Do you believe in macroevolution?

[miss_mosher]

miss_mosher,

New and resistant strains of viruses emerge quite regularly (alarmingly so), so you are quite correct that viruses do evolve.

But in saying that, I also wonder just how many new viruses have been tampered with by humans? I always have too many questions in my head

 

[Jamesss]

But in saying that, I also wonder just how many new viruses have been tampered with by humans? I always have too many questions in my head

Change due to humans is still evolution. It is still the virus adapting to work as best as it can.

Scientists have proven that the world has been here for 340 million years when it was created on that tuesday in spring so the thought that it was created 6000years ago is rediculous the world is still flat i suppose to. There is a tree in northern england and the same dna is found on opposite ends of a five acre wood. the plant has continually dropped its branches into ground and continued growing in different directions and now covers five acres, one tree. It has been core dated to be 7500 years old and is the worlds largest tree and also the oldest and in religious veiws it means the world must have been created around this tree as it was here first. Evolution is easy to see, Dinosaurs were here then they were wiped out, then more dinosaurs were here 50 million years later then they were wiped out, now humans and stuff are here and the way were going soon we will be wiped out and something else will evolve. I hope its dinosaurs again because i really want a raptor.

Again, very good reasoning, and sound evidence (not proof, mind you, and here's where the contention comes in.), but people can and do still say "The evidence is wrong."

 

[miss_mosher]

I don't like discussing these sort of subjects online as there's always confusion and of course the odd troll pops up. I never try to challenge ones belief and I definitely wouldn't do it online, it's hard to read people when they're not physically in front of you and I would absolutely hate to offend anyone. I believe everyone has their right to their opinion and I'm sure many other people here like myself, have spent YEARS trying to find the answers to this subject. In the end, everyone will always have something to different to believe in and that's what makes society great (at times)

 

[MontePython]

Evidence... Aquarium trade, it is all macro, you wouldnt see any of the morphs in the wild...

Best example.....fancy guppies.

I think that is all i have to say with evidence to back it up!

as an example...

Endlers guppy 1940

pingu guppy 1979

mongrel guppy we now know as everyday 1012...

 

[Jamesss]

Monte, I'd assume it's micro rather than macro which is what the original questin is about. I don't think anyone can actually disagree with the theory or micro​evolution, the evidence is just way too overwhelming and observable.

 

[-Peter]

Its a no brainer. You either accept both macro and micro or you believe in magic. There is no arguement against only denial.

 

[Fuscus]

Disclaimer: This thread has nothing to do with religion, which is a topic which may offend some (or many) people, and is consequently banned from being discussed on this forum. Many religious persons are quite comfortable with the idea that species have evolved from other species over geological periods of time (macroevolution), and hence, at least at a practical level, acceptance of the reality of macroevolution does not necessarily entail the rejection of theism (broadly, the belief in a personal god) and/or deism (broadly, the belief in an impersonal god).

The disclaimer is absolute rubbish. OP is starting a theological post by claiming that it is not a theological post. Unfortunately this is how modern day creationism works, It claims it is scientific wraps a pseudo-scientific wrapper around a myth that involves supernatural interference and complains when it isn't taken seriously, or creates a half based hypothesis ( like irreducibly complexity) then howls in pain when the hypothesis is subjected to scientific methodology.

And likewise, the only alternative to evolution is not necessarily creation by god, whether direct or indirect (strongly-actualized or weakly-actualized as philosophers would say). Perhaps life was seeded on Earth (the Gaia principle), perhaps from beings on other planets (aliens?).

Standard straw man argument that demonstrates a fundamental and possibly intentional misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Simply put evolution is change.
Biological evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Notice how the origin is not part of the theorem.
Nor does evolution explain the rings of Saturn, the origins of the universe ( both favourites of the disco `tute) .
Nor does it "talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings."
If you want it delve into the origins of life I suggest you research abiogenesis not evolution.

Post: Many people do not believe that one species can evolve into another species, but do accept that change within a relatively fixed "type" can occur (microevolution). The poll question under consideration is whether or not one species can transform so significantly that it may be deemed to be a wholly different species from the ancestral stock from which it is derived (macroevolution).

A more honest phasing of this poll would be "Do you believe in creationism of not?" or "are you willing to ignore all evidence to prop up your superstition?" because that is all you are asking
or to put it another way:


FC: "ALL EVOLUTION IS WRONG. EACH ANIMAL WAS MADE IN ITS IMMUTABLE FORM"
IM: "But animals have been observed to change"
FC: "ALL EVOLUTION IS KINDA WRONG. EACH ANIMAL WAS MADE IN ITS IMMUTABLE FORM EXCEPT FOR SMALL CHANGES"
IM: "So what you are saying is that small changes can be made over a short period of thing"
FC (in loud boooming voice): "YES"
IM: "but surely is small changes can occur over a short period of time then large changes can occur over a large period of time?"
FC: "um.. THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD"
IM: "But there is scientific evidence that supports a 4 billon year earth! Radiocarbon dating for instance"
FC (with fingers in ears): "LA LA LA"
IM: "mitochondrial dna analysis?"
FC: "LA LA LA"
IM: And don't forget the fossal record"
FC: "SHES A WITCH! BURN HER"
IM: "how do you know I'm a witch?"
FC: "YOU TURNED ME INTO A NEWT"

Please feel free to add any of your thoughts on the subject, but please do not bring religion into the discussion as I do not want this thread to be deleted or closed, but to stay open. Thankyou.

OK - I will but Penn & Teller - BULLSHIT! : Creationism (Part 1/2) - YouTube say it better

 

[PMyers]

FC: "YOU TURNED ME INTO A NEWT"

I got better...

 

[slim6y]

Unfortunately Fuscus - you're wrong!!!!

Actually - I love your post, but one part of it suggested the Earth is 4 billion years old and carbon dating has suggested this to be true.

As far as I am aware, carbon dating is only as good as the amount of carbon available in a sample after x amount of time.

Because the half life of C-14 (carbon 14) is under 6,000 years, it would be rather difficult to assume that you could go back 4 billion years considering the Earth is continually being bombarded by new carbon from other sources.

For an animal that died, say, 5,000 years ago, it stopped taking in carbon. So the radio isotope of C-14 will decay at a constant(ish) rate of around half of it turning to N-14 within 5730 years.

Easy to measure.

But not knowing exactly how much carbon the Earth was being bombarded with 4 billion years ago, and then a continual stream still coming in to Earth, would make radio carbon dating of the Earth very difficult.

On the other hand, recent research suggests this:
Radiometric dating (not radio carbon dating) has suggested the Earth is over 4 billion years old.

It is the same principle as radiocarbon dating, only it doesn't use carbon because of its much shorter half life.

Unfortunately, this doesn't always give us a good representation - especially if the radio isotope was not originally formed in the Earth's crust. It may give a better indication of how old our sun is rather than the Earth.

As for micro, macro or just evolution... This is why I don't teach biology, it's a weak science! However, I love genetics and selection, because clearly I got selected and went fourth and spawned... Only once mind you, I decided I didn't like the outcome nearly as much as the act - hence, I now no longer will attempt to continue to spawn.

Evolution - slim6ys (that is the plural of slim6y, I can assure you) will be wiped out very shortly (maybe in the next few hundred years). But I like how far my genes got in their short space and time here!

PS - I am not entirely sure of exactly how many times I have spawned, I only have evidence of once....

 

[Fuscus]

Unfortunately Fuscus - you're wrong!!!!

Actually - I love your post, but one part of it suggested the Earth is 4 billion years old and carbon dating has suggested this to be true.

As far as I am aware, carbon dating is only as good as the amount of carbon available in a sample after x amount of time.

Because the half life of C-14 (carbon 14) is under 6,000 years, it would be rather difficult to assume that you could go back 4 billion years considering the Earth is continually being bombarded by new carbon from other sources.

For an animal that died, say, 5,000 years ago, it stopped taking in carbon. So the radio isotope of C-14 will decay at a constant(ish) rate of around half of it turning to N-14 within 5730 years.

Easy to measure...

I stand corrected

 

[Surroundx]

The disclaimer is absolute rubbish. OP is starting a theological post by claiming that it is not a theological post. Unfortunately this is how modern day creationism works, It claims it is scientific wraps a pseudo-scientific wrapper around a myth that involves supernatural interference and complains when it isn't taken seriously, or creates a half based hypothesis ( like irreducibly complexity) then howls in pain when the hypothesis is subjected to scientific methodology.

How is this a theological post? Perhaps you are under the mistaken belief that I am a theist or a deist. In fact I am an atheist who believes that god is logically impossible. I was simply stating that the question of evolution and the question of god are not synonymous, and that there are other alternative to naturalistic evolution and Young Earth Creationism, which include the Gaia Principle, progressive creationism, theistic evolution etc. I attempted to separate macroevolution from theology so that there would be no references to god in this thread, and hence no chance of this thread offending people and/or being deleted/closed.

Standard straw man argument that demonstrates a fundamental and possibly intentional misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Simply put evolution is change.
Biological evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Notice how the origin is not part of the theorem.
Nor does evolution explain the rings of Saturn, the origins of the universe ( both favourites of the disco `tute) .
Nor does it "talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings."
If you want it delve into the origins of life I suggest you research abiogenesis not evolution.

I fully understand evolution and the distinction between evolution and abiogensis (i.e. the origin of life), even though many people don't. A good definition of evolution would be as follows:

"Any net change in the frequency of an allele in a population"

This includes the fixation of an allele within a population (possible via genetic drift), a significant change in the frequency of different alleles of a gene (though not to fixation) because of natural selection (and possibly genetic drift in small populations), and finally a heritable mutation occurring in the germ-line cells of an individual.

But that is not the poll question under consideration. I am not asking whether people believe in microevolution, as I have already stated. You have ignored that. What I am asking is whether people accept the reality of macroevolution or not (or are unsure). Whether the "process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" can also account for new species coming into existence. Of course, I did not discuss how we define a species. That is a controversial subject, and no single definition seems to have sufficient generality to encompass all possible applications of the term (to various taxa, clades, phylogenetic groups etc.).

 

[Retic]

When I was young I was amazed people believed all of this was created by something/someone nobody has ever seen, now in 2012 I am even more amazed it is still believed.

 

[Crystal..Discus]

When I was young I was amazed people believed all of this was created by something/someone nobody has ever seen, now in 2012 I am even more amazed it is still believed.

I love the cherry pickers :lol: hours of entertainment.

 

[miss_mosher]

I think this whole thread is getting WAY out of context. Anyway the point of it was, many people believe macroevolution exists. That's the poll. I don't think everyone needs to argue/try and prove they're right. Gahh

 

[Surroundx]

The poll is to determine how many people believe in macroevolution. But as I said at the bottom of the OP people could leave their comments pertaining to the subject of evolution. Of course, there has been some creationist bashing and religion has also been mentioned, but for the most part I don't think anything offensive has been posted.

 

[miss_mosher]

Mhmm yes definitely some creationist bashing. Some of it is a tad offensive though, like calling God 'magic.' maybe some people just need to be more considerate with their words. It's what I hate about these discussions being online though, things get misunderstood. Anyway most people believe in macroevolution which is cool. You can see how many people do and don't. Cool topic.

 

[waruikazi]

Mhmm yes definitely some creationist bashing. Some of it is a tad offensive though, like calling God 'magic.' maybe some people just need to be more considerate with their words. It's what I hate about these discussions being online though, things get misunderstood. Anyway most people believe in macroevolution which is cool. You can see how many people do and don't. Cool topic.

I was totally going to stay out of this thread mainly because i'm ashamed of my post count but... How is God [the idea of a deity and the deitie's actions] not magic and how is calling it magic offensive?

 

[miss_mosher]

Because some people just find it offensive. Just like some women find it offensive to be wolf whistled at etc etc. I'm not a Christian anymore but all I was saying is that there are probably some people on here that would get offended by that. That's all I'm saying. I'm not opening up myself here to be personally attacked or anything. I only joined this forum to learn from people. So don't get annoyed, all I was saying is that some would read that and get offended.

Anyway I'm out, hope everyone is having a great Sunday

 

[GeckoJosh]

"But where I come from magic and science are one of the same"

Quote from Thor, from the movie Thor....

 

[Retic]

The way I see it is in this day and age if people want to believe a 'god' just created everything from nothing then they have to be prepared to get a thick skin and realise many will put it right up there with voodoo. IMO.