We treat anti-evolution with tacit respect

[cthulu2016]

National polls show that most (or a plurality?) of Americans do not accept evolution. So we are courteous toward the anti-evolution viewpoint.

But I doubt 80% of Americans have any real viewpoint on evolution. It's not something most people think about or care about.

And since the anti-viewpoint is treated with tacit respect then it's a respectable view... so why not hold it? It's a hell of a lot easier to really understand than evolution is.

The thing is circular... we respect it because it polls well, it polls well because we respect it. Most people accept equally non-obvious views like that the earth is a ball and that invisible germs cause disease because people who take a counter view are laughed at.

And at heart we are just kids in a schoolyard trying to find the group concensus, which opinions are popular, which kids to pick on, which kids demand popular respect.

[Scootaloo]

1. Thankfully, science does not bow to popular opinion

Too bad the same cannot be said if education systems

[GoCubsGo]

22. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said....

"The great thing about science is that the truth is the truth whether or not you believe it." I couldn't agree more with the both of you.

I'm thankful that Dr. deGrasse Tyson is one of the "faces of science". He is so "normal". Too often, scientists are portrayed by Hollywood as lunatics, or in other negative forms. Even on the popular "The Big Bang Theory", they're all portrayed as socially-inept nerds with all sorts of odd quirks and interests. (Don't get me wrong here. I love that show. But...) And, that's part of the problem when it comes to the anti-Evolution AND anti-science mentality that is so pervasive in our society. It makes people think all scientists are weirdos. I hope more real scientists get out there and try to educate people as he is doing. People need to know that "Dr. Sheldon Cooper" is not your typical scientist.

[Spike89]

50. Yeah, the need for "normal" is huge

We just published a book where the entire concept is that teaching kids (especially girls) science, math, technology and engineering is not enough. We've actually been very successful at getting girls and more boys interested in taking those STEM classes in college and even getting degrees in the sciences. What is surprising many educators is just how few of those kids pursue careers in those fields. The key (according to my author) is exposing kids to "normal" scientist role models and hearing how their work environment really is--they don't all wear lab coats all day and stand over bunsen burners.

[socialindependocrat]

2. 'scuse me???

I was out back here warmin' up the still and you got me to thinkin'

I really don't understand what
you think is so difficult about evolution.

Seems natural to me?

[Arugula Latte]

23. Yes. To me, the mental gymnastics you'd have to do to convince yourself

of the 6,000-year-old Earth and Jesus-rode-a-dinosaur idiocy would take a lot more effort than understanding favorable mutations over a lot of time, which is really not that hard to grasp.

[xchrom]

3. the contemporary 'liberal' atomosphere does that far too much w/ things that are stupid.

so much so -- that i find myself suspicious at this point.

look at what's happenig w/ that new book put out by that bell curve quack -- some people are acting like there is something important and revealing about this tripe.

[bowens43]

4. I'm not courteous about it

creationism is pure nonsense and I will gladly tell anyone who brings it up exactly that.

[Drahthaardogs]

5. Is it?

I believe in evolution myself, but when you think, and take it WAAAAAAYYYYYY back, to inception, that at some point, for some reason, a bunch of amino acids got together, grouped up and suddenly produced METABOLISM. At that moment, somehow LIFE began. WOW! I mean, I find the whole "poof, here's a platypus" argument ridiculous, but I can see how many people believe in a creator, because really, we cannot even explain gravity, let alone how those first few amino acids got together to start producing life.

[MattBaggins]

7. You make one of the most common mistakes of falling for creationist

Most of you your post was correct in using "I" until you got to gravity replace "we" with "I".

[Drahthaardogs]

12. Huh?

I said "we" cannot explain gravity. "WE" cannot. There are theories, but just that. On one knows exactly why gravity exists.

