"Believing in" Evolution

[Saen]

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.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: 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.

I would recommend a bit of context here. Your point is valid, but it's an awkward position considering you are both the person propping up your opposition, and responding to it. (Gollum....Gollum...)

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.

Pretty much. I have never heard of "ex-Darwinians" or former evolution acolytes.

Commencing the release of rednecks.

Now that's unnecessary. I think the people whom reject evolution are missing out on a very interesting and world expanding topic (dinosaurs bitches!!) but their reasons are as valid as mine for accepting it. I hold nothing against them for a personal choice.

[Camarohusky]

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.

[Saen]

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.

[Saen]

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.

[Camarohusky]

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.

[Razefan]

At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: 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.

Believe means to accept something as true. It isn't a faith based word at all.
People can understand the theory of evolution but still not accept it as true and thus not believe it
I understand the process so therefore I believe in evolution

[Light]

At 1/9/14 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

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.

Macroevolution has already been proven true. Logically and empirically speaking, macroevolution is just microevolution on a long time scale.

In regards to the OP, I just say that I "accept" evolution as truth, because it is.

[Light]

At 1/9/14 05:52 PM, Light wrote:

At 1/9/14 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

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.

Macroevolution has already been proven true. Logically and empirically speaking, macroevolution is just microevolution on a long time scale.

I should add that we've observed the creation of some animal species and new strains of bacteria through natural selection. I'd say these events constitute instances of macroevolution.

[Light]

At 1/9/14 05:54 PM, Light wrote:

I should add that we've observed the creation of some animal species and new strains of bacteria through natural selection. I'd say these events constitute instances of macroevolution.

Ugh, meant to include the fact that the creation of these species and strains(Mostly strains, though) are events that have been observed in the lifetimes of the scientists who observe them.

[Ranger2]

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.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 1/9/14 06:17 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

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.

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.

[Entice]

At 1/9/14 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 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.

Are you kidding me? Good luck explaining the fossil record without "macro-evolution".

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.

We've traced the ancestry of thousands of species, you can't discount it just because it's not a continuous line.

[kazumazkan]

why are there still monkeys

[Ranger2]

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.

[Camarohusky]

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.

[Entice]

At 1/10/14 01:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: However, we have accounted more than enough evidence for anyone with an ounce of reason in their brain to believe it is true.

Well, then how is that not over and done with? How'd you decide how much evidence it needs to cross over from having strong evidence in its favor to being an empirical fact?

Seems like a silly distinction to argue about it.

[Korriken]

At 1/9/14 08:09 PM, kazumazkan wrote: why are there still monkeys

Personally, I get sick of hearing this question.

because there are many species of primate, few (if any) of which can interbreed. Just because human and monkeys exist together does not mean that other evolution cannot exist. This question is just as ignorant as asking why wolves still exist because we have cats.

While humans have never seen any real animals magically evolve before our eyes into a totally new species, it's not hard to imagine how after enough generations of small changes that a species, isolated from others of its kind could eventually become something different altogether, or at least diverge enough to where they can no longer interbreed.

While a dog cannot become a ferret, it could become something completely different. Wolves, when bred through many generations became dogs. These dogs can still breed with wolves (within physical limitations of course) which means they're still the same species. Wolves and dogs can also breed with coyotes and jackals.

And then you got the Fox and Raccoon Dog. Even though they are canines and look similar to a small canine, they cannot breed with wolves/dogs/coyotes/jackals.

Of course, the raccoon dog looks oddly like a badger too, but isn't a badger at all.

I see other 'races' of people the same way I see other breeds of dog. They may look different, but at the end of the day, they're still dogs. all of them, just as all races of people, in the end, are people.

Of course, that leads me to some controversial thinking. Different breeds of dog tend to be predisposed to acting a certain way. Wouldn't it be the same in all animals, including humans?

[Entice]

At 1/10/14 07:11 AM, Korriken wrote: Of course, that leads me to some controversial thinking. Different breeds of dog tend to be predisposed to acting a certain way. Wouldn't it be the same in all animals, including humans?

There's a few differences. Humans controlled the breeding of dogs to produce the breeds we have now, so the difference is more drastic than what occurs naturally in human populations. I think the differences in disposition are exaggerated as well. For example, pit bulls and dobermans aren't inherently more aggressive than other breeds, but they're often trained to be aggressive.

I do believe that there's differences in the behavior of humans between races, but I question their significance. Still interesting though. I remember reading a study about how people of different races tend to perform better on tests when a question is presented a certain way. I'll see if I can find it.

[Gario]

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.

[Bri]

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.

[Saen]

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.

[aviewaskewed]

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.

[leanlifter1]

Human's Evolve this is a fact as you are always becoming better and learning or else you cease to exist.

[Saen]

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.

[Razefan]

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.

[leanlifter1]

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.

[Saen]

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.

[Razefan]

At 1/11/14 10:03 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

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.

We are mutating and changing of course, but who's to say its for the better?
as I said earlier evolution was only working because whatever mutation helped the offspring survive longer and mate more made that mutation more common.
But modern human society isn't a game of survival, at least not like it was in the wild. Pretty much everyone lives and those who don't for the most part don't die because they were physically inferior to other mutations.

[Razefan]

At 1/11/14 10:25 PM, Saen wrote:

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.

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….