It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by peter vlar

Perhaps we could search for a database of how key proteins denature into other proteins, for example e coli being bred to process different nutrients. What is actually going on here, is the process driven by what is being consumed or is it a mutation caused by some other external or internal process?

Until there are laws which can be validated evolution will be a VERY controversial topic, though largely unnecessarily in religious or scientific circles. I blame social "scientists," in fact I blame them for most things including this sentence being off topic.

The issue I really take with the whole debate is that evolution is touted as "proof" that religion is false. If anyone has really studied the religious texts there are really very few which do not allow for the physical mutation of what is considered human, physically as opposed to consciousness.


To be a smart ass I must absolutely thank you for not using the term vector to describe a virus, as a lover of math I thank you. In return I will abstain from clarifying the fact that I can prove mathematically that no species of animal can be differentiated from another.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:44 AM

reply to post by peter vlar

I guess you missed my earlier question about rapid evolution earlier. I was just curious what your thoughts are in particular to radiation. I was asking because I know that nuclear radiation causes mutations, of course most if not all of those mutations are not to the benefit of life forms exposed. I was curious though if a mutation in one living species was positive and actually resisted mutation would this prove anything at that point or would it have to reproduce to a population and pass this quality on? I have a broader outlook on what it is I am looking to ask but this is what made me think about it. The idea that our world is being introduced into more and more nuclear radiation even if it is slight should certainly have an effect on the genetic variation should it not? I know that people directly affected do mutate and it isnt for their benefit so if that happens rapidly why do we not see rapid mutation to resist radiation?

Radiation, as you point out with nuclear radiation, has not been known to produce any beneficial effects. Which bummed me out because I was really hoping to join the X-Men when I was 8. To answer your question though, if a member of a species developed a tolerance or immunity to radiation it, in and of itself, would be indicative of something happening at the genetic level that provided a benefit for that individual. They would then have to reproduce to spread those genes transferring similar protection to some of its genetic dependents. Those offspring would reproduce ,further transferring those beneficial genes into the localized population. Theoretically, in a few generations you could end up with an entire village for example that could be immune or resistant to the harmful affects of a particular type of radiation. Perhaps they would even be completely cancer free. It's difficult to say with any certainty because there is no calculable, constant rate of mutation on the genetic levelthat we are currently aware of. The reason we don't rapidly develop resistance is that there are varying types of radiation as well as what I described above, the beneficial genes need to be placed into the gene pool for them to benefit anyone else. Additionally, depending on the dosage and the isotope, death from radiation could be very quick. In the cases where it is not, the affected individual is not someone I would recommend inserting their newly defective genes into the local population as this could cause further widespread disruption to people who were never exposed in the first place. If I babbled too much let me know and I'll attempt to be more succinct.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by antonia

Much like religious people who try to use their book to prove their worldview? Really, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Heh. I'm not sure how you feel this works in your favor.

Heh. I guess you would have to say that being just like the folks you are claiming to be superior to is not the best case for your superiority, huh? And given that their book doesn't constantly change, this might be a case of devolution.

edit on 31/12/13 by JAK because: Quote tag correction.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:48 AM

The issue I really take with the whole debate is that evolution is touted as "proof" that religion is false.

I strongly believe in evolution but would never try and use its existence as proof to confirm or deny a creator deity. If that has been going on in this thread I missed it.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

I don't personally find anything in religion for myself but I also don't see why the two concepts have to be mutually exclusive to one another just like evolution and atheism are not mutually exclusive companions. Evolution is not proof of a lack of God and Dawkins is a poor example of the average anthropologist in regards to his extreme stance. I stick with tangible things that I can prove or say with a reasonable degree of certainty. That leaves god and jesus and Krishna out of the scope of my argument. It's a very different outlook when you're holding a 60,000 year old Neanderthal scapula in your hand while taking measurements for attachment point scars to determine how much muscle mass the individual carried than it is watching a youtube video or looking at some jerk like me pontificate about it on the internet.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:55 AM


True that! But then where's the middle ground where God Created the Universe by creating evolution and the Big bang or something else...where's the middle ground for believing in God and in Science and not the Old Testament. When Talking about Creationism it's like asking "What kind of tea do you want?"

There's more than one kind?

The middle ground is apophatic theology carried through to the cloud of unknowing.

edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Neti, neti, eh?

The tradition I spent decades in was based on the idea of involution of Spirit down through the levels to material, where it then sprung into being and began the evolutionary journey back to Spirit.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by peter vlar

It is just hazy to me I guess because as you know I have been looking into alot of creation vs evolution things for a bit now and came across studies of survivors of the nuke bombings in Japan alongside other reports of effects of soldiers in training here in the usa back in the late 40s-50s and thought about the introduction of a known catalyst for mutation never spawn a mutation that was beneficial to the organism, then I came across the deinococcus radiodurans and got me thinking even more about this.

I mean evolution is riddled with terms like environmental changes may have caused this, or variations of this or that may have caused this, I think introducing nuclear radiation in modern times is grounds to say it is a pretty drastic change in environment, we should at least by now be seeing something in smaller life forms adapt to this by now or is that change so miniscule we would never notice?
edit on 31-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:09 AM
reply to post by peter vlar

Yes unfortunately the X-men as well as Super-Man are figures based upon solar deities and illuminated (enlightened) beings from the old mystery schools of Sumer, Egypt, etc . . . Interestingly enough many of their creators were involved in modern versions of these circles and Stan Lee actually wrote manuals for the military which bases most all of their symbols from these same concepts.

In response to Arbitrageur

Most other relevant scientific theories have actual laws. If there were demonstrable laws there would be very little in the way of debate much like the prior example in this thread of Einstein. The problem here is expressed in irreducible complexity due to the many variables involved and very little working knowledge of what channels of genetic mutation would actually drive evolution. Identifying something like this would allow the movement to establish a superior base off of which to work as opposed to the rather abstract one in place currently.

For example a rudimentary concept of the atom was theorized in ancient Greece but did not have a foundation off of which to really expand until much later. That is how I view the current situation.

People are too busy arguing that something is valid in the abstract sense using the remains of corpses instead of looking towards something like the database of how the proteins could denature into other useful proteins.

Dead men tell no tales as they say.


posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by leostokes

I will agree with you there, I also do not know what to think about it. Supposedly us humans are supposed to be the top of the top, yet personally, I find more connection with "lower animals"..... I am probably nuts, but hell, I cannot relate to humans much at all.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

I parroted? How comical.

Your attack is about as contrived as the Huff Post article. Please reconsider. My undergraduate and post-graduate educations are in the fields of physics and the biological sciences. I'm quite familiar with statistics, experimental design, and the collection & interpretation of data.

The article is trash, it was designed and produced for political ends. It's nothing more than mass media intended to propagandize people into believing that "republicans and the religious don't worship our rationalist science" so "how can we let them be elected to public office [or hold sway over our educational system]?"

Political psychological warfare.

I do not believe the Pew Center was able to assemble a sufficiently representative sample of the United States population that would justify any actionable or substantive conclusions regarding the people of the United States, nor its educational system.

And even if it did, the margins are too small and the uncertainty too large to be of any real worth.

The Huff Po article is nothing more than a contrived editorial of this deeply flawed study.

Even the title reeks of dogmatic arrogance: "Surprising Number."

edit on 31-12-2013 by Trender because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:32 AM
It boils down to this: God put us here ... or we evolved. Who ... gives ... a ... fat ... baby's ... ass?

Let us understand something and let's put it into perspective by using the statements of some of the folks I appreciate and respect who post on ATS. They said the Theory of Gravity ...

I know of the Law of Gravity.
I understand Scientific Method.
I comprehend faith ... and see that it is different (slightly) from belief depending on verbal context.

Science can get my attention when it asks me, "Do you believe this?" a bit more so than religion. My response is always: Have you proved this through the scientific method? I don't care what kind of Hypothesis you came up with anymore than I care about the consensus on a prevailing Theory.

All of these things work to keep us divided. I have to ask, "Why are we being divided?" Where'd the OP go?

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:10 AM

I'm quite familiar with statistics, experimental design, and the collection & interpretation of data.
So enlighten us, what is the proper sample size to do a study like this involving a population of 314 million, and what statistical method do you use to arrive at that sample size?

Also, I don't see why you have a problem with a 3% margin of error, as long as they state that's what it is. If they showed 51% felt a certain way and then someone claimed "the majority feels that way", I could see the problem, because the actual percentage could be 48% to 54%, and 48% wouldn't be a majority. But aside from a specific objection like that, I don't understand why it's a problem. To me it doesn't make much difference if it's 30%, 33% or 36% who think humans didn't evolve, because all three are fairly large numbers to me.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:07 AM

reply to post by TLomon

What's even funnier? Some of you on here believe we came from monkeys....LOLOLOL

WOW, we have so many smart people on here......How did that monkey get here?? hmmmm...

Oh we developed from bacteria....Okay, I will play ball....Where did that bacteria come from?? hmmm....

Anything you link to intelligent life points back to intelligent creation....Sorry evolutionists but you can't evolve into an intelligent species from nothing.....Take bacteria, any kind you like, and run an experiment to turn it intelligent over time.....It won't happen...

But I am leaving, so don't try to bash me as a bible thumper....Just some food for thought.

soup! it was a cosmic soup!

1 ham bone and a carrot!

just make a planet and bang it with all kinds of stuff, and viola'! primordial soop! lol.

i can't wait for the plattypus to appear.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:12 AM


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?

Oh I am sure it's higher than that. I had some girl giggling during the holiday dinner this year because she didn't know where Nelson Mandela was from and that South Africa is a country. She didn't believe in evolution either. The stupid is strong here.

You should see how many Americans still believe in ghosts, demon possession and angels.
edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: added a thought

edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: opps

ya, goes to show you how the education is, in the us.

like she really cares or should care wtf mandela is.

were you celebrating kwanzza?

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:15 AM

reply to post by antonia

you should see how many Americans are so closed minded that they will only believe in their own five senses and what the public school and University system say is real. A closed mind can only comprehend a selfish, small, and finite spectrum of the living Universe. I would take a stupid open mind over a intelligent closed mind anyday.

Now a Stupid Closed mind is another story....dont ever get to many of those in the same room

you are wrong, it's called an internet forum!

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:36 AM
I am one of those who does not believe in evolution.

there is no fossil record of transition creatures and the pre Cambrian instantaneous appearance of distinct species lends creation the benefit of the doubt.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:05 AM


reply to post by TLomon

What is there to believe? Darwin observed mutations withing species. There has yet to be any evidence of cross-species evolution. If you believe in something without evidence, it is Faith. Most people who reject the Theory of Evolution already have a different Faith.

science is not a faith. No matter how many times the theist try to use this particular piece of propaganda, as seen on these boards a hundred times, it just isn't so.

ya and science is not all that it's cracked up to be either.

to equate the 2 is frankly, low brow.

they serve 2 different purposes.

he observed "mutations" aka adaptations. lol!

a genetic mutation will smoosh the gene. not make it better.

and believing without evidence, evolution, is still faith.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:26 AM
I think some people are forgetting that Creationism does NOT equal Intelligent Design.

One does not have to be the adherent of a religious tradition to believe in Intelligent Design. As an irreligious agnostic, I lean more towards the possibility of Intelligent Design (regardless who/what created all life, e.g.: God, Aliens, or our Higher Selves) than Evolution.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:30 AM

science is not a faith. No matter how many times the theist try to use this particular piece of propaganda, as seen on these boards a hundred times, it just isn't so.

The scientific method is not based on faith, but the system of beliefs that comprise Science is. Do you honestly verify every claim made by science with direct personal experience? I bet you take many claims on faith because it stems from the scientific community.

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:58 AM
i'm glad grapes evolved into wine.

oh wait!

maybe it was the fox that evolved into grapes and then wine?

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in