[renie408]

26. Wow. This makes that other thread a lot easier to understand. n/t

[Drahthaardogs]

30. We can't

We do know how it works (within relative distance to earth), we can calculate its effects, but we do not know WHAT it really is.

http://www.theoryofgravity.com/

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm

This one will make you happy though

Pay special attention to the commentor who reminds us that Newton's laws of physics are great on the earth, but fall apart in the realm of space. Quantum physics and all that fun stuff.

[renie408]

34. No, I know that we don't really have a good grasp on gravity.

Though someone who claims to be a scientist saying that is it 'just a theory' seems a little odd to me. I am more used to laymen who do not understand the scientific meaning of the word 'theory' using that argument.

Believe it or not, I arent' stoopid.

I meant that you are a creationist, hence the 'be quiet and listen to them and don't rock their boat' approach.

[Drahthaardogs]

35. I got it.

I don't think you're stupid, a bit firey though. Gravity really is only a theory though. I always found that kind of cool in physics class that gravity is only a theory and not a law.

[renie408]

38. Sassy. I got called 'sassy' once.

When I was a kid, it was 'scrappy'.

[Kellerfeller]

60. Despite a lack of perceivable force on the objects in the universe

its expansion is accelerating, instead of being slowed by the gravitational attraction of objects to each other (i.e. ultimately back to the "center&quot .

[cthulu2016]

9. Life was inevitable, not surprising

This is an ironic illusion -- there are very few complex organic molocules floating around in the ocean because living cretaures eat them as the develop.

But before life the seas were thick with everything that could happen jostling around for billions of years.

What if life had not developed on Earth four billion years ago? Then it would have developed three billion ago , or two billion, or perhaps a billion years from now.

An entire planet's worth of organic molocules sloshing around for billions of years is an amazing calculating engine of what's possible.

It really doesn't surprise me.

It could never happen today, however. The process required a lifeless planet where increasingly complex organic structures could exist for a long time after being formed.

[sibelian]

13. This is very well put

thank you

[Drahthaardogs]

14. It is still amazing.

The most beautiful part of evolution. Life from organic particles. A system from pieces. Incredible.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. The problem is that isn't evolution, but abiogenesis, a different theory altogether...

Evolution kicks in once descent with modification takes place. Technically evolution through natural selection didn't kick in until about 2.5 billion years after life first arose on Earth.

[renie408]

29. I think where people get screwed up is that 'billions of years' thing.

I find it exasperating when people think that life occurred in a 'voila!' kind of way. Given the right chemicals, the right pressures, temperatures and a billion years...well, any old damn thing could happen. Its the same thing when people think that human beings are the apex of evolution or the 'most successful species to ever exist'. Certain species of dinosaur existed for millions of years. We have been around for a drop in the bucket in comparison. And at the rate we are going, who knows how many millennia we have left?

[XemaSab]

47. I agree that comprehending a billion years is nigh-on impossible

If you took a thousand monkeys and had them typing for a billion years, who knows what they would come up with?

[Drahthaardogs]

49. Harlequin Romance Novels

What else could they come up with?

[XemaSab]

67. No, I meant IN ADDITION to Harlequin Romance Novels

I think the monkeys already wrote those.

[renie408]

68. Back off the Harlequins

My mother was addicted to Harlequin Romance Novels when I was a little girl. She literally had THOUSANDS of them. I remember we had an entire wall of our den devoted to shelf upon shelf of those thin little paperback books with the multicolored spines. *sigh* I can still remember reading them when I was like ten years old.

Jeez...no wonder I am so fucked up.

[EOTE]

11. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

You admit that you believe in evolution, well evolution and creation are completely incompatible. Creation states that God created man as he exists today, that precludes any form of evolution. The origin of the first life on earth is abiogenesis. Science doesn't have a whole lot to say about abiogenesis right now, but it doesn't rely on that all too convenient argument provided by fundies of "God did it!".

[Drahthaardogs]

15. No, your knowledge of theology is not complete

You only accommodate the ideas espoused by sola scripture, that which was founded from the Reformation. Orthodox Catholics, Roman Rite Catholics, Jews, and do not believe in a literal translation of the Bible and the story of Genesis. I believe the Catholic term is Evolutionary Creationism (Catholic Intelligent Design???). The Church embraced Aristotle, reason, and natural law long ago. Things are not as black and white as you believe.

As a side note, abiogenesis has to have been the first step in evolution, and it was here, that life itself was created. You know this though.

[EOTE]

16. Sorry, you're confused here.

Creationism states that God created man as it exists today. PERIOD. There's no getting around that. The scientific discipline is Abiogenesis. And no, Abiogenesis is not a step in evolution, it precedes evolution. You apparently don't know this.

[Drahthaardogs]

19. No, you're confused here.

I know understand that you are using the term "Creationsim" to mean the literal translation of Genesis of "God created man in His own image", but that is not correct. Creationism simply mean that life was created by the God of Abraham, i.e. not spontaneous generation. The whole "in his own image" meaning right then, right now, is a very Protestant post-Reformation religion belief and is one that is NOT shared by the Christian majority (yes, Orthodox and Roman Catholics make up the vast majority of Christians in the world).


There are types of creationist beliefs.

[EOTE]

21. I'm not confused at all.

I use the term in that sense because that's what it means. That doesn't mean that many religions haven't attempted to reconcile creationism with what is known to be objective facts in science. Just because a lot of religions have gussied up creationism with pseudoscientific tripe like "Intelligent Design" does not mean that creationism no longer means what it means. It just means that religions are trying to save face by at least acknowledging certain parts of objective reality.

[Drahthaardogs]

25. Abiogensis

is necessary for evolution. The "primordial soup" was the first step. Why, here's even an article in Scientificamerican that calls it "evolution's MOST famous step"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated


So, scientificamerican wins.

Here is another one from Berkeley EDU

Titled, you guessed, it, EVOLUTION 101

Guess what the first step is?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml


Now, onto Creationsim

Here is a wiki article for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Pay special attention to the line that states

"Today, the American Scientific Affiliation and the UK-based Christians in Science recognize that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Christian belief that God "created the universe."

I'm done!

[EOTE]

32. That's experiment, not step.

And once again, just because it pertains to evolution, doesn't mean that it's part of evolution. Of course any introductory class to the subject is going to cover abiogenesis, they're related fields. By definition, it had to have preceded evolution. Without that, there's no mechanism for evolution to work.

And just because people have different opinions on something doesn't mean that it doesn't have a set definition. The tripe like "Intelligent Design" was created quite a bit after creationism was defined. Just because there are people who'll try to make religion a bit less ridiculous by gussying it up with science, that doesn't mean that creationism doesn't have a fixed meaning.

[renie408]

27. Believe me, it pains me to agree with the other guy...

but he's right. Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. People can and do believe in both and manage it without any impressive mental gymnastics. It just depends on whether they take a literal or figurative approach to the Bible.

[EOTE]

33. What you're speaking of is "Intelligent Design".

Which is a very specific sect of Creationism created by Christians who wanted to believe in the bible, yet are embarrassed by the church's reluctance to accept objective fact.

[renie408]

37. No, I'm pretty sure that if you think a deity created stuff, that makes you a creationist.

As opposed to someone who believes that the universe and the items contained with in it and life are the results of natural phenomena.

You seem to feel as if you are the definitive source for very highly specific definitions for these terms. As if YOUR definition of creationism or intelligent design is the ONLY definition. Cause I know some people who believe in evolution and creation and they will tell you that they are creationists. These are some pretty intelligent people who recognize that if you don't take a literal view of the Bible, that there is room for both beliefs to coexist.

As for intelligent design, you can be a creationist who believes in evolution who doesn't believe in intelligent design. You could believe that the God of your choice jump started, and therefore created, life and then sat back and allowed evolution to do its thing...with no intentional designer.

[EOTE]

42. Not too long ago, the term was strictly used for adherants of biblical creation.

It's only been in recent times that versions of creation have been created which mesh with modern science. And Intelligent Design is the only version of creation which allows for evolution. That's not according to my beliefs, that's according to the definitions of both words.

And I think it's rather silly to talk about being room for both beliefs to exist if you don't take a literal view of the bible. Well, yeah. The question is how much of the bible do you have to discard for it to make any sense? If you have to keep on saying "Well, what God REALLY meant here was...", then it seems to me that the document really doesn't have much value.

[Drahthaardogs]

43. Wow. You know so little of theology.

The Orthodox Church, was the first. That broke into two at the schism, The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic. From there, we had the Anglican and the Reformation brought us the Protestants. About 3/4 of the world's Christians are Orthodox Catholic or Roman Catholic. Those religions have NEVER EVER taken a literal reading of the Bible, especially the old Testament which contains the book of Genesis. The Catholics have always believed the Old Testament was a book of parables. They also have strong traditions that are not based upon the Bible, but teachings and history handed down through the ages.

So you make think a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is a novel approach but the majority of Christians do not take a literal translation of the Bible. Even the Anglican Church of England (which still entertains re-joining with the Catholics) does not take this view. It is a very Protestant view.


Just for your information, the Protestants tossed out parts of the Catholic Bible. The King James version contains less content than a Catholic Bible. So you could say that the ones who are taking the literal translation are the ones that are tossing stuff out.

[EOTE]

44. That addresses nothing of what I said.

Which is that creationism up until very recently was a term used solely for adherents of biblical creation. Hell, the very wikipedia article you provided says that. It's only religious pseudosciences like "Intelligent Design" which attempt to reconcile creationism and evolution. None of what you wrote changes any of that.

[Drahthaardogs]

48. It addresses EVERYTHING you said!

In your naivete, you propose that creationism is the belief in a literal translation of Genesis. When faced with the reality that, no, that is not the discriminating factor, but rather the belief that life was created by the God of Abraham. You then, again wrongly, suppose, that those who do NOT take a literal translation of the Bible must be "tossing parts out". Therein I quickly pointed out to you that, 75% of the Christians in the world have NEVER taken a literal reading of the Bible and in fact, INCLUDE MORE portions of the Bible, exactly the opposite of what you stated was occurring.

The term was only used recently because Darwinism and evolutionary theories are a relatively new thing.

[EOTE]

53. You really need a few lessons in logic.

Creationism is the belief that Earth, the universe and MAN were created by god. And those who don't take a literal translation of the bible ARE tossing parts out. How else can you explain that? That's so obvious that I can't believe you can't see it. Whether or not the bulk of christians believe in a literal translation of the bible is completely irrelevant. What I was saying is that it's really silly to believe in just portions of the bible. If it's a good document, ALL of it should be used. If you need to throw out a good portion of it just to get it to make a lick of sense, it's pretty much worthless. None of what you said addressed anything that I said.

[Drahthaardogs]

55. Um,

What information do you think the Book of Genesis contains?


The Catholic Church is the first Church. What part of IT HAS NEVER BELIEVED IN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE escaped your gray matter?

The Catholic Bible also contains these book that are EXCLUDED from the Protestant (the guys who do believe in a literal interpretation)


Tobit
Judith
The Book of Wisdom
Sirach (also called Ecclesiaticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Seven chapters in the book of Esther
Two chapters and a prayer in the book of Daniel

You see, Protestants tossed out TRADITION and accepted the written word only. That was called Sola Scriptura and was a big part of the Reformation.


A Mark Twain quote comes to mind.

[EOTE]

56. Christ, this really isn't that difficult. What have I said that contradicts any of this?

Is my belief that needing to throw out large portions of the bible makes it pretty much worthless negated in any of what you said? My point is that if you need to throw out good chunks of it to get it to make any sense, then it's a pretty worthless document. None of all your ridiculous screeching in disguise as a theology lesson changes any of that. You're arguing with someone that doesn't exist. That's usually the first sign of schizophrenia.

[fascisthunter]

58. .

