Quantcast

Do you believe in Evolution?

Keeto 2011/09/13 13:57:34
Republican and YES
Democrate and YES
Republican and NO
Democrate and NO
OTHER and YES
OTHER and NO
You!
Add Photos & Videos

In the spirit of the CNN article on the discovery of a new humanoid fossil Do you accept evolution as scientific or a load of #$$#%

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/your-thoughts-on-e...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • culpepper 2012/02/24 14:47:42
    OTHER and YES
    culpepper
    +1
    it does not need 'belief' - it is a fact - like gravity
  • Joeru707 2011/12/17 08:36:01
    OTHER and YES
    Joeru707
    +3
    Evolution is past the point of hypothesis and is a well established theory. Please note that the word theory in science does not mean the same as theory is laymans terms. With the massive collection of fossil records backed up with reliable carbon clocks which are then confirmed by dendrology and geology held together by a brilliant theory by Charles Darwin and worked on and improved by many great minds since and has been accepted by both the previous pope and many other religious figure heads. How anyone fails to understand and accept this is beyond me.
  • c.stuartHardwick 2011/11/04 17:39:20
    OTHER and YES
    c.stuartHardwick
    +3
    I accept reality, yes.
  • Brian 2011/11/04 16:30:51
    OTHER and YES
    Brian
    +2
    I am a Libertarian, UN-denominational Christian who believes in evolution because ALL of the evidence supports evolution, it makes "sense", and is corroborated by "multiple" branches of science.

    Even wacko ancient alien interbreeding program theories are more "believable" than "creationism" propaganda crap, though there is NO evidence to support either "ancient" aliens, or a "young" earth!!
  • The Rat 2011/10/27 19:46:17
    OTHER and YES
    The Rat
    +4
    Of course, yes. Evolution is a proven fact.
  • Douglas Garrett 2011/10/26 22:48:06
    OTHER and NO
    Douglas Garrett
    I don't think that evolution can be considered fact. From what I can see science doesn't prove facts, instead science puts observations and theories to the test in order to disprove them. Usually over a long period of time if science hasn't disproved a theory it becomes a law. But science lets the exterior world be the judge rather than leave it completely up to the human mind (which is very fallible) to reason out theories. I don't see how evolution can be compared to gravity which we interact and test every second of our lives. Even gravity and time cannot be considered scientifically proven fact. Even Einstein has been changing our perception of those probably "undeniable facts". Science does not prove truths it proves things false so we can eliminate theories and ideas to better learn the world around us.
  • c.stuar... Douglas... 2011/11/04 17:46:18
    c.stuartHardwick
    +1
    Correct, in science, there are no facts, only observations. Certain types of evolution have been directly observed, and The Modern Synthesis as a whole is the only theory that fits every one of the millions and millions of observations we have regarding life and its diversity and the geology of the earth.

    Evolution is arguably the best supported theory in the history of science. Gravity, on the other hand, is not. We have no good theory for gravity, or rather, we have several, none of which fit all the current observations and none of which stand out above the rest.
  • Joeru707 Douglas... 2011/12/17 08:28:47
    Joeru707
    +2
    We are constantly exposed to evolution everyday with every sucessive genertation of life on earth from the smallest bacteria to the largest whale.
  • Ronnie 2011/10/17 20:40:16
  • Keeto Ronnie 2011/11/04 17:55:10
    Keeto
    the only thing you have 100% on is the Jesus was a Semite, a middle eastern Jew. No Roman noses and light skin there... He was a Fin man
  • Radical Ed 2011/10/02 15:10:47
    OTHER and YES
    Radical Ed
    +2
    its a scientific theory. a hell of a lot of evidence points to this being how life on this planet has evolved.
  • Ollie Duffy 2011/09/27 18:10:42
    OTHER and YES
    Ollie Duffy
    +1
    LWU and yes
  • iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~ 2011/09/26 03:25:21
    OTHER and YES
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    +2
    It's frightening that there seems to be a correlation between politics and belief here.
  • c.stuar... iamthem... 2011/11/04 17:48:42
    c.stuartHardwick
    That you find this frightening implies that you find it surprising. That you find it surprising implies that you have not been on the planet long. So where' ya from? ;-)
  • iamthem... c.stuar... 2011/11/05 21:34:31
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    "Frightening" can imply surprise. But that's not all. It can also imply disgust, horror, disdain, revulsion, etc. - repulsive reactions.

