Gallup poll: "7 in 10 Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution"

[mycorrhiza]

Darwin's original theory was published in 1859. While I'm familiar with it, I'm also fully aware that it came from a time of great ignorance.

Perhaps you should be less concerned with Victorian era biology literature and catch up with those of us in the 21st century.

Do you believe that nothing has changed in the ToE since Darwin? His theory came before we knew (nearly) anything about genetics and despite all the new things we have discovered, evolution still stands strong. Darwin's theories weren't perfect and many things he said were wrong, and no scientist will claim that the Theory of Evolution as we understand it today is exactly the same as Darwin's theory. He wasn't the first, nor last, to give us a further understanding of evolution.

Darwin's theory was closest to the current understanding of evolution out of the evolutionary theories found back then, though.

If ID is science rather than religion, could you provide me with both of these:

1. A single atheistic scientist that rejects evolution in favor of ID.
2. A single peer-reviewed Intelligent Design paper, containing original research, that is thoroughly scientific and published in a serious major scientific journal in any of the relevant fields.

 

[gseeker]

Do you believe that nothing has changed in the ToE since Darwin? His theory came before we knew (nearly) anything about genetics and despite all the new things we have discovered, evolution still stands strong. Darwin's theories weren't perfect and many things he said were wrong, and no scientist will claim that the Theory of Evolution as we understand it today is exactly the same as Darwin's theory. He wasn't the first, nor last, to give us a further understanding of evolution.

Darwin's theory was closest to the current understanding of evolution out of the evolutionary theories found back then, though.

If ID is science rather than religion, could you provide me with both of these:

1. A single atheistic scientist that rejects evolution in favor of ID.
2. A single peer-reviewed Intelligent Design paper, containing original research, that is thoroughly scientific and published in a serious major scientific journal in any of the relevant fields.

If an atheist believed in ID instead of evolution then he would be an atheist now would he? So by making that contradiction you make it impossible to prove anything.

 

[painted wolf]

No... it shows that ID is religious not scientific.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a degree in Biology... I think I'm pretty caught up.

Ooooooo.....snap!

I don't normally tag team like this, but dang if he didn't just beg for it.
It pays to know one's fellow poster before dissing his/her expertise with snark.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said they weren't. However, there's zero evidence to suggest that either, separate or in combination with one another, is capable of producing the brilliant engineering found throughout the biological world.

You ought to check out engineering done using generic (aka evolutionary) algorithms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
This stuff is old hat now, being used to design software, circuits, antennas, etc.
"Brilliant engineering" is done with them. Chalk one up for the combination of stochastic processes & fitness functions producing "designs".

 

[mycorrhiza]

If an atheist believed in ID instead of evolution then he would be an atheist now would he? So by making that contradiction you make it impossible to prove anything.

He could say that it was extremely technologically advanced aliens instead of a God. If you need to be religious to follow ID, then ID certainly isn't science.

 

[johnhanks]

Ring species, lets talk about that.

We're still waiting.

First how do you define a species and how exact is that definition?

Answered in post 173. Ball in your court.

LOL PW knows where I'm going with this I'm sure.

That's more than you seem to.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Wow. I am ashamed! I guess brain washing and dishonest media works! (fyi, I am very certain that evolution exists. There may be holes in it. But those holes are more like... missing pieces of a puzzle. No reason to question whether the puzzle exists or not, lol.)

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's dreadfully embarrassing for us in America.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Oh, and for the record I am extremely conservative (fiscally that is, i'm not a fascist).

 

[gseeker]

We're still waiting.
Answered in post 173. Ball in your court.
That's more than you seem to.

First I haven't been writing much since my family disowned me the other day for changing my religious beliefs a couple of days ago. I've been in kinda a funk and haven't been posting much, ill give you your reply tonight.

 

[painted wolf]

First I haven't been writing much since my family disowned me the other day for changing my religious beliefs a couple of days ago. I've been in kinda a funk and haven't been posting much, ill give you your reply tonight.

I hope they come to their senses... family is far more important than who believes in what spiritually. :hug:

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

First I haven't been writing much since my family disowned me the other day for changing my religious beliefs a couple of days ago.

Been there and done that. My atheist mother did not like me converting to Christianity. We're good now though. Grand children help smooth over those kind of issues.

 

[camanintx]

For those unaware, speciation is microevolution. That is, it's superficial, typically cosmetic, change, rather than macroevolution, which is fundamental change.

The problem is, microevolution cannot be extrapolated to explain macroevolution. You can continue breeding dogs from now until the end of eternity. Accumulating changes to fur coloration and variation in trait size will never produce anything other than dogs with differing fur color and differing sized traits. Lots of speciation; nothing more.

If anyone disagree with this, then I'd like for them to demonstrate how I am wrong.

What mechanism prevents multiple superficial, cosmetic changes (microevolution) from becoming fundamental changes (macroevolution)?

 

[gseeker]

Obviously I'm not a Christian anymore so I have no need to believe in ID but I'm going to argue the point. Ring species. The change between creature is primarily the inability for successful mating but the fact is that a very infinitesimal change is required to actually alter that. No major alterations are made from the beganing of the ring to the end of the ring and doesn't prove in anyway large scale macro evolution and I would say that most creationists would refer to that as micro evolution.

 

[s2a]

I hope they come to their senses... family is far more important than who believes in what spiritually. :hug:

wa:do

I would tend to disagree with that statement, peripherally at least, but that's fodder for another thread...

 

[mycorrhiza]

Obviously I'm not a Christian anymore so I have no need to believe in ID but I'm going to argue the point. Ring species. The change between creature is primarily the inability for successful mating but the fact is that a very infinitesimal change is required to actually alter that. No major alterations are made from the beganing of the ring to the end of the ring and doesn't prove in anyway large scale macro evolution and I would say that most creationists would refer to that as micro evolution.

It's because they're using the term incorrectly . The reason we don't directly observe new families is because such a huge change takes long time. Much longer than we have studied animals and plants. There is no evidence of a genetic barrier of any kind that allows for small changes but not large. We must also take into the equation that the taxonomic system is artificial rather than natural. Both the fossil record and the genetic evidence supports evolution.

Macroevolution is in it's correct definition evolutionary change at species level or above and we have succesfully seen it happen at species level.

It's good that you're walking your own path to find out what you believe is true, even though it has brought you some hardship. In the end, spiritual search often gives good results and allow you to lead a happier life. I hope things work out with your family, and they'll accept you for who you are. It's quite un-Christian to disown someone because the person isn't Christian.