[TheKentuckian]

61. Well, granting that, what do you call all the millions and maybe billions

that don't believe in the Bible at all, that believe a god or gods created existence or some portion of it? There are no shortage of folks of all kinds of beliefs that do not believe the Universe is a purely natural event, in all kinds of degrees.

Believe and take literally are also not the same thing, at least not to everyone. Much of it is very reasonably seen as parable or even moreso taking in events in far from human scale and without any internal background that even very basic education today might allow into terms both the writer and the audience could wrap their brains around.

We must also deal with translation, editing, emphasis issues over time. At certain points what it was isn't exactly what you have now. I'd argue that one cannot take it 100% literally because there is too much debate on even that definition and what it is that you must believe in cases of internal conflict.

One cannot "literally" believe in your narrow brand of creationisim, or more accurately few do, especially those who are all about pushing it and they don't make far because while asserting Adam and Eve are everyone's forebearers, the assumably only other person on Earth is overcome with fear of being stalked and killed for being a kinslayer (by who then), gets his protective mark, and marries some woman who assumably does not exist.

If you believe the Bible literally, it does not allow one to be a creationist as you define it because it literally says there are people already existing that didn't cotton to brother murderers, that could bred with and understand those from or decended from Eden.

[renie408]

62. WHOSE DEFINITION?

Can you please post a citation to the Definitive Guide to the Proper Names of Religious Beliefs?

As for taking the Bible literally...do you know any Christians? And do you ever talk go them if you do? Hell, MOST Christians do not take the Bible literally. They believe that the stories of the Bible are the interpretations of a more primitive people. The only parts to be taken literally are the ones that can be historically validated.

[EOTE]

70. The definition comes from Wikipedia, the very source the above poster cited in his defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

If you don't have a set definition for things, language is pretty useless.

And of course I know plenty of Christians. And I know that the bulk of them don't take the bible entirely literally. That does nothing to negate my opinion that a document is pretty damned useless if you have to go hunting around for parts which should be accepted. That's what gives us the fundies who go around lambasting gays at every turn and convenient ignore everything else in the bible. It's truly a buffet to these people. I don't see how the bible does any good.

[WCGreen]

17. When I think of eternity, which was what we were promised growing up Catholic....

I started to ask this question; if you believe in life ever after, why do you look toward the beginning?

I just except that the universe was always there and always will be. It may shrink into itself and explode every 100 billion years or so. so I just take it as that there is no creator. There is energy and mass and they will combine in all sorts of different ways to make all sorts of stuff.

In the end, we will all be dead and it really won't matter all that much.

I also think that if there is an "after life" dependent on your belief system, then "god" would be no better than the human like gods Zues, et al.

If there is a god, I don't think this god is concerned about prayer and such but more about deeds.

If that is true, there are going to be a whole lot of surprised people...

[snooper2]

18. You don't go back far enough..The atoms in some of that "ammino acid" you mention

where the result of a supernova explosion that happened long before our galaxy was around..

So me a video of Jesus walking into a black hole and I'll give creationism a fighting chance LOL

[sakabatou]

20. What you're try to describe is NOT evolution

It's abiogenesis. Too many people mix the two up.

[renie408]

40. Did you read the post he responded to?

His comment was in response to someone saying that creation was bullshit. He is saying that while he does believe in evolution (the subject of this thread), he also/maybe/might believe in creation. He wasn't confusing abiogenesis with evolution, I don't think.

And why do I always wind up defending people I have typically fought with the hardest??

[sakabatou]

69. Seemed that way to me

*sigh*

[Viking12]

28. Yes, it is.

And you're confusing the origins of life with the origins of species.

[LanternWaste]

45. Creationism is not science by the definition of science itself.

Creationism is not science by the definition of science itself...

Evolution is science because it may be measured, observed, and tested. Creationism may not be measured, observed, or tested-- hence, it it not science.

Allow creationism as a philosophy, most certainly; teach it in comparative religions with all due diligence; allow your awe and wonder to be lifted by it. However, it is not, and cannot be, a member of the science curriculum any more than musing on Stoicism may be considered science.

[HereSince1628]

6. Generally speaking, I see bronze and stone-age mythology about creation as less a threat

than the incorporation of bronze and stone-age mythology into modern healthcare.

Evolution is very well established and irrepressible. It has had some very successful defenders.

More importantly to me, the conflict between evolution and creation doesn't create crises in human endeavors which depend upon biological understanding--such as medicine. Of course, research on cellular and animal models provides insights into human biology only because of the evolutionary unity of life...but, honestly, whether or not a heart surgeon believes a creation myth or modern synthetic evolutionary theory or some middle ground position that is apologetic to one or both positions, that heart surgeon is still going to follow surgical protocols that are based on modern understanding of anatomy and physiology.

There are more dangerous anti-biological ideas out there than creationism/intelligent design. One of them is the notion that humans are composed of 3 distinctive and separable components called body, mind, and spirit-soul.

Disbelief in evolution or creation has little impact on things like healthcare. The belief in a separable trinity of body/mind/spirit-soul has an on-going impact on US healthcare.

Granted neuroscience has bridged some of this gap, but the existence of the gap is apparent in the way that MDs, insurance companies, and society in general don't think that mental illnesses are 'real' medical conditions. The damage from that sort of thinking impacts not only the quality of treatment (reliance of bronze and stone age spiritual belief systems as applied in 12-step programs), but also to the funding and thereby availability of treatment for what are probably millions of Americans.

As a person who earned a doctorate in the area of theoretical population biology, I fully appreciate the importance and power of modern evolutionary explanation. But, the conflict between creation and evolution is not only well settled, it is very apparent that evolutionary concepts are not going to be supplanted on this planet by ancient, or other, creation myths under any probably political future for the planet.

I am more concerned with knowing that bronze-age and stone-age mythologies and centuries old pre-scientific beliefs (such as the existence of separable body/mind/spirit-soul) have been exorcised from any and all roles in the rationales and design of medical treatments to which I allow myself to be subjected.

[cthulu2016]

36. The speciffic belief, not so vital

But I don't see how a modern thinker can think about much of anything without evolution in the tool-kit.

It's too valuable an analog of all systems with the key componants of evolution, which is most complex dynamic systems these days.

I think about evolution-like systems all day... polticis, history, sociology, market economics

[HereSince1628]

46. Change of states/arrays, and the processes of changes of state/array membership

is fundamental to understanding dynamic processes. Dynamic processes are of great interest in many fields. The most challenging aspects of my graduate education dealt with learning how to analyze systems of equations. It turns out the mathematics is used not only for analysis of dynamics of biotic communities, but also of business communities and social dynamics. Which is a way of saying that understanding dynamics in complex systems includes a variety of transportable skills.

But. although evolutionary change has some similarities to change in other human institutions, I think the processes of biotic evolution may not always well fit non-biotic entities. Without giving it much consideration, an obvious difference seems to be the way information that controls "inheritance" and operation can change in a non-biological processes.

I believe there have been some really revolutionary overthrows of both types of information and process control in politics, economics, and generally, in scholarly understanding. On the otherhand, the conservation of a single system for inheritance and operational control within the cells of life on this planet suggests rather strict constraint of the mechanisms of biotic evolutionary change as compared to the freedom for revolutionary changes in other arenas.

[Johonny]

8. says the guy who thinks Stephen Jay Gould is a political hack

lol, you're rich.

[cthulu2016]

10. "punctuated equilibrium"

lol indeed

[renie408]

41. So you believe in phyletic gradualism?

Doesn't it make more sense than to have a steady and gradual evolutionary transition, there WOULD be periods of stability punctuated by bursts of change?

I am not an expert in this area by a long shot, but am maybe a fairly well read dilletante, but I appreciate Gould't contribution to the understanding of evolution.

[cthulu2016]

51. It doesn't make more sense to me

The bursts of change are driven by the environment, not by the process of evolution. Critters can go an eon fine tuning which eye color potential mates find most attractive and then an asteroid or ice age hits and the imperatives of survival drive drastic change. A new predator migrating into your environment will spur drastic counter-measures.

But is drastic the definition of evolution? I don't see it as so. Evolution is not about improvement, except on its own terms. There's no progress involved. Is the creation of new species the metric? Again, why should it be?

In a constant environment there will not be plateaus and bursts of evolution. There may well be the illusion of plateaus and bursts in the fossil record though, since major morpohological changes like bigger or smaller legs will stand out while other changes leave no trace. (Did dinosaur eyes change a lot? Who knows. We have no dinosaur eyeballs. Perhaps Dinosaurs were constantly developing and losing fur or feathers... changing their songs.

What we know is that the genetic-survival pressure on the individual is constant. Failure to mate is the same (genetically) as being still-born. And failing to mate due to having an unpopular sex-smell is the same as failing to mate because a tiger caught you. Evolution must always be selecting better survivors and thus better reproducers within the population because each individual either does or does not survive and reproduce. So the idea of constancy suggests periods where it just doesn't matter how the individual does, but the individual is always the story.

Evolution is about individuals having offspring that have offspring and the pressure to not fall behind in that is constant, genration upon generation. So how could evolution ever take a break?

We do see "living fossils" that have not seemed to change their appearance much, but we do not whether a modern cealocanth could produce fertile offspring with one from 100 million years ago. I would bet big money it could not possibly do so. So they are actually different species! They just look the same. Is appearance the measure of evolution, or is genetic change?

Since we know that catastrophe is almost the norm on this planet there are plenty of environmental changes that drive "rapid" change but that wouldn't have surprised Darwin any. Of course drastic change in the environment creates drastic change in creatures... but the idea of drastic is actually quite subjective.

Some birds limit their genetic diversity within genrations (all the females breed with the same male) why maximizing it between genrations (changing which male the females all mate with) in order to stay one step ahead of parasites and other diseases. That kind of constant oscillation is a lot of genetic change in the group, but not with an eye toward growing bigger wings or sharper beaks. It leaves almsot no trace at all but it is constant change.

If the birds look roughly the same throughout all that activity does that mean they are not evolving? They are actually evolving quite fast since they are racing the faster evolution of viruses and such.

If we look at species it is easy to fall into the trap of saying, "evolution is speeding up here, slowing down there," but from the perspective of the individual (the only one that matters in genetic terms) the race to survive and reproduce is the same race as always.

The fossil record is very limited. We humans developed instincts for language and music and acheived conciousness during a period when our bones were pretty much the same. That's the most drastic evolving anyone has been up to lately, but a future palentologist couldn't hope to spot it. (Though she would spot when we developed agriculture since people became much less healthy and much more poorly nourished... but more numerous.)

[renie408]

65. Evolution is driven by external forces.

So, it makes sense that without the external pressure favoring changes, no changes occur. Crocodilians have existed in the same approximate form for 230 million years. They don't need to evolve, they are suited to their place in the world. Coelacanths have been around for 400 million years. Same deal. If evolution were some steady drumbeat, wouldn't these animals have become, well, other animals by now?

Punctuated equilibrium simply states that for large stretches of time, most species will have very small evolutionary changes. Then they come under some significant pressure which forces speciation.

[renie408]

24. I am really not sure what your point is...

But I am not courteous to the anti-evolution viewpoint for the exact reason that you mention: courteously keeping your mouth shut is oftentimes interpreted as tacit agreement.

Science is in deep shit in this country because everybody is so damned afraid of the religious that they would rather let the country go to hell than work to keep us competitive.

[Avalux]

31. To accept it, they'd have to understand it. I have doubts the majority of Americans can do so.

They'd have to understand scientific theory and the details....the capacity isn't there.

We have a nation of people where 40% can't read above a 4th grade level. How on earth can they understand evolution?

And I'm so tired of the evolution vs. god argument. Personally, I think they can co-exist. It's religion that demonizes evolution.

