Do you take evolution literally? (blessing, science)

[Melancholy]

Evolution is the only closest theory we have to how life evolved, until proven otherwise I'm sticking to that theory and my theistic tendancies.

[Somkid]

I accept it as it is put forward as a theory, no one has come up with anything more rational as of yet.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Skeptical due to the idea not being emotionally palatable?

No, not because of that.

[Sunstone]

Evolution is the best theory we have to explain the diversity of life we see around us. People can toss up all sorts of clumsy lies -- or even fine rhetoric -- attacking it, but no one has yet been able to come up with any facts to disprove it.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by rhys

You take scientific theories as true ('literally'?) until they are disproved. This one hasn't been, obviously, or scientists wouldn't accept it. What is your point here?

The point is that some people () incorrectly equate "literal" with "true".

[John_672]

I take evolution literally every morning just before breakfast. Keeps me regular.

[Saint Tigeress]

I don't take it literally. I am sceptical of it. I do take it as a theory thought up by people much much smarter than I, so I just take it for what it is, and don't think about it much. It's whatever.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Random

Mutation and Selection are sound enough, but the theories about how we evolved formally in terms of transient/intermediary bodies are spurious speculations, IMO. Like when the man in the white coat tells you animals change over time physically, cells have altered DNA from one period in history to another etc. then you can safely say "Sure". But when he breaks out the evolutionary charts with "cavemen" and big brutish looking neanderthal monkey-men and says "These are your ancestors", you should really be rather skeptical...

What evolutionary chart should they be using?

Theories about exactly when humans split from other primates will never be "fact" since we will never have a complete picture. But unless you believe that modern humans suddenly appeared 160,000 years ago, we had to have evolved from something else, and Australopithecus is the most likely candidate we have today.

[logician]

Evolution is as "true" as physics or chemistry, probably more so.

[Seyorni]

Anyone who'se compared a litter of puppies to their parents -- and each other-- has to aknowledge that there is variation from generation to generation. Why is it so difficult to see that small variations, multiplied over thousands of generations, can result in a creature with no obvious similarity to the prototype?

Most people, even creationists, will aknowledge the effectiveness of animal and plant husbandry.
The ansestors of toy poodles and maize look nothing like nappy little dogs or tall stalks with gigantic ears of huge seeds. Why is it hard to see that there are Natural forces that duplicate the farmer's selective process?