explain evolution really quick.
Whenever a new spawn is born he will have random mutations as a result of errors in the genetic code
these can be good, bad, or just do nothing
if its good the baby is more likely to survive and pass on the genes with the mutation. That's evolution, having random mutations that just randomly become beneficial.
This process started with wherever the first cells came from and randomly divided for millions of years until today.
The thing is that Humans aren't fighting for survival anymore. A baby can be born and be completely unfit for survival in the wild but since its a human can grow up to be a total whore and release its genes everywhere.
Human evolution isn't going to be improved because having kids is no longer based off of how well you'd survive.
Another huge misconception of evolution, mutation is not a driving or major factor of evolution. A perfect example of someone who "believes in" evolution and no clue about the actually process and driving forces of evolution.
Less than .1% of all evolution throughout all species has occurred due to mutation. Mutation is rarely responsible for the development of a new species. Evolution occurs primarily and most effectively through natural selection while smaller populations have a stronger influence from genetic drift.
Both natural selection and genetic drift occur through recombination of genes (sex) that are already present in all organisms. Recombination of genes produces the variety outside and within species we observe (i.e. humans) while natural selection determines which genes succeed to the next generation.
Humans all evolving, all species on this earth are evolving in some degree.
At 1/11/14 10:28 PM, Razefan wrote:
mu·ta·tion
myo͞oˈtāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of mutating.
"the mutation of ethnic politics into nationalist politics"
synonyms: alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation; More
2.
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
synonyms: alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation; More
As we have sex and offspring, they get random MUTATIONS from genetic code
the random mutations that help them survive longer
AKA natural selection get spread on
That's evolution. and that's exactly what I said in my previous post….
Mutation accounts for less than .1% of all evolution not only because mutation is highly infrequent, but also because when mutation does occur it is negated by redundancy in the genetic code. Mutation very very rarely results in a beneficial trait, but rather is largely results in death.
Mutations do not account for why our eye color varies, our height, skin color, etc. E.g. albinos are not caused by a mutation in a gene, but recombination of alleles which were already present.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about, you are not educating you are promoting misunderstanding. Either read up on genetics and evolution or keep your mouth shut.
At 1/11/14 10:28 PM, Razefan wrote:At 1/11/14 10:25 PM, Saen wrote:mu·ta·tionAt 1/11/14 09:56 PM, Razefan wrote: So many people in this thread "believe" in evolution but don't even realize itAnother huge misconception of evolution, mutation is not a driving or major factor of evolution. A perfect example of someone who "believes in" evolution and no clue about the actually process and driving forces of evolution.
Humans are not evolving anymore lol
No. Seriously we aren't.
Let me explain evolution really quick.
Whenever a new spawn is born he will have random mutations as a result of errors in the genetic code
these can be good, bad, or just do nothing
if its good the baby is more likely to survive and pass on the genes with the mutation. That's evolution, having random mutations that just randomly become beneficial.
This process started with wherever the first cells came from and randomly divided for millions of years until today.
The thing is that Humans aren't fighting for survival anymore. A baby can be born and be completely unfit for survival in the wild but since its a human can grow up to be a total whore and release its genes everywhere.
Human evolution isn't going to be improved because having kids is no longer based off of how well you'd survive.
Less than .1% of all evolution throughout all species has occurred due to mutation. Mutation is rarely responsible for the development of a new species. Evolution occurs primarily and most effectively through natural selection while smaller populations have a stronger influence from genetic drift.
Both natural selection and genetic drift occur through recombination of genes (sex) that are already present in all organisms. Recombination of genes produces the variety outside and within species we observe (i.e. humans) while natural selection determines which genes succeed to the next generation.
Humans all evolving, all species on this earth are evolving in some degree.
myo͞oˈtāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of mutating.
"the mutation of ethnic politics into nationalist politics"
synonyms: alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation; More
2.
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.
synonyms: alteration, change, variation, modification, transformation, metamorphosis, transmutation; More
As we have sex and offspring, they get random MUTATIONS from genetic code
the random mutations that help them survive longer
AKA natural selection get spread on
That's evolution. and that's exactly what I said in my previous post….
Mutation and evolution are not the same thing at all. Genetic Mutation is like what is happening to the new born's in the Middle East due to the spent Depleted Uranium ammunition lying around everywhere. Genetic Mutation is caused from Damaged DNA whereas Genetic Evolution is not caused by damaged DNA.
Genetic Evolution is something that is very specific and beneficial to the survival of a species for example the peppered moths coloration going from light to dark to better blend into it's surroundings and provide cover from predators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
No one "believes" in evolution, or any other scientific theories. You either accept the evidence or you don't. Science is not religion.
At 1/11/14 11:42 PM, i-am-ghey wrote: No one "believes" in evolution, or any other scientific theories. You either accept the evidence or you don't. Science is not religion.