[renie408]

39. The thing is, it REALLY isn't that hard to understand.

And really makes logical sense. Evolution in no way threatens God (unless you take a literal view of the Bible, and for that you have to be batshit...or you will go batshit trying to resolve all the contradictions contained therein) and is a simple, ELEGANT explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. And the fact that now they have proven that evolution is an observable phenomena, saying it doesn't exist is a little bit like saying up is really down. (Hey, dude who says we don't understand gravity, back off!)

[HereSince1628]

54. Yes, but modern evolutionary also explains the profound similarities among this planet's life forms.

The diversity is awe inspiring, and a joy for those who can read life in the context of a landscape. But evolution also explains the truly extraordinary fundamental similarities shared among all life on the planet.

Early on, the naturalists of the period of "European global exploration" focused on differences and so explaining the origins of the observed differences became very important. Darwin was a part of that, his focus was on the origins of diversity. For his contemporaries, including Huxley, the non-random emergence of fossils in the geologic record is what was first understood to be 'evolution', the unrolling of the geologic history of life. And the 'origin of species" is what many people think is the central theme of evolutionary theory.

But, contemporary cellular and molecular biology are much more focused on what are really quite awe inspiring overwhelming similarities across living cells on this planet. The similarities are so strong that they suggest a unity among life on this planet that screams for an explanation based on this planet's life having a common origin.

Dobzhansky really had it more right than he might have known at the time he said words to the effect that 'NOTHING in biology makes sense without evolution.'

[cthulu2016]

57. It does threaten God

Life on Earth was once the only compelling argument for a God. Without that there's no argument left.

One can postulate a God at home with evolution, but in that sense nothing could ever threaten God. One can always crerate a God to fit any circumstance.

Without evolution an atheist would be overlooking the obvious to the point of delusion. There had to be an overarching source of the appearance of design in life on Earth. Had to be.

[renie408]

63. I guess it depends on the believer

I have deeply faithful friends who believe in both God and evolution. They don't find anything in evolution or even science which 'threatens' god. I completely have an inability to believe in a deity. Period. I am open to some kind of unifying force which ties all mankind together, I am open to some kind of spirituality. But it isn't driven by an all knowing, all powerful 'god'. Based on that, I am an atheist.

I find religion very interesting, though.

[Erose999]

52. I think "most Americans" are kind of ambivalent about it. They dislike controversy and lean to

whatever side verifies their cultural/religious biases.

I don't respect the "anti-evolution" viewpoint AT ALL, or the pseudo intellectual charlatans the Right parades around under the "intelligent design" banner.

[EFerrari]

59. As a feminist, I have to say that poll worship is overrated.

[Curmudgeoness]

64. Amazingly, these anti-evolutionists don't have a problem

when they are told about "superbugs" that are "resistant" to known antibiotics. That is the place I start when dealing with people who do not believe in evolution. They do believe that bacteria is becoming resistant, and that is a prime example of evolution in front of our face.

The biggest issue people have is that they do not want to believe that they are descended from monkeys. Well, they aren't. But there is a common ancestor, and that isn't the same thing.

[renie408]

66. People are arrogant, egotistical nits that want to believe that the entire universe

was invented just for them. That THEY are the apex of God's shining creation. I think it was in Religulous that I heard that something like a third of Christians believe that the rapture will occur during their lifetime. I would be willing to be that throughout history, a third of people have consistently believed this. Because it is all about them.

THAT'S the problem with evolution for most people. Because if evolution is the truth, then they are not the center of some loving God's grand design. Instead they are just the natural product of the universe ticking along and doing its thing.

[Curmudgeoness]

71. That is very perceptive.

If evolution is true, then humans are not the final product---unless we wipe this line of the ancestral tree out one day. That would mean they are not so special in god's eyes. I suppose that would be hard to accept if you believe that the Bible is infallible.

I actually know someone who believes in a 6000 year old earth and does not believe in evolution, and since he let me know this, I can't even talk to him. It is beyond belief to me.