Do you think evolution is real?

Question

Explain why or why not

Answer 1

Yes. It is backed up by scientific evidence and is the only logical explanation for how life went from one-celled organisms to incredibly complex idiots like me.

learn more here:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Answer 2

Evolution as defined is real and is a measurable trait.

The true definition of evolution is "a change in genetic frequency within a population over time".

Evolution has 4 modes that we know of - Mutation, Recombination, Drift and Selection.

Everybody seems to believe mutation exists. Otherwise nobody would wear protective gear when dealing with radioactive material. Drift also is never argued to exist. And recombination is pretty much what we've been doing to dogs for the past 10,000 years. The ony debate seems to be Selection (Darwin's theory of natural selection) and even there, it seems to be centered on the "decent of man" because I've never heard anybody debate that we created superbugs or antibiotic resistant strains which can only occur through selection.

Answer 3

Evolution as a process is absolutely, incontrivertibly proven to exist.

The development of resistance in bacteria, viruses or insects is just one type of laboratory tested, observed instance of evolution.

There is no way to logically or rationally deny that evolution occurs.

The theory of evolution, specifically the theory first proposed by Charles Darwin is the scientific explanation of HOW that process occurs. According to this theory, it is the natural selection of traits within a population that help an organism live and reproduce that are favourably selected and passed on their offspring.

There are millions of pieces of evidence, gathered from almost every field of science (Geology, Comparative Anatomy, Paleontology, Genetics, Physics, Chemistry, Biogeography, etc., etc.) that all support the theory of evolution. No one has ever found any credible evidence that would disprove the accuracy of the theory.

The Theory of Evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist in the field of biology as being one of the most well supported theories in the entirety of scientific endeavour. There is actually more evidence supporting this theory than there are for such theories as the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of General Relativity, the Theory of Chemical Periodicity or the Germ Theory.

The only opposition to this theory comes from a small, but horrifically vocal and influential group of Bible Literalists, mostly in the United States, who feel that it violates a few verses in their Bible, and therefore somehow makes their salvation impossible. Because apparently it is better to have been made from dirt 6000 years ago rather than having come from apes 8 million years ago.

Answer 4

Yes, I believe evolution is real.

The evidence for evolution is many and varied (and I hope that Secretsauce comes on here to give you some better explanations). But some include:

Fossil records. Fossils, and the rocks they are found in can be dated by radiodating (not just carbon dating, but other forms as well, like Uranium/Lead and Potassium/Argon dating). Since you can know the age of fossilised remains, it becomes (relatively) simple to observe that there are *different* organisms present at different times: so there are no human remains older than around 200,000 years. Fish arrived 500 million years ago - before then, no fish. Dinosaurs evolved around 230 million years ago, and the last became extinct around 65 million years ago. It is also possible to construct detailed evolutionary paths for some species, where we are lucky enough to have found relatively-complete fossils, like the modern horse.
You can even demonstrate that simpler organisms precede more complex ones. The first fossils found are of bacteria (around 4 billion years ago) with *nothing* else there; all more complex life came after, and evolved from those first bacteria.

Vestigial organs. These are organs posessed by organisms that *used* to have a function, but no longer do - like the planaris muscle in the human calf. Very useful when we had gripping feet for climbing, but functionless now we are upright. It has not disappeared because there is no advantage to not having it (so it isn't selected against).

Genetics. Gene sequencing has shown that there is a great deal of conservation of gene and protein sequences between organisms. For example - cytochrome c (the end-point of aerobic respiration) is remarkably similar across all aerobically-respiring organisms (from animals to plants).
Even the basic mechanism for gene expression is identical: the same codons code for the same amino acids in *all* organisms. There is absolutely no reason for this to be the case, except that they all arose from an ancestor which used *those* particular codons.

Observation. Changes in populations have been observed many times, both in the lab, and in nature. The classic example is the moth that was predominantly mottled grey (giving it excellent camouflage against birch bark) but occasionally a black ("melanic") mutant would arise. In the unpolluted world, the grey ones were selected for bacause of their camouflage. But when the industrial revolution started pumping out lots of dust, the trees became blackened, and suddenly the populations were mostly black, with some mottled grey. This was because evolution selected the now advantageous trait of melanism. Once the industrial revolution calmed down, and people started worrying about clesn air, the trees were no longer blackened by soot, and the population reversed itself.
More modern examples include the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, like tubercuosis and Staph. aureus.


Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents typically classify evolution into either "Microevolution" or "Macroevolution". In their terms, microevolution is change within a species (which they accept), while macroevolution is change from one species into another (which they do not). To biologists, this is a false classification, as cumulative microevolutionary changes will lead to macroevolution.
However, this is difficult to argue to Creationists: Staphylococcus aureus has evolved resistance to many antibiotics (leading to MRSA), but it is still S. aureus. Laboratory strains of Drosophila melanogaster fruitflies have lost the ability to crossbreed with the wild varieties from which they were derived, but they are still D. melanogaster (though according to the biological definition of "species", they are now seperate).

Answer 5

I belive in evolution AND I believe in God.
Between mitochondial DNA, fossile evidence, and unsued organs, there is too much evidence FOR evolution. I'm not going to close my eyes to it because there's nothing about it in the Bible.
Obviously God knows more than I do, so who am I to question Him? If evolution is real, He put it here for a reason, right?

We couldn't have evolved FROM apes. We COULD have come from a common ancestor. Think of a fork. One tine is people, the other tine is apes. One did not come from the other, but it could have come from the handle of the fork, or the common ancestor.

Some people don't like to think of it that way because they like to think we're special from the animal kingdom. But we ARE special! We might share some animalistic traits, but our brains are incredible!!! We have self-concept, the ability to reason, forsight, free will, and a concept of time. Amazing!

Why does it have to be our physical being that's special? Isn't our mental being special enough for you? I believe all of that was God's gift. The body is just a vessle.

Answer 6

yes it is real. there are simple evolutions sich as people and dogs, they are mutations of larger animals. Cats are the same way, they are like tigers.

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms

Answer 7

when u believe in evolution it doesnt mean u dnt believe in God. we were given brains far superior to animals for great reasons.. so we can learn to survive and the like. to evolve is simply something organisms including us humans do to survive or we adapt to the climates. like from animals without opposable thumbs turning into monkeys WITH opposable thumbs(meaning the homo sapiens or the homo erectuses) then to us humans. a simple but not really a big thing about evolution, we evolved and somehow lost out 3rd molars or wisdom teeth. its because of evolution, we learned how to cook our food and thus not needing to chew too much cuz obviously the food is rather softer than eating it raw.

Answer 8

Just to answer "irreducible complexity", the idea championed by the "intelligent design" supporter Michael Behe:

Not a single example of "irreducibly complex" systems hold up. Behe made the argument based on the flagellar motor and the human blood-clotting cascade. But all he succeeded in demonstrating was his own lack of imagination: dozens of scientists replied by showing how both these systems could easily be deconstructed, and were not, in fact, "irreducibly complex" (in some cases trivially so, by showing examples of existing systems in actual animals where some components of this "irreducible" system were increasing).

So, yes, if there were "irreducibly complex" system present in biological organisms, it WOULD suggest that evolution is impossible. But the fact that Behe, or other creationists, simply lack the imagination to comprehend how a complex biochemical system evolved does not prove that any of these systems are "irreducibly complex".

Answer 9

First off, boscowood is an idiot....

Bosco, your argument is like saying, "if a mutt can come from the mating of two purebreds, why are the purebreds still around".

Evolution is merely the passing on of genetic traits. If a mutation occurs, it can be passed on the offspring. Multiple mutations over millenia can ultimately result in a descendant that is vastly different from the original ancestor.

Answer 10

Yes, I accept the well supported theory of evolution.

Also, I actually understand science unlike the answers from people who don't believe in evolution.