Evolution

[Sage]

This is for the discussion of the theory of evolution, if the title didn't give it away. I'll start off by saying that I am a man of science, although the physical sciences, but nevertheless I find all science to be interesting to a degree. I was rather ignorant of the issue until recently. Most of my info came from my high school biology course and church, so you can see the conflict. But last spring I took an intro to anthropology course and we studied human evolution during the last weeks of the semester. This piqued my interest, but I have had little time to look into it recently. During this short study however, I discovered the flaws in the primary questions given by those who taught me (and were against the theory).

The primary questions I hear are "If we evolved from monkeys/apes, why are there still monkeys/apes?" and "Why aren't we still evolving?" With a little education in the matter, both of these questions are answered with "They/We don't have to." Evolution is the adaptation to outside factors. Those who can't adapt, die and those that can adapt, live and pass on their genes to the next generation. The environment of monkeys/apes hasn't changed enough to warrant major changes over time. They have the same predators and food sources so far and haven't had to adapt to anything new. We aren't evolving because we took "survival of the fittest" out of our life. With technology and protecting everyone (to an extent), we've removed ourselves from the theory of evolution. We don't have to compete nor are we running out of vital resources, so we don't have to adapt. A major influence is health care. We have medicine and doctors that save lives that would otherwise end. Anyway, that's my rant about that.

I'd also like to hear everyone's opinion on evolution in education policy. (I only know about the US, sorry to others for my ingnorance.) A couple of stories I heard in the news recently really torqued me. The first was regarding stickers placed on textbooks that said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." I find nothing wrong with this statement, even though in the science world a theory and a fact differ only slightly. That statement could be made for just about every theory. But everyone turned it into a "separation of church and state" issue. There's no mention of God or creationism or the church, but someone decided it did. The other was regarding a school who took time out of one class to give the students info on "intelligent design" as an opposing theory to evolution. This is a little more iffy in my mind on the separation issue, but there's nothing wrong with listening to both sides of a story. There were very strict restrictions on the presentation. You can read about it here at cnn.com

Anyway, that about it for my ranting and raving. One last thing: I've heard from several sources that "survival of the fittest," even though it's a good summary, never appeared in Darwin's writing. If anyone could confirm/disprove that, that'd be great.
_________________

[Sophita]

I believe in evolution, and have never had problems doing so. It's a big pet peeve of mine when someone says "Oh but all Christians are against it, you can't believe in it." Catholics are fully allowed to believe in it - can't speak for the other Christian religions, but I can speak for mine. For Criminy's sake, even the Pope says it's A-OK. Two of them, actually - first by Pius XII and then by John Paul the second. The church even pressed for better evolution education.

I went to a Catholic school, and we were taught evolution. We also learned creationalism a bit, I guess, through religion class, but evolution is what we were taught in science, and while we were taught it was a theory, it was a generally accepted theory, which is pretty much as high as you can get before it becomes a law. There was no hemming and hawing about it, and I don't think I ever realized it was controversial til I went to a public high school.

So there is no conflict between Catholics and evolution, darn it.

(Sorry, but this has come up SO MANY TIMES in my life. I needed to say it.)

I think that evolution should be taught in our schools - it's a generally accepted theory, and a lot of biology (and other fields!) depends on it. By all means, mention it's not a law and that there are other theories (though most are hypotheses which cannot be proven....) out there, but don't just shut it out and pretend it doesn't exist. We don't shy aware from teaching greek mythology even though that is in complete contrast to many religious texts, so why should we shy awway from teaching evolution? Schools can't force someone to believe in something. But schools can - and should, I believe - teach the fundamental building blocks of knowledge, and evolution is just one of those building blocks, IMO.
_________________

SCII month continues! DueFiumi.com

John Layfield wrote:

But bubbles... children love bubbles! XD

[Noot]

Yeah, I do the wave for evolution too. There is just too much evidence in genetics, archaelogogy, and other earth sciences that show the true age of the earth and how DNA changes in order to adapt to the world. It's the paradigm we live in, and until something comes along that better explains our existence and the changes made through nature it'll be the one we stick with for the foreseeable future.

The sticker that pointed out that evolution is "only a theory, not a fact" clearly doesn't understand what "theory" means in the scientific sense. For all intents and purposes, a theory = fact, and to have a scientific theory means that there has been a ton of research trying to disprove the claims but fell short because the evidence in support of it is simply too strong. The way the sticker uses is it is like in this sentence: "I have a theory on why Bill has been bleeding from the ears." In that example, theory = hypothesis.

Evolution = fact; welcome to the 21st century!

Really, the whole problem with the sticker in the textbook was that Creationists wanted their theology taught in a science class, when it clearly is not a science. They wanted "intelligent design" (i.e. God) to be treated as scientific fact when it clearly is an untestable hypothesis. I think it's just an attempt by Christians to destroy evolution, personally. That's why the courts had to intervene. Let science be taught in science class and let Creationism be taught in theology/philosophy class.
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~

It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth.

[iscalio]

[Daniel Blackhand]

Okay here we go. I beleive in evolution in it's base form that things will change. When you learn something new you are evolving in that your understanding and intelligence has just changed. As for the "theory of evolution", that is something I disagree with. To say that we evolved from pond-scum millions of years ago is to say the least warped in my perspective.

And just to throw this little tidbit out. Charles Darwin, the man who first uttered the "theory of evolution" was totally bewildered that people would actually beleive in it. He actually thought it was a vcery stupid and farfetched idea.
_________________

[Arcana]

How come I was taught evolution, and I went to a Catholic school? Or did I absorb it by osmosis or something?

Edit: the term used in Darwin's paper was "Natural Selection", not survival of the fittest or evolution. There's actually a lot of misattribution of facts and theories to Darwin. I would have to research it again, but there was an independent scientist who proposed the theory before Darwin did, but was never recognized for it, and was therefore forgotten.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28.

[Sualtam Lugh]

Well....in essence, both theories have relativity to the subject, those being evolution and creation. Just....not direct creation. Evolution must be true, as we've technically proven it possible in science. And like you said, Sage, we, as humans, have removed it from out lives, due to science and technology. I also went to a Catholic school, and am in a public high school now. Ironically, my physics teacher is religious to a point, and talked to us about this. Also, my anthro class talked much about this. Anyways, my point is, I wasn't completely oblivious to evolution, as it has scientific relevence, but of course in a Catholic school, they can't flat out say that God didn't make Adam and Eve.......for obvious reasons, and what not. My Physics teacher said that a God, or Higher Power created something, that led to a chain of events, leading to now. Whatever energy and fusion made our world (And the luck that life was able to work in these conditions), has to be attributed to something. That something, going back to (for argument's sake, go with me) the Big Bang, which sparked everything, is indeed the force that we owe everything to.

"but there was an independent scientist who proposed the theory before Darwin did, but was never recognized for it, and was therefore forgotten."

I don't remember his name, but I learned about him in physics (My teacher taught us a lot more then what Newton thought of.....hehehe). He put together the theory of evolution in a day, whereas Darwin's group of thoughts to much more then that, but since it was so close to Darwin's work, he got no credit whatsoever. Interesting story......

"To say that we evolved from pond-scum millions of years ago is to say the least warped in my perspective."

It IS weird to comprehend, and although it is supported (some things say it works), the mystery of life, and how we begin will probably remain a mystery to us.

[Arcana]

[Daniel Blackhand]

Not to raise any ire here because it is not my intention to offend anyone, but that brings back a very simple thing. If we did in fact evolve from other life forms which than died off such as the neanderthal than why are there still monkeys since we essentialy evolved from them too. I am sorry but there are far to many holes in the theory for me. Also it is called a theory because they cannot 100% prove that it is true. If it could be proved 100% than it would not be called a theory.
_________________

[Vextor]

Empirical science and religious practice exist in completely different epistemological dimensions; to compare the two and to say that one counters the other is baffling. I think it would either take total misunderstanding or stupidity to not understand this fact.

The idea behind evolution is quite basic and logical. Things with traits favorable for the habitat would likely survive to reproduce, and after that repeats a thousdand upon thousand times, a rat may get wings, mammals may become fish-like, and apes may get bigger brains. Many ill-educated oafs believe that evolution is about a living thing actually changing from one form to another, like Joe the Gorilla suddenly turning into Joe the pizza delivery man.

Likewise, many "evolutionists" have wrong ideas. I friend I used to work with once told me how white people evolved from chimpanzees, asians from orangutangs, and blacks from gorillas. I quickly corrected this person, but people like that would probably make creationists happy as it proves how evolutionists can be wrong!

It's also odd to hear people "believing" in a scientific theory, because theory is not a mere hypothesis. A theory has a lot of actual proof to support it. However, there is always an element of doubt with science, even those that are scientific laws--if proof that counters it is found, even those laws must be changed. There are no absolutes in science, unlike in religion. For that purpose, "believing in science" sort of goes against the spirit of science.

[Sophita]

[Lunarblade]

[Sage]

[Saben]

Well, firstly I'd like to say that there is no such thing as a fact, not even in science because all we do is draw conclusions based on our observations. As SARSadmin says in science there are no absolutes, nor should there ever be. Theory then, especially the theory of evolution, is a logical reason of how things have happened and why things are the way they are now. Theory means that there are no observations that directly constrast the conclusions of the theory. There is no proof to say that evolution did NOT occur yet there is lots of observable proofs that it DID occur.

As for evolutionism vs creationism why does it need to be one or the other? Only the most fundamentalist groups would believe that creationism excludes evolution. In my church growing up I was taught that MAYBE God used evolution of his means of creation. And I still hold a similar belief now, I think evolution is an observable phenomenon that there is no reason to doubt, yet I also believe in a supreme being that has powers of "creation", and I believe that more than likely "God" uses evolution as his tool for creation.

The thing so many people get so wrong with evolution though is that they think it needs a purpose. It might have a purpose, but it doesn't need one, no scientific theory needs a purpose. Evolution simply says "sometimes when a creature reproduces its offspring are different from the parent, these differences give it a greater chance of reproducing and over time its genes become the dominant genes in a given species" or something along those lines. People think that you can't see evolution in humans- well what about life expectancy and height? We live much longer and grow much taller than we used to, part is about lifestyle but part is also that when females choose husbands generally they choose taller, healthier, longer-lasting males. Females usually are the ones that define evolution and if a certain trait is favoured in men by females then over time those traits will end up evolving the species into an entirely new one.

Humans didn't come from monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor with monkeys, just like all humans share a common ancestor. Blondes are the result of evolution, people with dark skin are the result of evolution, everyone is. Because if blondes only ever mate with blondes that "blonde" trait will continually be passed on until, eventually a whole new species emerges based on that trait. Sometimes the new species will be dramatically different from its close relatives, sometimes the changes will be minor. But if you go back far enough it is possible that throught minor changes, over billions of years that we could have come from pond scum.

[Starslasher]