Religion is not Science nor is it even considered fact because religion is largely based on faith but Science is based on a hypothesis and then the hypothesis is proven wrong or quantified with replicable fact. No one believes in religion they just have faith that it is true. Evolution is not a theory it has been proven time and time again and is considered quantified fact.
At 1/11/14 11:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 1/11/14 11:42 PM, i-am-ghey wrote: No one "believes" in evolution, or any other scientific theories. You either accept the evidence or you don't. Science is not religion.Religion is not Science nor is it even considered fact because religion is largely based on faith but Science is based on a hypothesis and then the hypothesis is proven wrong or quantified with replicable fact. No one believes in religion they just have faith that it is true. Evolution is not a theory it has been proven time and time again and is considered quantified fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
Evolution is scientific theory I explained this in an earlier post. The problem is most people do not understand what scientific theory actually is and misuse the term.
At 1/11/14 11:58 PM, Saen wrote:
Evolution is scientific theory I explained this in an earlier post. The problem is most people do not understand what scientific theory actually is and misuse the term.
If theory means fact then I guess you are correct.
At 1/11/14 11:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 1/11/14 11:42 PM, i-am-ghey wrote: No one "believes" in evolution, or any other scientific theories. You either accept the evidence or you don't. Science is not religion.
i am of course not questioning the validity of evolution here. the word "theory" refers to a proven hypothesis in science, this may be different from the word "theory" used in daily language., which typically means a plausible explanation that is not yet supported by evidence.
in my opinion, evolution can be considered a "fact" too if it has been observed directly. but others may have different definition of "fact".
i am also aware that religion is based on faith. i choose to use the word "believe" to describe the act of taking something for granted without having the ability to falsify the claim.
all in all, it depends on how things are defined from your perspective.
At 1/12/14 12:07 AM, i-am-ghey wrote:
in my opinion, evolution can be considered a "fact" too if it has been observed directly. but others may have different definition of "fact".
i am also aware that religion is based on faith. i choose to use the word "believe" to describe the act of taking something for granted without having the ability to falsify the claim.
all in all, it depends on how things are defined from your perspective.
Religion has been falsified. The Evolution of the Peppered Moth theory has been proven and substantiated.
At 1/12/14 12:11 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Religion has been falsified. The Evolution of the Peppered Moth theory has been proven and substantiated.
you mean the whole religion has been proven wrong experimetally?
i am speechless.
At 1/12/14 12:04 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 1/11/14 11:58 PM, Saen wrote:Evolution is scientific theory I explained this in an earlier post. The problem is most people do not understand what scientific theory actually is and misuse the term.If theory means fact then I guess you are correct.
Scientific theory is fact yes.
At 1/12/14 12:14 AM, i-am-ghey wrote:At 1/12/14 12:11 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:Religion has been falsified. The Evolution of the Peppered Moth theory has been proven and substantiated.you mean the whole religion has been proven wrong experimetally?
i am speechless.
Mathematically and astrologically yes it has been proven to be little more than a personification of the Stars and the Sun not Son of God. But anyway that's another topic.
At 1/12/14 12:17 AM, Saen wrote: Scientific theory is fact yes.
or rather, current scientific theory can be considered a fact.
once upon a time, newton thought that there was no relationship between space and time and they were treated on the same footing. he thought infinite velocities were possible.
newton mechanics were developed which was sort of based on these assumptions. and people found his theory was a good description of the world.
many years later, einstein realised that newtonian mechanics was incompatible with electromagnetism. he developed a set of hypothesis (which is now known the the special theory of relativity) and a general theory of relativity, which states that space on time should be treated on the same footing and gravity is equivalent to a curature of space-time.
it was shown that einstein's theory made better predictions of the world than newtonian mechanics. so, a current scientific theory may be shown to be wrong in the future. you can't be sure your theory must be correct.
At 1/12/14 12:29 AM, i-am-ghey wrote:
or rather, current scientific theory can be considered a fact.
once upon a time, newton thought that there was no relationship between space and time and they were treated on the same footing. he thought infinite velocities were possible.
newton mechanics were developed which was sort of based on these assumptions. and people found his theory was a good description of the world.
You pretty much summed up Newtonian mechanics as assumptions. Assumptions, nonetheless still were still applicable mathematically in his time and his equations are still used today. Technology at the time prohibited him from testing for the speed limit of the universe so postulating was the best he could do.
many years later, einstein realised that newtonian mechanics was incompatible with electromagnetism. he developed a set of hypothesis (which is now known the the special theory of relativity) and a general theory of relativity, which states that space on time should be treated on the same footing and gravity is equivalent to a curature of space-time.
it was shown that einstein's theory made better predictions of the world than newtonian mechanics. so, a current scientific theory may be shown to be wrong in the future. you can't be sure your theory must be correct.
Scientific theory has the ability to be built upon and adjusted. Assumptions may be proven entirely false.
