Public Acceptance of Evolution

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 16, 2006, 1:26 pm

[url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5788/765]Reference[/url] Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (2006) 'Public Acceptance of Evolution' Science Aug 11 2006: 765-766. wrote:

Le sigh.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 16, 2006, 1:40 pm

Man, that's horrible. Turkey sucks!

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 16, 2006, 2:17 pm

That sounds about right.
Around 50% of americans havent evolved past the monkey stage, thats why they dont believe it

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 16, 2006, 3:49 pm

Not often that Malta beats the USA at something.

dibit_eq · Post by **dibit_eq** » August 16, 2006, 4:47 pm

Ricky Gervais tells about creationism..

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... enesis.php

Just figured i'd tag that into this evolution/creationism thread before the "religious nutjobs are crazy" / "zomg you're too <insert religious/political affiliation> to know reality" flamewar starts...

redeemed · Post by **redeemed** » August 16, 2006, 8:49 pm

funny clip there

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » August 16, 2006, 9:46 pm

That is exactly why the US is so great. If everything wasnt split 50/50 somebody might actually gain the power to fuk shit up.

80% of Romans loved Guias Julius Ceaser, And see what happened? A republic died and tyranny was born (for the betterment of all mankind, but thats besides the point)!

noel · Post by **noel** » August 16, 2006, 9:59 pm

That clip owns. I love Ricky Gervais.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 16, 2006, 10:02 pm

That chart also looks like a distorted Baseball or NBA logo! There must be a significance!

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 17, 2006, 7:55 am

Actually, if you look at that graph, the US's bar looks almost exactly like the flag of France....

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » August 17, 2006, 9:35 am

I don't really follow nor care about evolution vs. creationism. I don't prescribe to any school on this one.

But I was wondering, is there solid proof of evolution yet? And not that peppered moth stuff from back in the day...like, missing link stuff? What a choice...a scientific theory without proof...or a book, with no proof. The world is a cruel place sometimes.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » August 17, 2006, 1:04 pm

In science, there is no "proof" of a theory - only that there is no evidence to disprove a theory. That's the big fallacy of logic which the anti-evolution folks start with... "it isn't Proven!!!!"

Saying that the Theory of Evolution isn't proven is similar to saying that the current Theory of Gravitation isn't proven. Yes, we don't understand everything about it - but all the evidence we have says that it is correct. But to say you don't believe evolution becuase it's not "proven" is just plain ignorant.

Animale

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » August 17, 2006, 2:29 pm

Yeah, but that's a bad example to that affect though. The Theory of Gravity has the Laws of Gravitation behind it. Like, the known acceleration of falling objects is a provable fact...so, there are laws of gravity.

Like I said, I really don't care either way...just playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 17, 2006, 2:51 pm

The theory of evolution has the fossil record stretching back some hundreds of million years showing clear evidence of mutation and adaptation leading to divergences in families and species.

Unless you really believe those were put there by Satan to test our faith, it's hard to argue with half a billion years of hard data.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » August 17, 2006, 3:38 pm

Kluden wrote:Yeah, but that's a bad example to that affect though. The Theory of Gravity has the Laws of Gravitation behind it. Like, the known acceleration of falling objects is a provable fact...so, there are laws of gravity.

Like I said, I really don't care either way...just playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

Ok well I'll call it the Law of Evolution...there, it is proven...

The point was that Theories are NEVER proven in science, none of them, ever. Scientists work in probabilities not certainties.

edit: A good analogy for non-scientists:

Think of Truth (Absolute Proof, Law etc) as a wall, you are ten feet from that wall. If you could step half the distance towards that wall with each step you will never reach the wall because there is always a smaller fraction. Now pragmatically you would hit the wall because you can't take steps that small but in the absolute sense you could always take a smaller step.

This is where evolution is in the books of biologists. Pragmatically they have hit the wall and take it as granted. In the absolute sense they are constantly collecting evidence of it and refining their understanding of it's nuances. There is zero scientific evidence to refute it and a mountain of evidence which supports it.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » August 17, 2006, 4:01 pm

What about the fossil record though? Does it show the transition from fish to bird? I don't believe we have uncovered those intermediate fossils yet, ie. the missing link. Is one to just accept that with all the fossils of current and extinct animals, that we have no fossils of what came between?

I agree there is no scientific evidence proving evolution did not occur, or that the bible has it right. I guess I just wish there was unmistakable proofs in either direction so that the other side would shut up, and we could all get back to pie or cake...whatever suits your fancy.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » August 17, 2006, 4:20 pm

Kluden wrote:What about the fossil record though? Does it show the transition from fish to bird? I don't believe we have uncovered those intermediate fossils yet, ie. the missing link. Is one to just accept that with all the fossils of current and extinct animals, that we have no fossils of what came between?

I agree there is no scientific evidence proving evolution did not occur, or that the bible has it right. I guess I just wish there was unmistakable proofs in either direction so that the other side would shut up, and we could all get back to pie or cake...whatever suits your fancy.

It certainly shows the transitions from invertebrate to fish, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird and reptile to mammals, and mammals to higher mammals. But there is no missing link. All the names of those groups of animals are arbitrary points selected on what in reality is a continuum of forms.

What is argued about among scientists is where and how to best select a point that makes sense to say this is no longer a reptile it is a mammal etc. Those names and points are arbitrary based on morphology. In reality there were and are vertebrates that are somewhere in between. The links are around us everywhere in both the fossil record and alive. Evolution isn't a chain in which each link is visible, it is a string.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 17, 2006, 9:42 pm

Isnt religion huge in Italy?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 17, 2006, 9:45 pm

Animalor wrote:Actually, if you look at that graph, the US's bar looks almost exactly like the flag of France....

and iceland looks like a matchstick

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 18, 2006, 3:34 pm

Sionistic wrote:Isnt religion huge in Italy?

I believe that the church has been losing its stranglehold on Italy for awhile now and it's in fact a point of great worry among the clergy that Italy has fallen so far from the church.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 18, 2006, 4:02 pm

Kluden wrote:I guess I just wish there was unmistakable proofs in either direction so that the other side would shut up.

Why does it have to be an either\or situation? For myself, I believe in both. The two aren't incompatible.

Vor made a good post on it a while back, something along the lines of it not scientific law, theory or anything like that, but a fact. You can watch it happen in a petri dish. I'm too lazy to search for it right now

Tuddi2 · Post by **Tuddi2** » August 20, 2006, 10:30 pm

Winnow wrote:
Animalor wrote:Actually, if you look at that graph, the US's bar looks almost exactly like the flag of France....
and iceland looks like a matchstick

i'm sure there isn't any point to this post of yours but if there is .. what is it ?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 20, 2006, 11:45 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Kluden wrote:I guess I just wish there was unmistakable proofs in either direction so that the other side would shut up.
Why does it have to be an either\or situation? For myself, I believe in both. The two aren't incompatible.

I'm not so sure the two aren't incompatible.

When Adam and Eve were created, death was not possible(in any circumstance I suppose), therefore fossils could not have existed prior to Eve eating of the forbidden fruit.

Because of this evolution never happened and humans had to be the result of Creationism, since evolution involves creatures dying during the evolutionary process.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 21, 2006, 12:15 am

There is a new argument I've heard, Aruman, that says that when God created the heavens and the earth it was much longer than seven days as we know it. Perhaps time for him was an eon here and a few billion years the "next day", as they know in Genesis. Besides, to believe that because the Bible doesn't account for it, evolution couldn't exist is bogus. Despite the rhetoric by churches, the Bible wasn't written by God. Maybe we got something lost in translation. Maybe that something was evolution. I personally think it's stupid. Religion is there to soothe people and make them feel better about life. Science shouldn't mix with it at all. Let science help improve our lives socially and intellectually, and let religion help those who want that spiritual help.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 21, 2006, 1:34 pm

That's what makes the bible such a handy book.. the words within can be twisted and manipulated to match whatever theory or purpose mankind wants it to.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » August 21, 2006, 1:44 pm

Aruman wrote:since evolution involves creatures dying during the evolutionary process.

Religion isn't incompatible with Evolution at all. Literalist interpretation of The Bible is incompatible. I never will get why people assume that the author(s) of The Bible, even if it was a divine being of some sort, was incapable of using and/or chose not to use metaphor.

The process of evolution doesn't require death to work. Creatures with better adaptation to their environs are more succesful in reproducing therefore more likely to produce more progeny which are in turn more succesful. Death is just one of the results of poor adaptation not critical to the process.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 21, 2006, 9:54 pm

This isn't my argument... I don't give a crap about religion. I believe in evolution as more likely than some unknown entity creating man.

There are other more extremist ideas out there concerning creation though(think alien influence for example).

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » August 21, 2006, 10:02 pm

There are other more extremist ideas out there concerning creation though(think alien influence for example).

I agree that the ideas like aliens being involved in our creation or evolution is retarded, but how exactly is that idea any more rediculous or extreme than the idea of some unknown magic entity creating us? The concept of a magical unknown entity having created us has just been around much much longer- the theory of aliens doing it is simply a modernization of the same idea. They've just turned a traditional fantasy into a sci-fi. /shrug