Do you believe in evolution

[sandy whitelinger]

no i actually voted yes because there was no inbetween option.


I accept that its how scientists explain the development of life, sure no problem with that... but I dont believe the random probability required by evolution could produce all the life we see in the earth. So as an explanation for how the different phyla came to be does not seem plausible.

I thought that at one time as well but futher study shows that evolution does not take as long as I suspected.

 

[painted wolf]

Most plant phyla (called divisions) don't show up until well after the Cambrian... one doesn't show up until the Cretaceous.

Many animal phyla are not known from the Cambrian fossil record. The phyla Tardigrada doesn't appear until the Cretaceous. (these are best known as "water bears")
Some others haven't left any fossils we have been able to find: Kinorhyncha for example.

wa:do

 

[Commoner]

also with regard to this supposed 'slow development of new features', why is no evidence of primitive wings prior to the appearance of fully developed wings?

Have you ever seen a flying squirrel?

 

[painted wolf]

What is a "fully developed wing"?

I mean Anchiornis here is older than Archeopteryx and has "wings" that aren't capable of flight... plus pseudo-wings on it's hind legs. Would these count as "half wings"?

What is really cool is that this fossil is so well preserved we can even tell what color the feathers were! No more guessing about your dino colors here. :woohoo:

wa:do

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So what mechanisms of change do you accept then, Proud one?

It seems to me that natural selection is one of the simplest, most familiar and obvious of the various mechanisms. People have been selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years, after all, with no-one questing its efficacy.
How is human selection any different from natural selection?

I reject natural selection because it seems to try to establish that humans becoming the dominant species was totally by chance. Maybe an Atheist can believe that, but if you believe gods, any gods, have co-existed with humans through the millenia and tried to help us evolve higher, it wasn't an accident, but something they orchestrated.

 

[Commoner]

I reject natural selection because it seems to try to establish that humans becoming the dominant species was totally by chance. Maybe an Atheist can believe that, but if you believe gods, any gods, have co-existed with humans through the millenia and tried to help us evolve higher, it wasn't an accident, but something they orchestrated.

I done believe in them gods, so I ain't no monkey!

How about when facts conflict with your beliefs, you change your beliefs, not ignore the facts?

 

[painted wolf]

I reject natural selection because it seems to try to establish that humans becoming the dominant species was totally by chance. Maybe an Atheist can believe that, but if you believe gods, any gods, have co-existed with humans through the millenia and tried to help us evolve higher, it wasn't an accident, but something they orchestrated.

Natural selection isn't random chance.

wa:do

 

[Archer]

Sure evolution is real but I don't believe it is random. It is guided by the all mighty.

 

[Dan4reason]

Sure evolution is real but I don't believe it is random. It is guided by the all mighty.

Natural selection actually.

 

[Pegg]

What is a "fully developed wing"?

I mean Anchiornis here is older than Archeopteryx and has "wings" that aren't capable of flight... plus pseudo-wings on it's hind legs. Would these count as "half wings"?

that is a whole lot of speculation and assumption ... this is the part of evolution that I really dont agree with. its when they start saying this particular bird became that particular dinosaur without any proof...lots of pretty pictures but no real evidence.

You realise that there are still birds around with wings that are not for flying and there are birds around that look very similar to anchiorris...what makes you so sure that anchiorris became dinosaurs and not simply continued to develop into the birds we see today?

 

[Archer]

Natural selection actually.

And? Not random, natural selection or God. I choose God.

 

[Valjean]

I reject natural selection because it seems to try to establish that humans becoming the dominant species was totally by chance. Maybe an Atheist can believe that, but if you believe gods, any gods, have co-existed with humans through the millenia and tried to help us evolve higher, it wasn't an accident, but something they orchestrated.

Not quite by chance, Proud, by selective breeding.

"Evolve higher?" This notion of directionality is a common misconception, but this idea of human exceptionality is an artifact of religious mythology, not biology.

Even given the existence of a Divine Agent actively meddling with His own physical laws, why do you rule out natural selection as His modus operendi?

 

[kylixguru]

I answered yes in that evolution does indeed present sufficient evidence for itself.
The day will come when the theory of evolution will be among pure religion's best friends.

Cheers!

ADD: I also believe in devolution.

 

[EverChanging]

In short, the cornerstone of biology is evolution. Evolution is also confirmed in various other fields of scientific discipline. I could not possibly make sense of the world and everything I've learned in my studies in diverse topics without the scientific theory (note that I said scientific theory) of evolution.

 

[Venatoris]

I agree with(not believe in) evolution because I have yet to see an intelligent person present a plausible explanation to the contrary. I have heard a number of ridiculous theories that try to disprove evolution but they are so transparently religiously motivated(grammatically incorrect?) that I have to trust evolution... for now.

 

[Dan4reason]

And? Not random, natural selection or God. I choose God.

Well, we actually observe natural selection in nature while we have no evidence for God at all.

 

[Archer]

Well, we actually observe natural selection in nature while we have no evidence for God at all.

I see it as a plan that was made to succeed.

 

[painted wolf]

that is a whole lot of speculation and assumption ... this is the part of evolution that I really dont agree with. its when they start saying this particular bird became that particular dinosaur without any proof...lots of pretty pictures but no real evidence.

I was asking what a "half-wing" was and giving you an example of a creature with something along the developmental path to becoming a "wing". n
I didn't say that particular dinosaur became any particular bird.

I agree it's a pretty picture.... it's a beautiful fossil and does away with a lot of speculation. For example, the feathers keep their color producing molecules and by looking at them under the microscope you can tell what color the animal was.

You realise that there are still birds around with wings that are not for flying and there are birds around that look very similar to anchiorris...

in very general ways they look similar... in the same way that a marsupial mouse looks like a house mouse... but that is why you never judge by outside appearance alone. If you look at the skeleton you see some profound differences that show it was just outside of being a bird.

what makes you so sure that anchiorris became dinosaurs and not simply continued to develop into the birds we see today?

Anchiornis didn't become a dinosaur... it IS a dinosaur.
And it's cousins did continue to develop into the birds we see today.

wa:do

 

[Dan4reason]

I see it as a plan that was made to succeed.

How is natural selection a plan? It is anything but planned.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I agree. I voted no because it's not a matter of belief.
Also I can't think of any other reason for voting no and it is a debate thread.

I put believe/accept.

I didn't want to offend people that didn't think it was real.