Surprising Number Of Americans Still Don't Believe In Evolution

amfirst1
reply to post by TLomon

 

Actually I believe in both micro evolution and creationism, not macro evolution that they teach in school.

That's like saying you believe I'm lime jello but not green jello. There's no difference except for how the two are misappropriated by creationists.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well they say "at least 10 days" because the experiment only involved exposing them for 10 days. They haven't tested for longer periods yet.

It's also worth noting that many microbes can permeate rock layers, so they could be under the surface or inside an asteroid or comet where conditions are more favourable.

I honestly am more surprised how many people take all of evolution as fact.

There is only one "evolution" that is fact - micro-evolution, or the variation within a species. THIS HAPPENS AND IS OBSERVABLE. Please go ahead and teach this as fact to EVERYONE, because it replicates naturally and we can see it.

As for macro-evolution - the odds are stacked against it. Please don't act like this is 100% reality. Most of what this theory is based upon is unreliable radioactive dating. Carbon 14 only has a half life of ~5700 years - give it tens of thousands of years MAYBE, and then you won't be able to measure anything (that was once living). So they rely on radioactive dating that can you can extract from rocks... and starting values are assumed. You can never know the starting values of these rocks, especially if they're speculated to be millions of years old...

Right now macro-evolution is NOT a fact. It is a THEORY. If we teach it, stating that it is NOT reality, but pretty darn close and we need to research it deeply, but it may not in fact be where living organisms came from - THEN I would support everyone's cause. Those who believe it is 100% reality are the ones who are really losing themselves.

reply to post by Myollinir

Myollinir
I honestly am more surprised how many people take all of evolution as fact.

There is only one "evolution" that is fact - micro-evolution, or the variation within a species. THIS HAPPENS AND IS OBSERVABLE. Please go ahead and teach this as fact to EVERYONE, because it replicates naturally and we can see it.

This is only a distinction that creationists (and NO ONE ELSE) makes.There is no difference between macro and micro evolution. It's all evolution.

Please go ahead and teach this as fact to EVERYONE, because it replicates naturally and we can see it.

This statement makes no sense and I think belies a deep misunderstanding of evolutionary process. 'Replicates naturally'? What do you mean? What replicates? The evolution?

As for macro-evolution - the odds are stacked against it. Please don't act like this is 100% reality. Most of what this theory is based upon is unreliable radioactive dating. Carbon 14 only has a half life of ~5700 years - give it tens of thousands of years MAYBE, and then you won't be able to measure anything (that was once living). So they rely on radioactive dating that can you can extract from rocks... and starting values are assumed. You can never know the starting values of these rocks, especially if they're speculated to be millions of years old...

You might have a point here if Carbon 14 were the only dating method used.

Actually Carbon 14 is only one of many radiometric dating methods used by scientists, and radiometric dating itself is only one of many methods overall used. Carbon 14 is generally not used on anything suspected to be older than 50,000 years as it is not accurate after this point.

Carbon 14 is not used to date rocks and stuff. If it is being used to do this, it is being misused and you can expect a faulty result as a consequence.

Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium,uranium-thorium, chlorine-36 are other isotopes commonly used, depending on their half life. These methods can be augmented by fission-track and luminescence dating methods, and further backed up by more traditional geological dating techniques such as incremental dating, dendrochronology and stratigraphy.

Creationists like to single out Carbon 14 dating because it has at times been used inappropriately (by creationists, mind you) and there have been a number of cases where samples were contaminated which skewed results.

For more on this and other false claims about radiometric dating -

Claim CD001"Radiometric dating falsely assumes that the rocks being dated are closed systems"
Claim CD002"Radiometric dating falsely assumes that initial conditions are known, that none of the daughter components are in the mineral initially."
Claim CD010 "Radiometric dating gives unreliable results."
Claim CD011 "Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results."

Right now macro-evolution is NOT a fact. It is a THEORY. If we teach it, stating that it is NOT reality, but pretty darn close and we need to research it deeply, but it may not in fact be where living organisms came from - THEN I would support everyone's cause. Those who believe it is 100% reality are the ones who are really losing themselves.

Evolution most definitely is an observable fact. This is the reason they need to change antibiotics and vaccines every season.

But we also have a scientific explanation for this fact, which we call "The theory of evolution". Please do not confuse the layman's definition of "theory" (which means "best guess", essentially) with a scientific theory (which is an exhaustively tested explanation for an observable phenomena backed up by evidence and is the highest accolade in science that a hypothesis can ever hope to get to).

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Can you provide links to any studies linking what is usually considered micro-evolution (adaptation without speciation) to a macro-evolution (speciation)?

I know each are believed to have been observed but is there any evidence linking the two?

-FBB

reply to post by Bassago

The theory of evolution is only a theory and has more validating support than magic (creationism.) But it's still just a theory, teaching otherwise is a disservice.

You are confusing hypothesis with theory.

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

Can you provide links to any studies linking what is usually considered micro-evolution (adaptation without speciation) to a macro-evolution (speciation)?

I know each are believed to have been observed but is there any evidence linking the two?

-FBB

It's the same freaking thing.

What you're asking is like asking, "Do you have any proof that this strip of bitumen which we have needlessly and arbitrarily delineated constitutes a road?"

It's like saying "I believe in microgravity (an apple falling on Newton's head) , but macrogravity (orbital mechanics) is unproven!"

Many small changes over time add up to significant levels of observable change.

Creationists only came up with this distinction so that they can hand-wave away observable evolution. It's dishonest, like most of what they do.

I can understand why they do it, because let's be honest, there is no controversy at all here. This argument has been fought and lost by the creationists years ago. They have, literally, nothing. They have no argument. Their only option is to stick their heads in the sand and circle the wagons.

It's pathetic.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

So that's a no?

. . . and a ridiculous comparison. If you don't draw a line between species then there is no difference between a human, a dog, or a camel.

What sources are you using to define what is alive and what isn't?

It really seems like your understanding of evolution would claim I evolved if I contracted a virus. Very open ended which allows room to claim pretty much whatever you want without having to provide links to any sort of proof, or that said proof even qualifies as proof.

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

So that's a no?

. . . and a ridiculous comparison. If you don't draw a line between species then there is no difference between a human, a dog, or a camel.

What sources are you using to define what is alive and what isn't?

It really seems like your understanding of evolution would claim I evolved if I contracted a virus. Very open ended which allows room to claim pretty much whatever you want without having to provide links to any sort of proof, or that said proof even qualifies as proof.

-FBB

And your alternate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth wouldn't have anything to do with a magical invisible man in the sky would it?

Where is the proof of that? Oh that's right, there is none.


You got nothing. All creationists can try, in absolute futility, to do is to debate the science. Pick apart some small bit of the science that they do not understand and then try and beat atheists over the head with it.

You want to debate the science? Debate it with a scientist.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Look at my post history in this thread.

Or you can go get a clue, learn the scientific method, and apply it to your argument. All I asked for were links to the MOST BASIC principles of your argument and you fly off into a temper tantrum about religion.

Are you going to provide links to how you are defining these things or what?

-FBB

EDIT
It seems that it is YOU that has nothing and can only resort to accusations. You are claiming to operate under science and you wont even hold to that.

If you are crusading against religion, go right ahead, but it has NOTHING to do with the question I asked you. LoL I personally know one of the scientist who first genetically modified crops (hint its a common example in text books) and he is Christian with a PhD in physics. You admit to knowing nothing of science so you tell me to go to scientists, well guess what, I interact with them everyday.

You are trying to create a false dichotomy (that means division) in people's perception of the issue, which is not the reality.

Shame on you.
/EDIT

reply to post by TLomon


What difference does it make? Why does that matter?

People don't have to believe everything they learn in school. Besides that, most people don't ever use what they learn in school - and this is a perfect example of information that is irrelevant in our lives (unless you are a geneticist or micro-biologist or something to that effect).

It's not a question of philosophy or morals, ultimately Evolution is more closely linked to being a religious belief in that it is an explanation of human origin - based on observations from our physical perspective, just like creation stories from every other religion in history.

The point is, if people want to believe evolution or not, it doesn't affect anyone but that person and being shocked that a large number of people don't believe it, is equivalent to someone being shocked that Muslims, or Buddhists exist. Everyone is welcome to believe whichever creation story they wish. Be happy to share your perspective with others, but don't be surprised if they stick to their own opinion.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


The only people who make a distinction between macro and micro evolution are creationists.

To ask the question, and to pretend it has nothing to do with religiion is nonsense. It automatically identifies you as a creationist.

Not suggesting that it's either one or the other (the false dichotomy you refer to) at all. You can be a christian and accept evolution. You can be an atheist and not accept it (though that would be a minority). You can not give a stuff about it.

But when you enter a discussion throwing around terms like micro and macro evolution you give your hand away. All you are interested is in getting bogged down into the usual creationist 'micro-evolution' vs 'macro-evolution' debate. It's a nonsense distinction that means little outside of creationist circles.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


You can call it phenotypic plasticity or whatever you like, the definition is the same, the "small" changes over type which are thought to lead to speciation.

The only people who throw tantrums about it are the ones on an anti-religious campaign.

Now are you going to provide any links to the definitions you operating under or can I just assume you don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about?

-FBB

EDIT
IF you want to show statistical correlation as evidence of evolutionary theory you have to demonstrate the the vectors (phenotypic plasticity and environmental conditions, in this case A and B).

The formula is simply (A*B(length, scalar)/:A::Bdirection))(A*B(vector)) is very near to one. And this isn't your BS virology definition of a vector, its the mathematical one.

This has been shown in some cases, but not B-->C

This is simple statistical modeling, but don't worry, I just want to know what definitions you operating under.
/EDIT

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I'm passionate about my atheism, sure. I am motivated a desire for a better society. Call it what you like.

I am not going to get bogged down debating you on what is and what isn't life, I'm sorry. That's another discussion fit for someone with the time and patience needed for that subject. It could be an interesting discussion, sure, but have it with someone else. I've got things I need to do.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

I'm passionate about my atheism, sure. I am motivated a desire for a better society. Call it what you like.

I am not going to get bogged down debating you on what is and what isn't life, I'm sorry. That's another discussion fit for someone with the time and patience needed for that subject. It could be an interesting discussion, sure, but have it with someone else. I've got things I need to do.

If you won't get "bogged" down defining what is or isn't life, or what defines a species then you have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER getting involved in the subject of evolution.

From my edit above;

IF you want to show statistical correlation as evidence of evolutionary theory you have to demonstrate the the vectors (phenotypic plasticity and environmental conditions, in this case A and B).

The formula is simply (A*B(length, scalar)/:A::B
direction))(A*B(vector)) is very near to one. And this isn't your BS virology definition of a vector, its the mathematical one.

This has been shown in some cases, but not B-->C

There are plenty of threads for you to go bash religions, maybe you should go there. There is even an entire sub-reddit filled with people who wont challenge your intellect either.

Don't play the "science" card if you are one of the unwashed masses taking everything they say on faith. Because that is what you are doing, taking it on faith. If you don't understand the mechanisms, but believe only what you see then you are no different then the people at magic shows.

-FBB

If one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

What biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?


When scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. They remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Jeezus tap dancing christ on a bike.

If your argument is with the science, then argue the science, with a scientist. I am not a scientist.

Submit a paper and have it peer reviewed. If you can prove it, good luck to you. You will be the toast of the scientific and creationist communities.

What you don't do is pick on some atheist schmuck on the internet. corner them with some jargon about some specific part of evolutionary theory you disagree with and then declare yourself the victor.

If you have the goods, then step up to the plate and take it up with science. That is where your argument lies.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It's like saying a minute does exist, but I dispute the existence of a millennium. The difference in both is really the timescale they operate on.

reply to post by TKDRL


Good example.

Some additional content to mull over -

Summary of the 'macro vs micro evolution' debate (terms I consider entirely arbitrary) -

Why creationists are wrong about 'Macroevolution' -

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Wow are you really going to try and play the victim card also?

You were just attacking people for not believing in something that you admit knowing NOTHING about.

I don't think you even care if evolution is correct or not, all you seem capable of doing is attacking the creationists. Your justification is no different than creationists quoting Bible verses as treat scientists and their word like it's scripture.

Summary of the 'macro vs micro evolution' debate (terms I consider entirely arbitrary)

Yet you throw a fit when someone uses the terms . . .

-FBB