Who really believes in evolution?

Question

I like science very much... I've been reading Darwin's orgin of species and a book by a man named Gould called "Ever since Darwin" that expounds on the theories and findings on natural selection....

a quote caught my eye in the latter which I dug into the former and found, written by Darwin himself:

"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

There are acceptable and logical theories nowadays dealing with this very same eye issue that creationists have been quoting for a hundred years but I still just find it impossible to beleive that a one celled organism, regardless of how many billions of years it took, turned into a man who had a beating heart and a penis (to fit in a vagina) and an endocrine system and emotions and feelings and morals, etc...

natural selection, in my opinion is readily apparent in the world we live in... horse breeding and variations in salmon species and basically the color of our skins all prove that natural selection, to some extent, is a very real and tangible thing... but do people really beleive that humans are just monkeys that straightened out their backs and stood up one day and starting hating each other or falling in love or standing up for what's right?

Answer 1

I am liking your inquisitive mind. Instead of sliding into dogma, you are researching various sides of the argument. D. James Kennedy takes a great look at evolution in his book, Why I Believe.

Evolution appears to be an absurd concept, particularly if it used to explain the existence of man. But it is ultimately much more satisfying to accrue this knowledge through scientific research rather than an emotional juggernaut.

Answer 2

So are you making a rational argument, or are you just experiencing vertigo as you contemplate the infinite complexity of the universe?

When you do, you tend to get caught in simplified arguments like monkeys suddenly straightening their backs. Think of it this way instead: A group of apes (not monkeys) moved to a different environment, where it was more important to run, and where trees were scarce (i.e. they're not going to climb much). All of a sudden, any child that relies less on his knuckles and has longer legs has an advantage and will benefit from it. They live to spread their genes. The others lose out and are less likely to spread their genes, perhaps not by much but *still less likely*. A few hundred generations later, and perhaps a few mutations later, what will these apes look like? Perhaps this is enough for them to walk upright.

Remember, all different kinds of dogs have been selectively breeded by man within the last 10,000 years (before that, there were all wolves). 10,000 is *nothing* geologically speaking.

Answer 3

When humans reach an unknown issue, a problem that hasn't been solved, or a mystery about the universe, they can go two ways:
- Assume there is a higher force that make things work the way there and quit looking for answers.
- Keep proposing hypothesis, keep reasearching, keep testing until you've tested every single possibility trying to find an answer.

I can tell you science is about the second option, it's not about saying that we have all the answer, but to admit we don't have the answers and that we need to keep looking for them.

I'm sure vaccines were found because someone decided there was a solution for some epidemics and not thanks to those who went like "we can't do a thing (but pray) about it". There are planes thanks to those who thought it was possible and not thanks to those who said it was impossible.

Evolution is about that, an ever growing and refining theory that keeps adding new data to the model. That's the big difference between science and dogma, it accepts to be questioned, tested, reformulated and even refuted as new data comes up. Dogmas do not accept that.

Answer 4

Ya know, I haven't found anything that really states we come from monkeys... just that we have a common ancestor. To which, with natural selection, it could be possible. Darwin wasn't trying to set up a monkey to human model to begin with. I think the propaganda has well out-grown the man's own writings and has made it hard for any scientist or a seeker of scientific truth to actually get anywhere with the information given without having to hear about "we don't come from monkeys"

Answer 5

vs Creation? There is no doubt about Evolution....none whatsoever, and the good thing about science is we have the ability to change when change is necessary...we are not stuck following a 2000 year old piece of dogma.

"The American creationist movement has entirely bypassed the scientific forum and has concentrated instead on political lobbying and on taking its case to a fair-minded electorate ... The reason for this strategy is overwhelmingly apparent: no scientific case can be made for the theories they advance."- Kenneth R. Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution", Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).

http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/

Answer 6

"humans are just monkeys that straightened out their backs and stood up one day"

I see where your comeing from, and personally I believe some sort of astrial force aided evolution, however you seen to not be looking at this scientificly from your quote. 'monkeys' didn't turn into humans in 'one day' -monkey turned into ape, and ape turned into a standing ape, and standing ape turned into this kind of bigfoot looking thing, which turned into a really hairy man, which turned into a less hairy man and finally human. BUT KEEP IN MIND this all occured over the course of FOUR MILLION YEARS. Tell you what, let's wait 4 million years from now, and see if humans look the same as we do now. Hell we've only started to record the cycle of the earth for 2,006 years. Now think....seriously think about 4 million years of UNRECORDED undocumented complete lack of knowlege of humanity for 4 MILLION years. And that's just the evolution between ape and man, we aren't talking about the dawn of the earth, which was 4.7 BILLION years ago. My point is the ammount of time that has gone by is so overwhelming in length, that there is no way that we could begin to fathom what happened durring that time.
Hell in a couple million years from now we could all have evolved into small hairless grey bodies with large black eyes, 2 slits for the nose, a slit for the mouth, and have developed FTL (faster-than-light) spacecraft with a fluxcompasitor and visit ourselves millions of years in the past....... but that would be crazy. Who'd ever believe that....

Answer 7

Absolutely I do, it's really rather simple when you break it down. All it takes for evolution is this;

1. Changes can happen

Can't really deny that. Random mutations occasionally change creatures in a random way.

2. Beneficial changes help an animal survive

Another duh, it's obvious that it will. If the random change happens to be a beneficial one, it's likely to stick, as the animal will survive longer and generate more offspring, which should also survive longer, on average

3. Many little changes eventually appear to be a large change

Again, I can't deny this. If I spatter a little bit of red paint on my blue house every day, eventually I will have a red house.

That's it, we're done, there's evolution in a (admittedly over-simplified) nutshell. I don't see how it can be logically denied, really.

Answer 8

Evolution still has a great many issues to deal with ... however, it is a scientific theory based on observation and is the best working model currently available as to the origins of life on our planet.

Answer 9

I strongly believe in evolution..
its a huge subject ..cant be debated here..
we did not evolve from monkeys!! we evolved from apes two separate species...
in breading or cross breading to achieve a certain type of animal or humankind is exactly what it is cross bread ..this is not how natural selection kicks in ...adam and eve... nah...

Answer 10

What Charles Darwin actually wrote was:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

In other words you have taken out of context a piece of text which (of course) supports evolution rather than creationist nonsense. Not only that, but we know that the eye has evolved not once but many times independently, which only goes to show that evolution, far from being absurd, is inevitable.

I hope this quoting out of context was honest ignorance but I find that somewhat difficult to believe. Creationists do tend to be dishonest in trying to discredit evolution, as I suppose they have to be.

Do you have enough faith to believe that living species are *not* the product of evolution? To believe that, you'd have to believe all of the following and more:

1: That even though we can directly observe evolution occurring today, it didn't happen before people began to study it;

2: That the evidence of constant change throughout the fossil record is *not* evidence for evolution, even though constant change in the fossil record is exactly what evolution would produce;

3: That the fact that living species are more different from today's species the further back you look in the fossil record is *not* evidence for evolution, even though this is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts;

4: That the large numbers of unique species which inhabit remote islands and lakes are *not* evidence for evolution, even though this is exactly what we would expect to see if species had evolved there in isolation;

5: That whenever we find new species in the fossil record arising geographically close to other, similar species, exactly as would be expected if the one had evolved from the other, this is actually just an amazing coincidence;

6: That although we find similar species inhabiting different ecological niches in one area, exactly as would be expected if they all evolved and diversified from a common ancestor, this is actually just another amazing coincidence;

7: That even though the evolutionary explanation for the fossil record is consistent with other, independent scientific theories, e.g. plate tectonics, this is just another amazing coincidence;

8: That although the transitional fossils discovered by palaeontologists fill in gaps in the fossil record as predicted by evolutionary theory, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

9: That although we *never* find fossils in rocks which are older than their presumed evolutionary ancestors, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

10: That some mechanism exists in living organisms to limit mutation and inheritance, and thus prevent evolution, even though no such mechanism has ever been discovered;

11: That although different continents have different flora and fauna inhabiting the same kind of habitat, exactly as would be expected if they evolved independently to suit their respective ecological niches, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

12: That although living and extinct species fit a statistically valid phylogenetic tree, as would necessarily be the case if they evolved from a common ancestor, this is just another astronomically unlikely coincidence;

13: That although the chirality of DNA, RNA and proteins is the same in all known living organisms, exactly as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just another amazing coincidence;

14: That although all living organisms ever discovered share the same genetic material, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

15: That although all living organisms ever discovered use the same 4 nucleosides out of hundreds of equally likely molecules, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

16: That although all living organisms ever discovered use the same 22 amino acids out of hundreds of equally likely molecules, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

17: That although the genetic code is universal to all known species, which is as predicted by evolutionary theory, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

18: That although all living organisms ever discovered use the same energy storage molecule (ATP) instead of many other possible molecules, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

19: That although the many vestigial features which exist in living organisms are satisfactorily accounted for by evolution, this does not support evolution;

20: That although atavisms are satisfactorily accounted for by evolution (e.g. children born with tails), this does not support evolution;

21: That although the embryological development of animals confirm the evolutionary explanation of their origins, this does not support the evolutionary explanation of their origins;

22: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for parahomology (i.e. similarity in structure despite differences in function), this does not constitute evidence for evolution;

23: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for suboptimal features (e.g. the blind spot in the human eye), this is just yet another amazing coincidence and does not constitute evidence for evolution;

24: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for genetic sub-optimality (e.g. why one species of micro-organism has 3 times more DNA than human beings, and 45 times as much as an almost identical micro-organism), this does not constitute evidence for evolution;

25: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for the high functional redundancy in molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes, this does not constitute evidence for evolution;

26: That although the rate of change in the fossil record is consistent with the rate of mutations actually observed in species today, this is just yet another amazing coincidence, not evidence for evolution.

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

To deny evolution you would have to believe all of the above, and more. To say that evolution is false you would have to believe so many staggeringly improbable and amazing coincidences all at once - that so many things are exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory, and yet don't support evolutionary theory - that for a rational person to contemplate doing so would be simply absurd.