Why do people believe in evolution?

[dlamberth]

Ah, so no reliable evidence at all.

There are clear and reasonable standards for evidence in the sciences. The bar is not terribly high, yet creationists never seem to be able to get over it.

I'm not a creationist, though I am a Lover of God. My take is that scientist are a gift of God, and that we ought to listen to them and I don't understand those who don't. At the same time, the the universe is creative as it goes about the dance of creating. The universe is in an ongoing forever process of creating. So the word "creation" seems to fit at some level. For myself, it's at the level of feeling amazement of life around me that the word fits most.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not a creationist, though I am a Lover of God. My take is that scientist are a gift of God, and that we ought to listen to them and I don't understand those who don't. At the same time, the the universe is creative as it goes about the dance of creating. The universe is in an ongoing forever process of creating. So the word "creation" seems to fit at some level. For myself, it's at the level of feeling amazement of life around me that the word fits most.

In the evolution forum the word "creation" tends to have a bit of a different meaning. Have you ever checked out Biologos? It is a Christian evolution site:
BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

 

[driewerf]

Oh, but it doesn't take billions of years. It just takes a rabbit's life time to produce a rabbit with "water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight".

Clearly your dust,rocks and gas are far more talented than what I have laying around in my yard

No, the "water, dust, gas rocks and sunlight" had the help of some grass as an intermediate.

 

[QvQ]

Sorry, just to add a side note, domestic cats are considered their own bread (Felis catus) with in the species. Though feral cats shy away from direct human contact, they still need to live around humans for survival. They don't do too well out in the wild. The domesticated exotic cats are actually a cross between a regular domesticated cat and a wild cat like a Bengal in order to bread a more human friendly animal.

The cats in some climates do need to stay around people, mainly because of warm barns and food source Feral cats in Wyoming hunted the mice in the barns during the winter.
However, these AZ ferals do very well in the wild without any human contact. I have seen them out in the wilderness areas, far from any human habitation although they are very hard to spot.
Coyotes will co-exist around humans, live in close proximity because of the garbage but that does not make the coyote a domestic animal.

 

[QvQ]

Are you sure that being cute is not a survival trait? All that is required for a species to continue is for it to be able to pass on its genes and for its progeny to do the same. Cuteness is clearly a "survival trait" when it comes to cats. Cats are bred for their cuteness. In the wild cuteness was not a survival trait, but domestic cats are no longer living in the wild. There is a bit of "cuteness" to human eyes in almost all mammals, especially baby ones.

By the way, no organism is "perfectly adapted". They can be well adapted. But there is always room for improvement.

The cats we kept were always neutered so the ones that were cute were removed from the gene pool.
Now, it was stated that evolution was because of climate change on the Savannah which is why the Apes lost their hair, started grubbing in the dirt and beating other species over the head for food.
All right, so now we have climate change, according the same "scientist" so why don't the polar bears do the same under similar circumstances.
You can't have it every which way.
Also, on this thread, the "educated" know nothing about cowboys, cats, acclimation by humans or cats, medical practice in the 18th century, rickets, miasmas, Neanderthals. Darwin's ignorance concerning native populations, selective breeding of live stock, physics or the latest pronouncements by Hawkings. And you call me ignorant?
Jeez Louis

 

[pitabread]

All right, so now we have climate change, according the same "scientist" so why don't the polar bears do the same under similar circumstances.

Species don't explicitly choose to evolve. There are either members of the species that are more adapted to a change in environmental conditions or there aren't.

It's also worth noting that the current human-driven climate change is happening at a pace much faster than is typical. In circumstances where changes are too drastic, species often just end up going extinct. Look at what happened to the dinosaurs for example.

Also, on this thread, the "educated" know nothing about cowboys, cats, acclimation by humans or cats, medical practice in the 18th century, rickets, miasmas, Neanderthals. Darwin's ignorance concerning native populations, selective breeding of live stock, physics or the latest pronouncements by Hawkings.

How many of us are trying to make arguments based on those subjects?

When creationists come to this forum to argue against evolution, but then reveal they know next to nothing about it... what would you call that?

 

[Yttrium]

I came to accept the Theory of Evolution on taking a couple of college biology classes. After learning the basics of genetics, I have a hard time seeing the different species come about any other way. The process of evolution occurs, we can see it happen. There's nothing we know of that stops it, short of extinction. A lot of small changes add up to big ones over time. Don't even need the fossils to get to the theory these days, although the fossils add historical perspective and supporting evidence.

Sure, the various species could have been popped into existence over the course of history, but why bother when there's a handy mechanism that can provide all the necessary diversity?

 

[driewerf]

And you are the measure of all things? What you don't understand is false by default?
I have read this answer very often from creationists, and it strikes me always as incredibly arrogant. The notion that the ToE is wrong because they don't understand it (after how little an effort?). Shall we reject calculus too? Quantum theory? General Relativity? Or do you apply that principle selectively to the ToE?

Selectively to the ToE.

So "not understanding" it is not the only reason for rejecting the ToE, since you don't understand other fields of science either. (Which applies to myself too.) So whatb stes the ToE apart -- besides that you don't understand it -- that you reject it and not all the rest of the sciences?

 

[driewerf]

Why? That's what I don't get. It doesn't seem that big a deal to me. "So that's how life developed and diversified since it began? Cool. Say, what's for supper?" The theory of evolution is just scientific theory, accepted provisionally as all scientific theories are--and if it turns out to be wrong, it's wrong and we'll come up with another theory to replace it. I don't see why you would want to select that one particular theory to reject a priori.

I can't fathom the concept. My brain is too small.

Yes, but not all the other scientific theories that you don't understand. So why the selectivity.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution is not "clear science." I do not deny physics which I studied in college and follow closely yet I am aware that our physics are as flawed and incomplete as flat earth. Most of what we know, scientifically, is guess and speculation.
I do not object to evolution on religious grounds. I object to it based on the many flaws in the theory which are too numerous to list here.

Oh look, a check on the creationist bingo card: the flaws are too numerous to list. Go ahead, gives us the top 3.
I guess we will never see any flaw.

 

[driewerf]

The major flaw in the evolution is that most of the evidence is contrived and shoehorned into a theory that is so perfectly flawless to the true believers that to question it is Heresy.

Wrong. And if it were true what you wrote, it would not be a flaw of the theory but of the scientists involved. So no cigar.
So give us a counterevidence against the ToE.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, but not all the other scientific theories that you don't understand. So why the selectivity.

I do understand a lot of the other scientific stuff. Evolution remains a mystery to me. The more I read the worse it gets.

 

[driewerf]

How about, I don't know but I am willing to consider all arguments. I have considered evolution and it is flawed, perhaps fatally.

Then give us the counter evidence you have. We can cross quite some boxes on the creationist bingo card.

 

[driewerf]

Or it suggests a different theory or even disproves the theory.
Or as in the case of the "false confession, it proves a theory based on false evidence. I have followed this subject carefully being one of the few people I know who have actually read all of Darwin's books and I don't believe it.

As for shoehorned evidence, the Pittdown man.
And Neanderthals are never objectively presented or studied
History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

As if evolutionary biology started and stopped with Darwin. We 're 160 years later QvQ, some extra research has been done. And Piltdown man has been indicated as fraud long ago.

I am what evolutionist and creationist refuse to admit exists..the person who reviews the theory, the evidence and rejects the theory.

But can't give any piece of evidence.

The creationist bingo card is getting filled.

 

[driewerf]

Evolutionists have had near total dominance in the education system for many decades therefore the tendency is to believe what one is taught at a young age.

Just like atomists, sphere-ists (or globalists), heliocentrists, etc.
School is there to teach the current scientific views. And the ToE is one of the big unifying theories in biology.

Young minds are very impressionable and not many really delve into deep self study one way or the other.

Indeed, just ask the Jesuits.

 

[driewerf]

I do understand a lot of the other scientific stuff. Evolution remains a mystery to me. The more I read the worse it gets.

Oh? I asked you earlier in this thread if you understood calculus, quantum mechanics, the theory of General Relativity etc. You said no. So what "other scientific stuff" do you understand?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Galileo was born in 1564 and died in 1642.

Quite - and 'humours' were generally the 'bodily fluids', not the external causes of disease.

 

[pitabread]

I do understand a lot of the other scientific stuff.

What "other science stuff"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The cats we kept were always neutered so the ones that were cute were removed from the gene pool.
Now, it was stated that evolution was because of climate change on the Savannah which is why the Apes lost their hair, started grubbing in the dirt and beating other species over the head for food.
All right, so now we have climate change, according the same "scientist" so why don't the polar bears do the same under similar circumstances.
You can't have it every which way.
Also, on this thread, the "educated" know nothing about cowboys, cats, acclimation by humans or cats, medical practice in the 18th century, rickets, miasmas, Neanderthals. Darwin's ignorance concerning native populations, selective breeding of live stock, physics or the latest pronouncements by Hawkings. And you call me ignorant?
Jeez Louis

Yep, you neutered some. That does not matter. Countless others are breeding cats with the goal of "cute kittens". The vain attempts of a few do not change the artificial selection of breeders. The result is still that cats have evolved and now have a stronger trait of being cute.

The answer that I gave was only one possibility. You asked "Why did the leave the jungle" (that is paraphrase and not a direct quote). Another reason that they would have left the jungle is simply because the open savannah was there. It would not have been an instant departure. Don't over simplify things. Any time a new environment is encountered that is an opportunity for growth. The first ape ancestors of ours that encountered the savannah would have likely have only made short trips into it. It was an empty niche as far as apes go at the time. That meant its resources were readily available to those early discoverers. At that point the question is not "why did they leave the jungle" as to "why wouldn't they?"

Savannah hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[QvQ]

Oh look, a check on the creationist bingo card: the flaws are too numerous to list. Go ahead, gives us the top 3.
I guess we will never see any flaw.

Evolution Definition: The ORIGIN of the SPECIES
Postulate: Natural Selection
Natural Selection: The Spanish introduced cattle into Texas abt 1700. A portion of those cattle were left to roam until abt 1850 and through natural selection produced a distinct new Breed of cattle, the Texas Longhorns.
Not a New Species..the Breed of Cattle, Texas Longhorns, were expressions of genetic code inherent in all cattle.
So selective breeding is not evolution. Origin of Species does not occur through natural selection.
Natural Selection always occurs within species and is easily demonstrated through centuries of selective livestock breeding.
Natural Selection Is Not Evolution
Evolution is the Creation of Species. That has never happened through natural selection because the naturally selected genes must be present in the selected animal. Those animals must have the ability to interbreed, which is the very definition of Species..one unique species.
Postulate: Genetic Mutation
So we have Mutation as the mechanism of evolution or the Creation of Species.
Mutations are random and so far as we know, invariably destructive to the organism and/or the ability to survive.
There is the new theory "Mitochondrial Eve" whereby it is claimed that there was a genetic shift in the DNA about 200,000 years ago which "switched" ape to human.
However the more research that is done, the more muddied the waters.
So that is interesting BUT so far, evolution does not have a postulate other than "probably a random mutation that happened just because."
Evolution does not predict anything because evolution depends on a random mutation that may or may not happen, and who knows when or why.