How many here believe in evolution?

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Syz is right,

We dems are trying to sign dolphins and Bonobos as we speak, both proven to be a shade more intelligent than Rush Limbaugh........


NEW WORLD ORDER!

Just a shade, MT?  Come on ole man, you can do better than that!  Not that there is anything wrong with being ole!, of course.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by GrimCO
Sure Frog,

Bonobos are our closest relatives. I have this sudden urge to plop down next to ya and sift through your hair for parasites...

Bonobos my arse...

Sorry, I persecuted them again.  

Bonobos were never a threat to the Democrats.  It's just redikulus!:D

[midnight Target]

Sorry Sabre, but "microevolution" is nothing more than a creation of the creationists to get themselves out of the hole they dug by trying for so long to completely refute Darwin.

"OK" they say now. "Sure there is little 'evolution' but not the big stuff !"

It's all just mincing of words to try to maintain your far more unlikely ideal that god did it.

So macroevolution descibes a change between species, while micro describes a change within a species... sooooooo

Is a Canis Familiaris different from a Canis Lupus.. or a Canis Latrans or even a Vulpes Chama or a Canis Aureus? Are these different species or not sir? And (since they are) do they represent your micro or your macro evolution?

[Suave]

Nice poem Eagler, thanks .

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Suave
Nice poem Eagler, thanks .

The MOODY BLUES
album: "In Search Of The Lost Chord" 1968
"The Word"

[Sabre]

Again, I'd suggest you do some more research, MT, rather than throw out broad but unsupported statements...but I accept your apology anyway.  Now...

Do a search on the web for “Microevolution”  Google gave 16,700 hits.  Yes, some of them were sites such as the Creation Science site I noted above, sites attempting to show the inconsistencies in evolutionary theory; however, the overwhelming majority were from scientific sources.  Darwin himself described microevolution in his works.

Regarding your question about whether I consider dogs and wolfs to be the same species, that concept has evolved over time (pun intended). The term subspecies was often used as another name for varieties that may have morphological differences as a result of their geographical separation, but still can interbreed. Species showing great morphological variation, thus having many subspecies, are said to be polytypic. Small rodents are among the most polytypic mammals; the southern pocket gopher, Thomomys umbrinus, for example, has 214 subspecies! Homo sapiens, on the other hand, is considered to be a monotypic species as there is great reluctance, for obvious social reasons, to consider the various races of men to be subspecies (unless they are extinct and can't fight back like Homo sapiens, neanderthalensis). The modern definition of a species proper tends to ignore morphological differences or similarities and focus almost entirely on whether or not a population interbreeds. The nearly 150 varieties of strikingly distinctive dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club are all considered to be members of the same species, Canis familiaris because they all can cross breed.  Yet, the grey wolf (Canis lupus) and the coyote (Canis latrans), themselves polytypic species, are considered to be different species though they are known to interbreed with dogs.  So, which is it?  Are dogs and wolves subspecies of the species Canis?

One thing I would say is that dogs and wolves are more likely and example of micro-evolution of a common species.  Neither really possess any significant difference in complexity.

[midnight Target]

Thats a whole lot of words to get to the point. So All Canids (a genus not a species) are an example of microevolution. Cool, now how about the genus Alopex or Otocyon or Vulpes? Now those are Foxes.. very Dog like and possbly may even be able to interbreed.

So would you say that microevolution might move across the genus line? Maybe the entire family Canidae is an example of this "microevolution". How far will this little evolution take you?

[midnight Target]

This was very well written, I thought I'd share:

Do You Believe in Evolution?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I n my part of the country I get asked that a lot by students. That's partly because of the part of the country I'm in (South Texas). Fundamentalism-creationism is endemic around here, and somehow that noisy minority has convinced the indifferent majority that to be a Christian of any sort, one must reject evolution. Ironically, even many of my Catholic students think their church is "against evolution" (it isn't). Somehow Protestant fundamentalism has "converted" them, at least on this article of faith, without their even realizing it. Perhaps their own church has not strongly, positively, and publicly stated its position to parishioners.

Perhaps it 's also because, as an English teacher in a science-oriented magnet school, I often include science fiction novels and, at least once a year, a science nonfiction book as assigned readings. Inevitably, there will be something (probably a lot of things) in those books that rub the creationists the wrong way, since to maintain their structure of beliefs they have had to reject the facts established in practically all areas of science, from astronomy through nuclear physics to geology and biochemistry. Perhaps they've actually never encountered a teacher who openly "believes in" evolution (a very real possibility around here). Now that's scary! No wonder on those international comparisons our students score worse than kids in Lower Slobovia or wherever.

But the problem I want to deal with here is how to answer that question: Do you believe in evolution?  It's easy to say "Yes!" but that's not right. The problem is that the question itself is wrong. It's like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question: either a yes or a no gives the wrong impression.

I certainly don't want to say no, since that would create an entirely wrong impression. But answering yes isn't quite right, either. The problem is the phrase "believe in," just as the "have you stopped" is the trap in the earlier example.

Concentrate on the believe in: no, I don't believe in evolution. Think of how that phrase is often applied. Little kids believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We often judge their maturity by finding out which things they still believe in and which they have "grown out of" ("Aren't you a little old to still believe in the Tooth Fairy?"). The phrase believe in in common parlance seems to mean to take something literally for which there is little or no objective evidence. You must believe in the Easter Bunny, because you've never seen the real one yourself, there's nothing he has done that couldn't be simply explained by ordinary phenomena (parental trickery), and there's no objective, physical, replicable (in other words, scientific) evidence that he's real. If you had those last things, then you wouldn't have to believe in the Easter Bunny, you would know he was real.

That's the difference: you absolutely know some things are real, through your own experience or other kinds of really solid proof. That's knowledge, not belief. Other things you believe in. You want them to be true. It would be nice if they were true. It's probably fun to believe in them. But you don't have solid, irrefutable (scientific) proof, so you have to keep believing in them, rather than knowing them (or you could just throw them out entirely, like most of us over six have done with Santa Claus). If you had that kind of evidence, then the folks whose job it is to find out the physical facts about the world (scientists ) would know them too, and belief wouldn't be required. A mark of the immaturity of small children is that they haven't learned this distinction yet. About the only proof they may demand is what someone older tells them, or what they see on TV. Note also that you can't trust the believer. He may, of course, say he "knows" his favorite belief is true, and may trot out what to him is adequate proof ("But I saw Santa in the store, and look at all the stuff he brought, and on the news they saw him on the radar, and... and..."). Or he may be one of those incredibly shallow people whose answer amounts to, "I don't know why, I just believe it," or the ludicrous contradiction, "I just know it's true."

There's another common meaning for "believe in," as in "Do you believe in democracy?" "Do you believe in the American Dream?" "Do you believe in abortion under certain circumstances?" "Do you believe in the justice of our cause?" Here the meaning of "believe in" seems to be something like "trust," or "think it's probably best," or "are willing to go along with." That doesn't seem to be what someone is getting at when he asks me if I believe in evolution, or at least that's not how I take the question. So in that sense, no, I don't believe in evolution: it's not a matter of personal opinion, or philosophy, or a gray area where one must decide what might be best overall.

But back to the real distinction: no, I don't believe in evolution--I know that it's real. It doesn't require believing in. And I don't "just know it," like the vacuous air-head. I have all the objective evidence I need for real knowledge . The reality of evolution having occurred and continuing to occur is every bit as strongly established as the knowledge that the Earth is round, that germs cause disease, that electrons exist, or that the speed of light is ~300,000 kilometers/second. If anything, I have more daily-life experience to show me evolution happening than I have for those other things. I can see that offspring aren't identical to their parents. I have seen new varieties of plants and animals developed within my own lifetime. I live in an area where boll weevils often win the evolutionary race to develop resistance to pesticides. I can easily catch a case of (newly evolved) resistant staphylococcus, which might very well kill me. I have seen and touched and personally found the fossils of the now-extinct ancestors of living creatures.

As a matter of fact, I have more down-to-earth proof of the reality of evolution than I have of the other things mentioned above, which I know to be real. I will never see an electron. How would I ever come close to accurately measuring the speed of light? My chances of ever getting far enough away from Earth to actually see for myself that it is round are practically nil; and I don't have the equipment or the expertise to ever really prove for myself that a particular breed of bacteria actually causes a particular disease. Then don't I just take those things "on faith"? Don't I believe in them, rather than actually knowing them? NO . As a society, we have hired specialists to find out these kinds of things. We've done everything we can to assure that they are highly trained, that they are objective (not letting their philosophies or beliefs get in the way), that they are honest, and that their answers are true (they constantly check on each other, compete, and repeat experiments to make sure the results are real). We've set up a system ( science) in which wrong answers are quickly thrown out, all answers are tested over and over in every imaginable way, right answers get righter all the time (e.g., relativity doesn't "disprove" Newtonian mechanics, it just improves on it; punctuated equilibrium doesn't "disprove" Darwinian evolution, it just clarifies it further), and the best way to make a name for yourself is to disprove an older idea (with enough proof of your own to stand up to the toughest tests). And finally, that system works far better than any other way mankind has ever tried for finding out about the physical world.

So what science knows, I know. They are my agents for finding out things I can't find out for myself. Science knows (and tells me) that there are electrons and what the speed of light is. I would be foolish to reject that knowledge. Science also tells me, with just as much assurance, that living things have evolved. I know that knowledge has been tested, tried, experimented with, and applied to real situations, and has proven its "fitness" by growing stronger through 150 years of severe testing. I would be foolish to reject that knowledge.

So no, I don't believe in evolution; I know that it has happened and still does. As a matter of fact, I should probably feel insulted. If you asked me if I believe the Earth is round, that would be insulting. Do you think I could be so ignorant as to believe it is flat? The same goes for evolution. Do you think I would reject the last two centuries of scientific progress and the evidence of my own eyes? I should be thoroughly offended.

[AKIron]

I'm pretty confident you guys can push this one to an all time record of 1000 posts. I'll be back when 999 rolls around. Maybe by then you'll have it all figured out and be in agreement?

[midnight Target]

NP Iron... I'm all over it.

Here's one more little tidbit for ya Sabre. Go Here The online Biology dictionary and look up MACROevolution.

Now look up MICROevolution. Then try not to misuse scientific terms to make a theological point.

[Sabre]

Well, your on-line dictionary site came up with 0 matches for macroevolution, and 1 match for microevolution.  From what I could gather, that on-line biology site was made up in the spare time by a guy who doesn’t list his affiliation or background.  In fact, it states he produced the web site to practice website design.  A majority of the 16,700 google matches I found all make a distinction between micro and macroevolution, though there is debate on the possible connections between the two processes.  So I can’t say as you’ve enlightened me much.  And you’re the one who brought theology into it.  I’ve maintained simply that evolutionary theory does not adequately explain the origins of life or the creation of such complex life forms from much simpler ones.  I too am finished with this thread.  For what it’s worth, I hope the debate has encouraged at least some to question their long-held beliefs on the subject and seek answers, rather than simply letting others tell you what to think.  I am a man of science, though admittedly new to the study of biology.  I also happen to believe in a divine being, and no where have I ever been told by anyone in my church that I should “check my brain at the door.”  In any case, it’s been fun, MT.  Thanks.

[SOB]

I sometimes spank my monkey.


SOB

[Maniac]

Sometimes i belive in god.

Sometimes i dont belive in god.

Sometimes i belive in evolution.

Sometimes i dont belive in evolution.

Well if i had a choice then i would go for the "God" solution defenitly, who wouldnt? So, i dont "belive in god" i "hope for god"

[myelo]

Originally posted by Sabre
So much for trying to spark intelligent debate.  Just for grins, let's try one more time.  We'll start with a definition.  Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.  

I disagree. The general term “evolution” means change. Biologic evolution, which is what we’re talking about, can be defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population over generations. In other words, it is the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe (the "Big Bang" theory fits under this heading).

Theories on the origin of the universe are not related to biologic evolution.

2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. This part of the theory of evolution is pure speculation, as it has not (despite much effort) been duplicated since it supposedly first happened.

Also not related to biologic evolution.

3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. ....

Good. So you accept that new species can originate through the process of evolution (speciation).

4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life.  

Macroevolution is a relative term, indicating the degree of divergence of lineages. The longer the time since the divergence, the greater the differences between the lineages. Extinction of more intermediate forms enhances the observed differences between groups. There is no magic barrier to macroevolution, if you accept microevolution as you defined it.

[GrimCO]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
Bonobos were never a threat to the Democrats.  It's just redikulus!:D

LMAO Syzy!

Now, back to the thread...
The interesting thing about the whole Creationism vs Darwinism argument is that Darwin himself believed in God, as did Einstein and other creative thinkers of the day.

I found myself getting quite annoyed at organized religion due to the fact that in the past, certain religions not only discounted scientific facts, they persecuted the people who made discoveries that were contrary to their beliefs at the time. Gallileo was threatened with death and put under house arrest for the rest of his life after he published a paper stating that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

In the present, due to separation of Church and State, it isn't possible for organized Religions to quell scientific discovery by the threat of death or imprisonment. However, some of them still refuse to face the facts and blindly create explanations that support certain scientific theories in conjunction with their own beliefs. Rather than threaten death or imprisonment, they are forced to use "Hell" as punishment for those who may disagree with some of their teachings.

I do believe there is a "God". I came to this conclusion on my own. I also chose not to insult someone who agrees or disagrees with my assessment.