    I'm not necessarily at all surprised - but I am still frightened, as when it seems reasonable to allow politics become a significant force in what we understand are objective facts, we're implying that reality is inherently subject to the whims of the constituency.

    That's 1984 land.
  • c.stuar... iamthem... 2011/11/06 03:09:27
    c.stuartHardwick
    +1
    I'm with you.
  • iamthem... c.stuar... 2011/11/06 03:11:23
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    +1
    Unfortunately in politics it seems that I end up with a baseline feeling of revulsion. ;-) Trust me - very little they do can surprise me.

    What I refuse to get used to is how often it seems that the people ALLOW it to go on...
  • Keeto iamthem... 2011/11/07 00:08:23 (edited)
    Keeto
    +1
    Now that doesnt surprise me, People are sheep. But at least ones llike us seem to do a little free thinking.
  • Keeto iamthem... 2011/11/07 00:06:41
    Keeto
    +1
    Politics is all about inserting it's belief into facts, Look at global Warming, School vouchers, the support of faith based support services. Can’t say I stand with you in regards to being surprised that politics influence science and "Facts" That is if I understand you correctly. it’s my opinion that Politics and religion are in fact constrainedly trying to influence the facts and the ones that find find/study them. Politics are the ANTI science,
  • iamthem... Keeto 2011/11/07 04:46:23
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    We're probably more in agreement than it seems.

    If we really didn't think of politics as a career but a service to the nation...but that day has passed.
  • Keeto iamthem... 2011/11/06 23:58:28
    Keeto
    +1
    politics is a religion really and it is defiinitly all about Belief.
  • Telly Samba 2011/09/26 03:14:13
    Democrate and YES
    Telly Samba
    +3
    I read through the posts here before answering and all I can say is 'Wow'. It's hard to believe the lengths people will go to support creationism. Changing definitions and even the rules of the game in an attempt to disprove a working theory in order to preserve their faith. I guess we need some more evolution in a hurry if we plan to survive as a species.
  • Brandi Angela 2011/09/23 00:14:46
    OTHER and YES
    Brandi Angela
    +3
    I do not believe in evolution, I accept evolution. Evolution isn't a belief it is a fact.

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."-Tim Minchin
  • Aurora 2011/09/20 02:33:31
    OTHER and YES
    Aurora
    +2
    The theory of evolution is backed by FACTS and belongs in schools. The intelligent design argument promotes a god of the gaps way of theorizing and encourages a "God did it" mentality.
  • c.stuar... Aurora 2011/11/04 17:50:42
    c.stuartHardwick
    +1
    I would argue that creationism DOES belong in school, in a special section on the dangers of fanaticism and employing reason in defense of civilization.
  • Dawn 2011/09/13 23:05:19
    OTHER and YES
    Dawn
    +3
    Everything is evolving all the time. If we did evolve from apes the mutation that caused our evolution must've been in many all at once. I'm curious about just what that mutation was if we did infact evolve from apes.
  • Keeto Dawn 2011/09/13 23:32:12
    Keeto
    +2
    series upon series of changes.. upright walking, larger brains, loss of hair, artistic expression, etc... who really knows!
  • socokid Dawn 2011/09/17 17:07:35
    socokid
    +4
    No biologists would ever suggest we evolved from apes. That is not what evolution states.

    Humans ARE apes (by an extraordinarily strict definition, discovered by a Christian Creationist, no less), and we merely share a common ancestor with the other ape species still alive today.
  • Keeto socokid 2011/09/19 01:53:39
    Keeto
    +3
    Bravo! Extra points for you!
  • c.stuar... socokid 2011/11/04 17:56:21
    c.stuartHardwick
    +2
    Correct-amundo.
  • Dawn socokid 2011/11/04 20:36:41
    Dawn
    +1
    I don't remember what I was reading, but it suggested humans evolved from Bonobos, which is a type of ape. If humans and apes have a common ancestor that means somewhere in there one evolved from the other.
  • socokid Dawn 2011/11/04 21:03:32
    socokid
    +2
    Humans and apes do not have a common ancestor, simply because that statement literally makes no sense. It would be like saying "If Golden Retrievers and dogs have a common ancestor... " Nonsensical. They are the SAME THING. Dogs had a common ancestor, and apes have a common ancestor. Period. Humans are apes, no need to use the "and" in there. We did not come from "ourselves".

    At some point in our evolutionary tree of life, ONE animal, the first thing we could correctly call an "ape", was the precursor of ALL apes afterwards, including humans. We will most likely never, ever know what it was, or what it exactly looked like.
  • Keeto socokid 2011/11/05 19:47:42
    Keeto
    +1
    As Great Apes we do have a common ancestor with each other. As all dogs have common ancestor (The Wolf) But I unserstand you statment.
  • socokid Keeto 2011/11/05 20:17:09
    socokid
    Agreed!

    At some point in our evolutionary tree of life, ONE animal, the first thing we could correctly call an "ape", was the precursor of ALL apes afterwards,
    In other words, a common ancestor.

    The common ancestor of dogs (self domesticating gray wolves) was vastly easier to determine due to their recent split, artificially selected by ourselves (humans).
  • Dawn socokid 2011/11/08 20:35:03
    Dawn
    That ONE animal is the common ancestor because from that ONE comes others. I don't think you're understanding what I mean.

    "If golden retrievers and dogs have a common ancestor..."- All dogs have a common ancestor, WOLVES. So then a wolf is a dog and a dog is a wolf? It's not, because from wolves we got hundreds of breeds of dogs, and a dog will listen to commands, a wolf will f#$% you up. Humans are apes but we're not apes as in we live in the jungle and pick lice off eachother.

    The ONE- the first of anything- is not the same as what is around today. That's how species have a common ancestor. That's like saying the gator is the same as a crock. It's not, but they share a common ancestor.
  • socokid Dawn 2011/11/08 22:07:52
    socokid
    +1
    So then a wolf is a dog and a dog is a wolf? It's not
    Correct. Dogs are not wolves.

    Humans are apes but we're not apes as in we live in the jungle and pick lice off eachother.
    No, Humans are apes. Period. There is no "but". "Ape" does not refer to a species of animal, nor does it refer to only animals that live in the jungle (sigh). It refers to a parent GROUP of animals, of which Humans are included. We are apes due to a very long, extraordinary specific set of criteria.

    I will end with what I already posted to you:

    "At some point in our evolutionary tree of life, ONE animal, the first thing we could correctly call an "ape", was the precursor of ALL apes afterwards, including humans, gorillas, etc... . We will most likely will not ever know what it was, or what it exactly looked like."
  • Keeto Dawn 2011/11/11 15:16:55
    Keeto
    "ONE- the first of anything- is not the same as what is around today" Well Said..
  • Keeto Dawn 2011/11/05 19:44:34
    Keeto
    Humans and Bonobos are realated in that we have a common ancestor, Chimps and Bonobos are closer. Not sure when , but the Bonobo-chimp/ Human split was millions of years ago.
  • luke socokid 2011/11/14 05:22:20
    luke
    +1
    Could you name the said creationist, as well as the definition, so that I (and any others) can use that in an argument?
  • socokid luke 2011/11/14 17:52:24 (edited)
    socokid
    Carl Linnaeus was the father of the original tree of life, even though he had no hint of evolution in his mind. Keep this in mind. He was only a creationist because he had nothing else to assume.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    If you have all of these, you are a primate.

    "Gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle."

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/29 07:34:18

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals