Who believes in the evolutionary theory of natural selection?

Question

Many places in the world, especially the United States view this as a very touchy subject. Do you believe it is fact or fiction?
I see many people who still disagree that this theory is factual especially on a zoology page where much of the field of classification is based on evolutionary descent and adaptation.

Tell me what you think, I personally believe in all of it, it makes perfect sense from a strictly scientific perspective, but if you feel otherwise, let me know what you believe in and why.
I will award 10 points for the best answer....and I have no Bias....

Well to remove some confusion, the argument that evoltuion is a "theory" is actually backing up the factuality behind it. In science, the term theory doesn't have the same applicationas it does in the arts or literature. Theory in science expresses fact!

Oh and I do believe in God, I just feel strongly about the evolution of organism on their own. I have bred fruit flies in an attempt to view evolution and when you get wingless varieties and soem that have black eyes instead of red, you can see how these changes would apply to the natural world as well.
The resopnses are great so far Keep it up!

Answer 1

Evolution all the way - all the science makes sense, and it is very interesting to see genetic models of how everything is interconnected along the way...I think the theory of evolution is especially noticeable in island situations. Populations of the same species (one population on an island and one on land) evolve differently because of the different selection pressures.

The other thing I love about evolution and natural selection is that there is no 'goal' - it just happens - and some individuals benefit from it - and go on to pass their genetics, and others don't...

It is not that I don't believe in God...the evolution theory just seems to have overwhelming evidence from a strictly scientific perspective - especially with all the fossils and genetic testing for relatedness.

Answer 2

The theory of natural selection is only seriously debated (and even then not much) when it is presented as a theory for the origin of life. The actual process of natural selection, that is creatures with higher fitness surviving more frequently through the generations is completely accepted, and more in the realm ofscientific fact than theory, even though it maintains the name. Perhaps a scientific "law" of natural selection would be more appropriate.

As a medica student, and a biologist I accept the "theory" as it actually is... a rubrick for the passage of genes through generations and predictor of outcomes. As a theory of origin, and tool for athiest counterpoint I don't buy it at all.

I do not believe that the earth could have randomly generated life, and the fundamental reproductive molecules that represent it, randomly via electrical actions on the primordial "ooze". Thats my scientific opinion. Now scientifically I can't say how life got here in any other way, I can just tell you I don't think it started here without some supernatural help. Or perhaps it was delivered here via meteorite, or perhaps it was seeded by another civilation... all those are possibilities.

What do I believe? In an almighty God that created life, and cultured it from there with subtle selective influences.

Tiger Striped Dog MD

Answer 3

I have been checking out just what the theory of evolution is all week.So far I have found that in most argument it boils down to,life forms can adapt and change to the point of speciation.That part is proven but only that part.Abiogenesis is supposed but not proven.Now here comes the tricky part theory does not mean theory,fact does not mean fact and proof does not mean anything,the theory can not be questioned unless you can replace the whole thing and anyone that tries is either an idiot,uneducated or a bible thumper.

Answer 4

It is a theory which means it hasn't been proven yet, just studied.
One day it may become fact or then again it may not. It is however likely (in my opinion) that it is easier to prove then the invisible being in the sky that created everything from nothing. It's not a matter of belief. It's an idea (evolution) that Darwin came up with and laid out on the table for others to explore and research. The verdict is not completely in yet however it is closer to fact than fiction.

Answer 5

I believe in it.
This is because it produces clear explanations (ideas) that can be tested. The scientific method is set up so that an idea is never right- it is only not disproved.
We've done so many experiments over the 100+ years that have yet to disprove it, it certainly seems the theory is generally true. We still have to work on "little" specifics (for instance random chance (genetic drift) plays a role, but there's a debate as to how big of it), but the whole, general "framework" seems very sturdy.

Answer 6

I believe the evolutionary theory of natural selection is sounded. However, the evidence we see so far only support microevolution. To carry that to the grander theory of macroevolution, that is of still serious debate. Without any concrete evidences on macroevolution, Dawinism will still be considered nothing more than a theory.
On the other side of the coin, Creationism offers no scientific proof or evidence. In this day and age, faith just doesn't cut it anymore. Look at this forum for instance (answers.yahoo.com), we are here for the quest of knowledge and through which we better ourselves.

Answer 7

I believe whole-heartedly in evolution....Doesnt the domestic dog prove it completely?? I mean I always wonder why people dont use that as an argument because we have all the proof needed to confidently say that dogs evolved from wolves. We have the bones of wolves with early humans and we have examples of the everything in between. We know without a shadow of a doubt that dogs were once wolves but because of our natural selection choosing the most submissive most puppy like etc etc that dogs diverged from wolves and became dogs...what other proof do you need to believe? Who can argue or will argue that dogs are not an evolved form of the wolf?? Furthermore they evolved because of our selective breeding and choices so we in a sense are thier evolutionists because if it werent for us there would not be dogs as we know it in the world today.

Answer 8

I don't think it makes sense on a genetic level. A change in one portion of a genetic code has consequences for many genes, and many expressions. It's not likely that every consequence of a mutation will be benficial and you'll have a more "fit to survive" creature.

The "evidence" to support natural selection is usually small changes w/in a population (i.e. finches). Extrapolation from this is poor science.

There is much about this to question. Currently I am reading HF Schaefer's book "Science and Christianity: Coherence or Conflict?". It has one chapter on this, w/ much information. That is in addition to the many books on the subject.

Note, many criticisms come from non-Christians. "Icons of Evolution" was written by someone far from the Christian faith.

Answer 9

At times the E-theory seems like a long shot but it is by far the best explanation I have heard. Iregard it as fact. Its the only answer that makes sense. Is the atheist the most discriminated "religion" in our country?

Answer 10

There's no real way to say that you "believe in" a scientific theory. Believing means to accept a statement or idea without evidence to back it up.

However, Evolution/Natural Selection has lots of evidence backing it up, from fossils, to vestigiary organs, to microevolution still occuring before our eyes. It's foolish to not accept evolution.