User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Only God will ever know the answer.

    0 0%
  • Yes, evolution is supported by science.

    24 92.31%
  • No, evolution is not supported by science.

    1 3.85%
  • I don't know if evolution is supported by science.

    1 3.85%
  • Both the Evolutionist and Creationist theories are correct.

    2 7.69%
  • Neither the Evolutionist nor Creationist theories are correct.

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 49

  1. #21
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    @Magic Poriferan, my argument is precisely that evolution does not always mean increase in complexity, and that IMO I'd change the wording to something IMO more correct like adaptation.
    Also, I'm an evolutionary biologist, so thank you but no need for links to genetic drift or notions on what the scientific community thinks about evolution lol
    I don't mean to be condescending, but I imagine you know that it was highly improbable you would actually be someone that knew something about this, and supposing you weren't, just saying "genetic drift" and leaving it at that would probably have been completely unhelpful.

    So, given your field, do you agree that genetic drift is not really an adaptive process?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #22
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Sure, absolutely.

    The only point I'm trying to make here is that the general public (and I've also seen it a lot in these forums) often gives a meaning or scope to "evolution" that in reality does not exist (and your genetic drift example is proof of this). I think this comes from a forced anthropomorphic outlook that we all have, and that is trasversal to evolutionism and creationism, and I think that the choice of the word is (partly) to blame.

  3. #23
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    there is nothing to say a creationist God did not choose to use evolution as its modus operandi.
    On the other hand, there is no evidence to say God chose evolution.

    So there is nothing to say that God chose evolution.

    So to believe God chose evolution is blind faith, and serves the interests of religion.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    On the other hand, there is no evidence to say God chose evolution.

    So there is nothing to say that God chose evolution.

    So to believe God chose evolution is blind faith, and serves the interests of religion.
    Indeed, I am of the atheist position so no need to explain this to me.

  5. #25
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    If anyone is interested, there is a free class on coursera.org (coursera is an amazing website with loads of free uni online classes on just about anything) that you can take on evolution. the first week is just the introduction to evolution and it will cover much of the topics that are being discussed on this topic, for example video 3 entitled "evidence for evolution".
    check out: https://class.coursera.org/molevol-001/
    this is the video if you don't want to register: http://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net...98a17103ca.mp4

    PS: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  6. #26
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Charles Darwin could have been wrong. After all, he didn't understand how evolution worked.

    However with the discovery of the genome, we now know how evolution works.

    So Charles Darwin was proved right.

  7. #27
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Intelligent design promotion in the opening post.

    How about a Dawkins rebuttal?


  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    It still seems weird that people with big brains spent hundreds of thousands of years doing things the hunter-gatherer way, and only 10,000 years ago discovered the art of agriculture.

    That's really dumb, because a simple observation of the dynamics of the plant kingdom would've surely revealed the secrets of planting and growing!

  9. #29
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Poimandres View Post
    It still seems weird that people with big brains spent hundreds of thousands of years doing things the hunter-gatherer way, and only 10,000 years ago discovered the art of agriculture.

    That's really dumb, because a simple observation of the dynamics of the plant kingdom would've surely revealed the secrets of planting and growing!
    Like us the hunter gatherers were meaning creating animals.

    And the hunter gatherers created rich cultures that sustained them for at least 100,000 years.

    And the hunter gatherers are more like us than we imagine. They formed themselves into tribes with a spoken culture, while we are forming ourselves into electronic tribes (etribes) like Typology Central.

    So for at least 100,000 years we lived in a spoken culture, then for about 200 years we lived in a literate culture, and now we are entering an electronic culture which is quite like our original spoken culture.

  10. #30
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poimandres View Post
    It still seems weird that people with big brains spent hundreds of thousands of years doing things the hunter-gatherer way, and only 10,000 years ago discovered the art of agriculture.

    That's really dumb, because a simple observation of the dynamics of the plant kingdom would've surely revealed the secrets of planting and growing!
    It is only recently man grew the capability to observe and report, and even then, the capability is not widespread. It makes sense we have achieved what we have in this short stretch of modern history, regardless.

Similar Threads

  1. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. The New Seven Deadly Sins- Courtesy of the Pope - do you agree and what is your list?
    By Geoff in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-16-2008, 03:47 PM
  4. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 05:06 PM
  5. E is in the I of the observer.
    By samIam in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-04-2007, 12:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO