How many believe in Evolution

[TrevorW]

Not really I'm all for evolution and do believe we descended from apes this can be gleaned from the observations of the monkies we have running this state and the way people behave sometimes.

I was going to change the wording choices but don't know how and may be to late. I am presently doing an online short Uni course on human evolution which is being run by a US Uni through Coursea. The forum often gets hijacked by wacko's.

A survey was conducted locally in 2010 that showed 71% of Australians believed in evolution, 11 % unsure etc whereas in the US of A around 40-45% believe in evolution, although apparently a recent survey shows only 1/3 don't believe in evolution

As I considered most on this site to be reasonably intelligent I was conducting my own poll to see if the more scientifically orientated have a greater consensus.

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

What a random thread to appear in general chat! I predict it will be locked in some time due to TOS. Unless this vote somehow gets around it.

I voted anyway.

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

I'm in Vegas for a conference: I defy anyone to walk the strip at night and deny humans are unrelated to primates.

On second thoughts, that's very possibly libel on primates.

Been there, seen that, oogh, oogh. That's why the palm trees, no branches at low level.

[ianB (Ian)]

If this Poll is for a uni course that you are doing it needs to reflect the opinions of a wide cross section of society, a poll conducted on this forum will not reflect that and as such the results are of little to no consequence.
It would be better Trevor to conduct this poll by some other means whereby you can obtain the opinions of a larger group made up from a variety of social and economic backgrounds.

[Astro_Bot]

Thankfully, real scientific conclusions are not determined from popularity polls like this one!

[TrevorW]

Not required for course
Just seeing what you guys think

[ianB (Ian)]

Oh sorry Trevor, I got the wrong end of the stick.............again.

I would think that on a science forum there would be more that accept evolution than creation, but at the same time there are scientists that priveatly reject evolution and have a belief in a God but they keep this to themeslves as such ideas would jepodise their careers / funding.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Don't mean to be picky but surely being able to pick 2 makes this a bit of an odd poll? The only 2 that would be compatible with each other are "Unsure" and "Don't Care". The first 2 are obviously incompatible, and if you pick either of those 2 then picking either of the others is nonsense.
On second thought, if you believe that man evolved from another primate but that an intelligent designer "caused" that to happen, maybe the first 2 are not incompatible! But I am sure that the people behind ID would be pretty quick to disown such a view.

Malcolm

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Thankfully, real scientific conclusions are not determined from popularity polls like this one!

Unfortunately it has gone that way with accepting anthropometric Climate Change too ie. climate change denying, intelligent design and creationism are all given credence and legitimacy as genuine models, which none of them are, when they are included in the debate in the first place...somewhere they simply do not belong

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by ianB

Oh sorry Trevor, I got the wrong end of the stick.............again.

I would think that on a science forum there would be more that accept evolution than creation, but at the same time there are scientists that priveatly reject evolution and have a belief in a God but they keep this to themeslves as such ideas would jepodise their careers / funding.

Sorry Ian, but those last statements are absolute nonsense. The number of serious scientists, and by that I mean people doing actual science, who reject evolution is vanishingly small, and among biologists is is practically zero. Sure there is some debate about the nature of the evolutionary process, eg the Gould/Dawkins debate about punctuated evolution, but the fact of evolution is widely accepted as any scientific idea can be.

This is not to say that there are not some credible scientists who hold such views but they are a tiny minority. The statement "there are scientists" indicates it is a significant number, which is simply false.

The creationist/ID proponents attempt to inflate their support by including people who have degrees from fringe institutions with little or no scientific credibility.

Malcolm

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

And who are you Mike to decide what can or cannot be included in a debate. You appear to be guilty of the same closed mindedness that you label the Climate Change deniers. IMHO everything should be put on the table for a rational, balanced and intelligent discussion.

It's not a matter of Mike or any one person deciding what is to be included in a debate. Evidence is evidence, if all the evidence points to something being true, then points of view, even if strongly held, that contradict that evidence should be excluded from the debate, unless those holding the views can come up with evidence supporting their view.

Creationists/IDers etc have access to the same data as every other scientist on the planet, all the have to do is find the evidence. In the words of JBS Haldane find the ol' "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian".

To call someone closed minded for simply demanding that points of view be supported by evidence is simply bizarre.

Malcolm

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

IMHO everything should be put on the table for a rational, balanced and intelligent discussion.

Fair enough, let's see how that discussion would go.

Creationism - no evidence supporting
ID - no evidence supporting
Evolution by natural selection - tons of evidence and growing

Hmmm which one will we support? And remember we are being "rational, balanced and intelligent"

[astronobob (Bob)]

Well, I hope I dont get thrashed for this, Lol. but Im a believer in a god and intelligent design. Im also going to state that everyone should be entitled their own opinions and/or beliefs !
I just dont understand the idea, man came from apes/monkeys or what have you, cut to the chase, "The Missing Link" even tho there are some ideas and attempts out there to conclude the concept, there is No real Evidence, otherwise it would be written & taught everywhere as fact ?
Man know's many many facts on how the Planet & Life works, but Not this concept of a Missing Link ?
Now, if we believe in a missing Link, as such, there should/must be missing links of all the animals, fish and birds showing their evolutions as well, because that would be the norm right, changing constantly through time, right up to this day and continue changing for thats the way it works right ? Well I cant see any half species showing the physical changes over time otherwise we would not have individual species of animals fish & all life forms ?
I always wonder why, when a particular species is about to become extinct, man makes huge efforts to save it, funny that eh ? if evolution was true, life/people would have extinction totally accepted ?

Just my thoughts, thanx !

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by astronobob

Well, I hope I dont get thrashed for this, Lol. but Im a believer in a god and intelligent design. Im also going to state that everyone should be entitled their own opinions and/or beliefs !
I just dont understand the idea, man came from apes/monkeys or what have you, cut to the chase, "The Missing Link" even tho there are some ideas and attempts out there to conclude the concept, there is No real Evidence, otherwise it would be written & taught everywhere as fact ?
Man know's many many facts on how the Planet & Life works, but Not this concept of a Missing Link ?
Now, if we believe in a missing Link, as such, there should/must be missing links of all the animals, fish and birds showing their evolutions as well, because that would be the norm right, changing constantly through time, right up to this day and continue changing for thats the way it works right ? Well I cant see any half species showing the physical changes over time otherwise we would not have individual species of animals fish & all life forms ?
I always wonder why, when a particular species is about to become extinct, man makes huge efforts to save it, funny that eh ? if evolution was true, life/people would have extinction totally accepted ?

Just my thoughts, thanx !

Firstly, let me state that I absolutely respect your right to have a point of view, and that applies to anyone on this thread. BUT if a point of view is going to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis there must be some facts and evidence to support it. Einstein didn't simply say "I believe that E=MC2" and expect everyone to say "that sounds OK". He assembled his evidence and convinced the scientific world. And that is what Darwin did and his heirs continue to do today.

I will deal with your last argument first. Extinction these days is almost exclusively caused by man. Habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, whatever. So unlike extinction before we came along we make rational choices that lead to these extinctions and so can also make rational choices to try to prevent them. These facts say absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of evolution by natural selection only something about man and his interactions with the natural world.

Now to the "missing link". I am assuming that you are proposing the "gaps in the fossil record" argument? This is the argument that requires that there be a fossil for each intermediate stage of a lineages evolution. The problem with this argument is that it is not falsifiable. Say you have 2 creatures known to have lived a million year apart that are different in some way. Creationist says "look there is a gap in the fossil record" so paleantologist goes out and fills the gap with 3 nice fossils that show the evolution of the features of interest. Result, creationist says "Look, there are now 4 gaps in the fossil record". And so it goes. If fossils were the ONLY evidence we had, evolution would be utterly supported and what is more there is plenty of evidence even if there were no fossils! Darwin did not use ANY fossil evidence in arguing his case and modern science has now many other sources. For example the fact the every living thing on the planet uses the same proteins, genetic structures and chemical processes indicate we all evolved from a common source. So I am not sure what other "real evidence" it would take to convince you.

Now this section in your post "changing constantly through time, right up to this day and continue changing for thats the way it works right ? " that is the "if evolution is true, why is it not happening now argument". Well it is, ever heard of drug resistant bacteria? New flu strains? these are evolution at work. The fact that it happens very slowly in slowly reproducing animals like ourselves is not an argument against it.

Now this section "Well I cant see any half species showing the physical changes over time otherwise we would not have individual species of animals fish & all life forms". I am not quite sure what you are asking here. Presumably you are demanding that intermediates be produced that exist in the present day? This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of speciation. All living creatures belong to a group (species) that exists in its own right, it is NEVER simply moving to be something else. So a lion is a lion and a tiger is a tiger. At some point a group of lions may change in such a way that they can no longer interbreed with other lions and so become a new species. So did that mean that the lion that exists today is only an intermediate and not a "real" species? Obviously not.

I hope this helps clear up some of your understanding of evolution. And above all please do not take this as "thrashing". Note I have not used name calling etc. simply looked at your arguments and attempted to rationally argue an alternate point of view.

Respectfully

Malcolm

[SimmoW (SIMON)]

I find this question quite ironic, being asked in an astronomy forum.

How do the stars and planets evolve? Trillions of possibilities

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

Do you believe the Higgs Boson exists. There is no concrete proof that it does and prior to CERN it was difficult to prove any existence, it was just a decades old theory. As we develop techniques to better understand our environment we start to prove and disprove theories. Why can't Creationism and Intelligent Design be afforded the same. Yes there is no proof now but years or decades from now there might be...or it may be just a dead theory.

Well "just a decades old theory". A theory in science is a hypothesis that is capable of being shown as false, but is supported by all the evidence currently available. Peter Higgs examined the maths and the experimental science as it was back in the 60's and proposed the Higgs Boson. It was predicted to have certain properties and the LHC at Cern was able to test if a particle could be generated with those properties which it promptly did. To date not one piece of credible evidence has been found suggesting that it doesn't exist. (If there are any particle physicist here please tell me if I am wrong!!)

So at this point in time it is a "theory" in the technical scientific sense. All the evidence points to it's existence, it is conceivable that contrary evidence could be found but none has. So whether I "believe" in it or not is irrelevant.

Creationism and ID are at this stage hypothesis not theories. Until some credible evidence is put forward to support them, that is where they should stay.

Malcolm

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

In Red...Evolution or Adaptation? Are these terms the same or different?

Semantics.

Adaptation to survive over generations like the mentioned bacteria is sensibly evolution.

A person building a house to survive from the elements and security is adapting, would you agree? Same as early man creating and using hand tool.

A bacterial strain altering its genetic make over a number of generations to survive a threat like antibiotics is evolution.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

In Red...Evolution or Adaptation? Are these terms the same or different?

Good question!!
Evolution is the process that involves species changing over time. It is common misunderstanding that Darwin proposed a theory of evolution. The fact is that by the time he published "Origin" evolution in the scientific community was largely an accepted fact. What he clarified was the PROCESS by which it took place. In this he proposed natural selection as a mechanism. As environments change species adapt to their changing environment by this process and that drives evolution.
So if you follow this line of reasoning you can see that adaption is the process, evolution is the result.
Evolution could be driven by lots of other processes. Before Darwin, Lamarkism was proposed, in the USSR Lysenkoism was proposed and if course it could be driven by some supernatural being. But Darwin gave us a simple easy to understand mechanism that explain it and is supported by evidence.

Malcolm

[Harb]

One thing for sure.....everyone will ultimately find out......or not.

I seriously don't think we as humans have the mental capacity to ever know the answer.
We have trouble thinking about where space ends....and if there was an end, whats on the other side of the end.......

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by Hans Tucker

IMHO everything should be put on the table for a rational, balanced and intelligent discussion.

Ah, shucks, I'm not in the mood for an argument, but I just wanted to respectfully and matter-of-factly point out something wrt climate change:

The rational, balanced and intelligent discussion has been going on for over 30 years. The evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change has mounted steadily over that period as it continues to do so. The conclusions grow more certain with each year and currently stand at >95% certainty that climate change is caused by human activity. The percentage of scientists in the field that disagree with that basic premise is virtually zero. The scientific debate has moved on from (a) whether climate change is occuring, through (b) what is causing it to (c) how much/how fast, i.e. the accuracy of the models/projections and keeping them updated wrt new data.

In many of its stories, the media does not accurately represent the consensus of the scientific community.

--------------

And, now on to other topics, with a bit of opinion thrown in for good measure:

With respect to Intelligent Design, whereas some people may choose their own personal definition for what it represents, remember that the ID definition originally included (and still does for many of its proponents) that species did not evolve, i.e. there is/was no natural selection. This goes against not only large volumes of fossil evidence but also, in this modern age, an even larger volume of DNA evidence. The famous 2005 court case showed that ID and creationism could not be separated and banned teaching ID since it was "not science".

It seems that some people who say they believe in ID are really not ID followers at all, but rather are following their own set of beliefs including that "life" was "initiated" by other means. I'm not aware of any definitive proof or large body of evidence that shows how "life" was "initiated", so, in that respect, fill yer boots!

There are scientists who believe in God - I recall reading a story about that a few years ago - but they are (apparently) few and far between. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is what some people choose to say about God, about science, and everything in between. If you're religious, I'm fine with it. Actually, most people are. But I do get rather frustrated with people who promote creationism and ID (as originally described) as both are demonstrably untrue.

----------------

I think there's a bottom line:

I hope you (all) employ your mental faculties to their maximum extent when framing your beliefs, but ultimately, what you choose to believe is your own business.

What you (all) choose to promote to others, however, may invite rebuttal.

----------------

Finally, to paraphrase the late, great comedian, Dave Allen:

Goodnight, good luck, and may your God (if any) go with you.