Do you believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution???

Question

Well on my part, i dont believe him but there are things that tells me that his theory has bases...

Answer 1

The modern version of the Theory of Evolution has moved on substantially since Darwin's time. For example, Darwin had no clue as to what the mechanism of inheritance was, but nowadays we understand genetics, and know that DNA carries the information we inherit from our parents.
It is generally referred to as the "Modern Synthesis".

And - I do believe in it!

To answer a few points brought up be other answerers:

Zaid:
I'm afraid your answer displays serious ignorance about what evolution is. If you don't understand it, how can you criticise it?
Current apes *are* evolving. In fact, all organisms are evolving. However, evolution takes an amount of time proportional to the generation-time of an organism, so fast-reproducing organisms like bacteria evolve rapidly, while slowly-reproducing organisms like apes evolve slowly. For example, from the time when the first "proto-humans" (Homo habilis) evolved to the first appearance of Homo sapiens took around 2 million years (not "some centuries")
If your point is that apes are not evolving into humans, then:
[1] humans didn't evolve from apes; apes and humans evolved from a common "ape-like" ancestor.
[2] humanity is not a "target" for evolution. Why should current apes evolve into humans? They evolve in response to environmental pressure, which is different now than when humans first evolved.

Dazedandconfused:
Evolution is science, while Creationism is not. And you do not understand what "theory" means for a scientist. It does not mean "guesswork"; it means a mechanism that explains observations, and that is supported by multiple observations (in the case of evolution - an awful lot of evidence). So it is not based on conjecture and assumptions, it is based on observation and evidence.
Many experiments and observations support evolution. None support creationism.

Answer 2

It's not a matter of belief. The scientific evidence supports evolution, so I regard evolution as the most probable theory we have. Labeling it as a belief implies that there is an attachment to it, as though if it weren't true, my life would somehow have less meaning. What non-scientists don't understand is just how rare it is to make an absolute claim in science.

One of the first things I was taught when learning to write down scientific findings was to never make an absolute statement. A scientist would never say "My experiment proves that A is greater than B." The wording would be more along the lines of "The data suggests that A is greater than B."

If there were actual scientific evidence that the theory evolution was false, I would gladly take it into account, and if that meant disproving evolution, then so be it.

Please not that I mean actual scientific evidence. The "evidence" that ID proponents quote is a mixture of out-of-context information (abiogenesis in the 19th century, for example), outdated experiments, misinterpreted data, inaccurate statements (that humans evolved from monkeys), and outright lies (that Darwin recanted on his deathbed). This is usually (though not 100%) compounded by the fact that most opponents to evolution have an ideological basis to it. I'm not going to be swayed by people who believe that I'm going to hell for not believing in a literal interpretation of their repeatedly-mistranslated, often-misinterpreted, and selectively-quoted ancient texts.

I'm open-minded. If I see rational, well though-out, and well presented evidence to the contrary, I'll run with it, but as it stands, I'm pretty confident in the evidence behind evolution.

(Note that I'm talking about the modern theory of evolution. I think Darwin was on the right track, but many discoveries have modified his theories, especially in light of new technologies and DNA analysis available to us today. The basic concept still stands, though).

Answer 3

Jenina, it's nothing to do with "belief". It's about looking at the facts.

Anyway, It looks like you don't know very much about it.
1. It's capital T for Theory in this case, because it's a demonstrated fact
2. Darwin is known for Natural Selection. He knew all about Evolution, like everybody else, but he explained how it worked.

Your need to know an awful lot more about this subject before you start on " well i don't believe"

Answer 4

I believe in the basics of Darwin Theory about evolution: that every living being is generated from earlier lives. Everything must adapt and become different--but better--kind of being. That law of natural selection and evolution exist in all kinds of living things, from the tiniest viruses to hunchback whales. That I believe.

But then people started to interpret evolution to something more extreme, that apes have evolved into human. I'm not really sure about that, but I believe in Darwin's general theory about evolution.

Answer 5

I "believe" (as you put it) the principals behind Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. There is no hard scientific evidence that life on earth was created by a devine being, there is evidence that it evolved over a period of millions of years and continues to do so.

Answer 6

Jenina, forget about "belief" ... start with *understanding*. That is the difference between religion and science!

As you can see from most of the responses (with the exception of Tom P's and gribblin's excellent answers) ... too many people decide whether or not they "believe" a theory like evolution when they are nowhere close to understanding it. Their decision is based on a handful of things they heard about it ... often from some preacher or fundamentalist web site dedicated to spreading misinformation about evolution.

And then people who decide NOT to believe it, deliberately avoid learning anything further about it.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority (as in 95% to 99%) of *scientists* accept evolution. That is not the reason to "believe" it yourself. But it is certainly enough reason to take a closer look before rejecting it for good, as many people on this page have done.

Three illustrative examples:

- DemiLAncer: "i think that theory was already disregarded as untrue..." Say what? By whom?

- zaid: "If we did why dont the present apes evolve???? If they were able to do some centuries ago they should be able to do it even now...."
Now there's a guy who has rejected a theory without understanding it *AT ALL*!
Present apes *are* evolving ... but there is no reason whatsoever for apes to evolve *into humans*! They are a branch of life that got separated from our branch *millions* of years ago (not "centuries"), and they live in a different environment, and have different mutations happening in their gene pool than we had. The fact that evolution *does not repeat itself* is BASIC ... Evolution 101.

- dazedandconfused: Prime example of someone who not only has rejected evolution based on misinformation, but is determined to spread that misinformation wherever he can. Just how badly do you have to *hate* scientists as human beings and as a community, to say that the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept evolution, tens of thousands of brilliant people for over 150 years, are all "quacks" and have accepted evolution based on nothing but "conjecture and assumptions"? How badly do you have to *hate* their profession to accuse all of these scientists of accepting a theory without *EVIDENCE*.

This answers Brian Ong's point. "Yes. The theory is generally correct. However, there may be a few kinks in it that may need ironing out in order to become a complete and fully accepted theory."
For the last 150 years since Darwin published his theory, we *have* been ironing out the kinks and it has become a complete and fully accepted theory. It is fully accepted in the scientific community ... and the only reason it is not fully accepted among laypeople is because of a relentless campaign of blatant misinformation spread by anti-evolution people (like that echoed by dazedandconfused).

Please, please, please: Understanding *before* belief!!!

You should never, ever, *believe* or *reject* anything in science before you *really* understand it.

Never.

Answer 7

beginner to GWS? in case you cant locate the trolls humorous than ignoring them could be my advice. much less frustration and hate this form. btw carrie isn't the only guy or woman that locate the trolls exciting, and that i evaluate myself smart. So could you please supply up the insults and improve some thicker pores and skin! at first i became into upset by potential of the stupid and now and lower back hate-complete troll droll, yet now i detect them exciting, and now and lower back humorous! I even have found out plenty approximately gender equality and girls human beings's lib in this talk board, yet I even have additionally found out to thicken my pores and skin, and that i'm happier for it. besides to respond to your question... i think of the two are basically that "myths" or "theories" and that i do no longer shield the two.

Answer 8

Yes. The theory is generally correct. However, there may be a few kinks in it that may need ironing out in order to become a complete and fully accepted theory.

Answer 9

Just because humans and apes have something in common it doesn't necessarily mean that we evolved from them..If we did why dont the present apes evolve???? If they were able to do some centuries ago they should be able to do it even now....

Answer 10

The theory of evolution, I emphasize "theory" is the biggest fictional story ever perpetrated on mankind. Its all based on conjecture and assumptions. One quack stipulates his theories as findings based on some other quacks conjecture and and then another infinitely. Then they all go throughout history patting each other on the back for developing the tale of all tales.Creationism is as feasible as evolution, its all a matter of belief since no one can prove their side beyond any reasonable doubt. Its a dialectic discussion with no absolute defined.