It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surprising Number Of Americans Still Don't Believe In Evolution

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by whatnext21
 


Well someone told me we were bred my ETs to mine gold, but I think that 'theory' deserves its own topic. Why else would the Incas and Mayans have accumulated so much gold even though there was no such thing as money in their society?

Sharks with wings and laser beams, that must be the next logical step in their evolution!




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

whatnext21
So if we evolved from monkeys/apes, you choose, why aren't they still evolving into humans today, why did evolution stop? Why have crocs and sharks not evolved over billions of years? No I do not believe in evolution, why have we not lost our appendix or wisdom teeth, why do we have to have them removed?


we did not evolve from monkeys and or apes, we have a common ancestor that dates to approx. 8 million years ago.
monkeys and apes technically are still evolving but in many instances such as Gorillas, the reduction in population has reduced their genetic diversity considerably. they are at a genetic bottleneck, mostly from humans poaching them and destroying their habitat. they are more likely to go extinct at this point than to evolve further.
Crocodiles and sharks have not stopped evolving either, although they are quite perfectly suited to their habitats and there is little impetus for morphological change that however does not mean that crocodiles today are exactly the same as their counterparts from the Cretaceous period 83 MYA Both environmental and dietary changes have affected crocodile morphology, particularly their snouts.
We have yet to lose our appendix because it still has a function. Not all people need to have their wisdom teeth removed. Human cranial capacity is actually slightly less than it was 100,000 years ago indicating at least a continuing morphological change in humans.



www.scientificamerican.com... For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 





Ghosts, etc are pretty much completely unsubstantiated with verifiable facts but it doesn't make them false. There's a lot of anecdotal support for them but to simply say they don't exist without proof puts people in the same camp as people who say the world was magically created (but can't prove any of it.


Not to pick on you Bass,
but if I may single you out for just a moment. Just to point
out how people like yourself, seem to bash mans spiritual nature that he
has always had and always will have, whether you choose to acknowledge it
or not. I presume because you know that's one of the biggest challenges to
your own beliefs. You wil draw some big bombastic comparison
between what others believe and some magic show or Santa Claus and fairy dust.
And that's not so bad, I could careless how unintelligent you love to make
yourselves sound when your own beliefs can't even be explained. Not without
sounding more perposterous than anything I've ever heard. Because at some point
in the story of abiogenesis, you have no way of explaining how everything got
here except to say, everything just went bang. Magic without the magician.
edit on 30-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


Which explains why so many believe so strongly that killer diseases have to be made by the military - they think bugs can't evolve naturally 'cuz evolution isn't real.

Okay.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Yes, I know about the feathered dinosaur. It's decades old news, so to speak. So this leads one to believe this is evidence. If you believe something, you will more than likely reject evidence against it. Here is that Big Bang Story. phys.org...
edit on 30-12-2013 by stonergeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


I am surprised that you are surprised!



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Hey Peter again not surprised to see you here
nice to see ya

I have a question for you about adaptation and survival of the fittest. Why is (or is there) any grounds to believe that humans and animals can rapidly evolve to become survivors in an environment that is harsher then its previous due to great change in its ecosystem?
edit on 30-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

stonergeek
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Yes, I know about the feathered dinosaur. It's decades old news, so to speak. So this leads one to believe this is evidence. If you believe something, you will more than likely reject evidence against it. Here is that Big Bang Story. phys.org...
edit on 30-12-2013 by stonergeek because: (no reason given)


the history of feathered dinosaurs goes back to the 90's sure, but you make it sound like there was just one. there have been multiple species discovered now with feathers or remnants including a new find in N. America. they have also found beta carotene which is what modern bird feathers are made of on dinosaurs. its not as inconsequential or trivial as you seem to make it out to be. the first link has multiple links to several other articles.To reject evidence against it you would have to provide some, that's usually how it works. I can't refute a thought or idea unless it is presented.
Thank you for the link regarding the Bog Bang. If you read it, it doesn't actually negate the big bang or anything that happened after the big bang. it simply tries to explain the origin of the singularity that caused the even in the first place. It shifts the impetus from an unknown singularity to one created by a black hole. either way the singularity still existed and still produced everything the currently exists. It is simply a hypothesis at this time and it could turn out to be supported by math or it could turn out to be another red herring. we simply don't know enough about that point in time right now. I believe many things. All are based on observation and empirical data. I can't afford to support any hypothesis devoid of supporting or testable evidence and I can't afford to not check the data twice to cover my own tail. If I have a belief it is because I can support it with reproducible, verifiable evidence.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


I am not arguing against any of the science. Nor am I arguing for or against Creationism or Evolution. I do know that discoveries have been made in the past that shattered previous beliefs, both scientific and dogmatic. I am arguing against this whole requirement of belief that we all seem so hung up on. Perhaps my original comment was a bit vague. I should have said "what's there to believe IN". Yes the distinction is semantic, but there is a difference in believing something and believing IN something.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I read something about a year ago, that had attached to it some of Darwin's original thesis. I wish I could find the link, but I have tried a number times to locate it and cannot find it again.

Anyway, when reading this article, it stated that the synopsis that Darwin theorized was not a physical evolutionary theory but a consciousness one, they stated that when the authoritative body of science reviewed this article, that they changed it to bring it into a form that could be understood by individuals level of understanding of science at that time.

It is interesting to see that so many responders to this post view this idea as a lack of education of the populace.

Rather than seeing it as the populace actually been educated of this idea but deciding instead that it doesn't make any sense at all.

I can prove anything to anyone if i put in a missing link.

I can remember being presented with Darwin's theory at school and saying to the teacher, "whoa, that makes no sense at all!!". The teacher then told me to sit down and shut up.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iamea
 


IDK if this is what you are looking for but it is certainly applicable to what you are saying


Co-Evolution of Matter and Consci...



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 




"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 





This doesn't make any sense. Why does it have to come from space? Does it have some property that is not included in life that originated on earth like say a silica base instead of carbon? How does that refute evolution as opposed to supporting evolution? Theories change in accordance with the data we receive over time; however, there is no data out there denying evolution and certainly no data that supports creationism. If that changes, the scientific community will embrace it.


Were else could it come from? Darwin theroy did not take into account the fact that alien lifeforms(unless I missed something) could be coming to earth on a daily basis via meteors/comets..ect. If he didnt include this in his theory then his theroy must be reconstructed to account for all causes of change in earths DNA pool, not just natural selection and mutation.

The reason why the theory must be restructured is due to the fact the origins of space rocks are unknown, and can only be at best known from what direction they came from, and what material the remaining evidence is made from. Everything else is unknown. If I wanted to go extreme with this idea i could say an intelligent being or beings are shooting rocks filled with microbes at earth to purposely change our gene pool.

If I wanted to stay conservative with the idea, I could say due to the vast space of the universe it is likely that this newer planet is receiving dna from former older planets via space rocks. Either way natural selection can be questioned because either dna is being sent here or outside life is landing here randomly thus changing the natural selection process of the planet earth. If I remember(its been along time) the current theory includes only this planet and not the entire universe therefore the current theory must be restructured, if it is to be restructured in this fashion then Darwinists would then have to accept the possibility of intelligent design, which i know is taboo for u guys.

Not to mention if the rocks that fall here from space are just rocks who is say that they are not saturated with high radiation levels causing mutations, so again natural selection can come into question depending on the source of the radiation.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


When it comes to Human Evolution , the Alledged " Missing Link " is the most likely Reason some do not Believe Darwin's Theory . From Bacteria to Homo Sapians is to much of a " Leap Of Faith ' for most Logical Thinking People . Plant and Animal Evolution on the other hand fits perfectly well to me in a Darwinistic Sense .



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

iamea
I read something about a year ago, that had attached to it some of Darwin's original thesis. I wish I could find the link, but I have tried a number times to locate it and cannot find it again.

Anyway, when reading this article, it stated that the synopsis that Darwin theorized was not a physical evolutionary theory but a consciousness one, they stated that when the authoritative body of science reviewed this article, that they changed it to bring it into a form that could be understood by individuals level of understanding of science at that time.


that's an interesting take on it. however, Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" as a book for the general public and never submitted it for peer review. It seems to also be rather counterintuitive to make something look more like the science of the times when the average person was far more in line with the 1/3 of Americans who currently don't believe in evolution because of their religious leanings. i.e. science didn't mean a whole lot to the average person back then so what your abstract postulates would have been easier for most people to understand and accept therefore there would be no impetus for altering the premise. but its an irrelevant thought exercise as it was never submitted for review simply published.


It is interesting to see that so many responders to this post view this idea as a lack of education of the populace.

Rather than seeing it as the populace actually been educated of this idea but deciding instead that it doesn't make any sense at all.


I can't speak for anyone else personally but in my view its a testament to the failings of our education system as a whole because in my experience those who try to refute accepted science tend to do so unscientifically and without all the facts.


I can prove anything to anyone if i put in a missing link.


Huh? Is that supposed to be a bold claim or a slander against evolutionary theory? Just trying to clarify because people don't seem to understand that the concept of a missing link is an out dated anachronism from over a century ago.

I can remember being presented with Darwin's theory at school and saying to the teacher, "whoa, that makes no sense at all!!". The teacher then told me to sit down and shut up.

not to be overly nit picky but "Darwin's Theory" applies to evolution as much as "Newton's Theory" applies to gravity. Science as a whole has moved far beyond either of the initial propositions and much like Relativity unifies Newtonian mechanics so does Evolution unify the biological sciences as it reaches across multiple disciplines. I think whatever teacher told you to sit down and shut up is a waste of space and should have been able to explain to you why it makes sense. If they were unable to do so they should have looked into a new career.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


That's rather obtuse, seeing that evolution is a theory and theories are debated until they're either proven outright or otherwise. With that being said, there is a debate on every theory presented in any country (first or other) you visit. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the U.K., Germany, Russia, etc.

They still teach religion in Norwegian schools. (And good on them.) But they also teach science. (Again, good on them.) Religion and science can coexist without idiots trying to claim otherwise.

As for the OP's story, I have no real opinion one way or another.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


the fossil record does NOT prove evolution with cross species evolution.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

spirited75
reply to post by peter vlar
 


the fossil record does NOT prove evolution with cross species evolution.


Interesting. You and I must be looking at differs fossils then. If the fossil record doesn't do anything for you what about these-

jvi.asm.org...

mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

link.springer.com...

press.endocrine.org...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
edit on 30-12-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by antonia
 



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.


Gravity is just a theory too. Are you willing to jump off a building to prove it wrong? There is a very big difference between scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word.



There's a lot of anecdotal support for them but to simply say they don't exist without proof puts people in the same camp as people who say the world was magically created (but can't prove any of it.)


No, it doesn't. If you have no physical evidence of the existence of something you cannot ask others to believe it is real. That is the keyword: believe. There are those among us who do not want to believe in something, we want to know it exists. Darwinian evolution has plenty of physical evidence to support it, Ghosts, Demon possession and Angels have none. Try again. My mind isn't so open my brain fell out.

Until you can present me with physical evidence of either panspermia or creation by a supernatural being, with further explanation of who said creator/race was and why they did it then you can't ask me to believe in this magical thought.
edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Xcalibur254
This just shows how much America has fallen. I don't know of a single other First World country where the reality of evolution is still consistently debated. How can we ever hope to be the best when a third of our population can't even grasp basic scientific principles?


I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's the fact that much of what is put forth re Darwinian evo and its materialistic foundation flies in the face of basic scientific principles. Trying to cram the evidence into a priori assumptions is not my idea of science, but it seems to work for others.

I can swing with micro evo fine, but the problems with macro evo and the speciation questions don't seem to be getting resolved. I keep hearing about the abundance of evidence for transition species, but I can't seem to find it and a lot of what is put forth as evidence of such seems quite sketchy.

I also don't see how dna and the complexities of the cell can be explained via random mutations naturally selected. And now with the recent discovery of that second language in the genome or whatever it was, I find the idea even less compelling than before.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join