Forum Poll :Evolution Re:Majority of Americans reject theory of evolution (doh!)

[Speed of Sound]

Big 'Ol #2

[John Dibble]

NOTA - none of these options are suitable for my agnosticism. I don't go to church, I believe humans evolved, but as an agnostic I can't even say whether or not God exist much less whether or not God was involved in the evolutionary process.

[Storebought]

I have a dim view of evolution mostly because I have a dim view of (macro)biology. Macrobiology is little better than a pastiche of fashionable prejudice held together by bones and duct tape, and nearly as unscientific a discipline as Freudian psychoanalysis.

I recall angus saying that some biology book he was reading didn't contain a single equation (i.e., a quantifiable observation), so he got bored and just put it aside.

[opebo]

I recall angus saying that some biology book he was reading didn't contain a single equation (i.e., a quantifiable observation), so he got bored and just put it aside.

Hah, the exact opposite of a normal person!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well at least we're more pro-evolution than the country as a whole. What's up with the 3 people who choose option 4, though?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have a dim view of evolution mostly because I have a dim view of (macro)biology. Macrobiology is little better than a pastiche of fashionable prejudice held together by bones and duct tape, and nearly as unscientific a discipline as Freudian psychoanalysis.

I recall angus saying that some biology book he was reading didn't contain a single equation (i.e., a quantifiable observation), so he got bored and just put it aside.

There are plenty of quantifiable things with genetics. You can find books on biological Markov chains.

Did you know that 16 million people are a direct male desendent of Ghengis Khan (or maybe one of his not so distant ancestors)? They have a Y-chromosome, and from genetic mutations you can figure out about how long ago their common ancestor lived.

Don't tell me that biology has nothing quantifiable just because you're reading the wrong book.

[Ebowed]

Somewhere between Options 4 and 5.

[Gabu]

I don't go to church and I really have no idea what happened.  I feel that it's likely that we had to come from somewhere, or else we wouldn't be here, which is why I believe in at least some form of creator, but beyond that I really don't have enough information to make a concrete statement one way or another.

[A18]

Option 4

[Storebought]

I have a dim view of evolution mostly because I have a dim view of (macro)biology. Macrobiology is little better than a pastiche of fashionable prejudice held together by bones and duct tape, and nearly as unscientific a discipline as Freudian psychoanalysis.

I recall angus saying that some biology book he was reading didn't contain a single equation (i.e., a quantifiable observation), so he got bored and just put it aside.

There are plenty of quantifiable things with genetics. You can find books on biological Markov chains.

Did you know that 16 million people are a direct male desendent of Ghengis Khan (or maybe one of his not so distant ancestors)? They have a Y-chromosome, and from genetic mutations you can figure out about how long ago their common ancestor lived.

Don't tell me that biology has nothing quantifiable just because you're reading the wrong book.

See, now you're confusing microbiology, which I have no problems with (as it is based on the detection of mutations in DNA structure or protein strands, both quantifiable by techniques like NMR, GPC, etc.), and, the larger, "grander" macroevolution, a brief run through can be seen here. And even there, I had to filter out a lot of polemic  nonsense just to find that one fact-based page.

In short, I find the connection between the first method, based on proven chemistry, and macroevolution, tenuous.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have a dim view of evolution mostly because I have a dim view of (macro)biology. Macrobiology is little better than a pastiche of fashionable prejudice held together by bones and duct tape, and nearly as unscientific a discipline as Freudian psychoanalysis.

I recall angus saying that some biology book he was reading didn't contain a single equation (i.e., a quantifiable observation), so he got bored and just put it aside.

There are plenty of quantifiable things with genetics. You can find books on biological Markov chains.

Did you know that 16 million people are a direct male desendent of Ghengis Khan (or maybe one of his not so distant ancestors)? They have a Y-chromosome, and from genetic mutations you can figure out about how long ago their common ancestor lived.

Don't tell me that biology has nothing quantifiable just because you're reading the wrong book.

See, now you're confusing microbiology, which I have no problems with (as it is based on the detection of mutations in DNA structure or protein strands, both quantifiable by techniques like NMR, GPC, etc.), and, the larger, "grander" macroevolution, a brief run through can be seen here. And even there, I had to filter out a lot of polemic  nonsense just to find that one fact-based page.

In short, I find the connection between the first method, based on proven chemistry, and macroevolution, tenuous.

Define the difference.  If you're talking about speciation
1. A species can gradually evolve as a whole without speciation
2. Speciation has been observed.
 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

God help this God damn country

[The Dowager Mod]

#3

[TX_1824]

Re:Majority of Americans reject theory of evolution (doh!)

And was this somehow a surprise? 

off course. not believing in evolution is a process that involves brainwashing you with religious garbage from you are born.

you arent born believing in god. you arent born racist. but they are both nurtured from an early age.

So is that how you became a crazy Democrat?

no i became a democrat as i was sick and tired of religion being used in politics.

Over 80% of people in Australia, UK, Sweden,Denmark etc are religious but they dont go to church as they have better things to do than listen to a person intrepret a book that was written by a group of sexist pigs.

Before we had schools, the only way to get educated was to commit yourself to christ hence you became a monk. Now we live in the 21st century but backward states like Alabama, Texas etc have taken religion to far. Hank Irwin believes that katrina was gods doing (doh!) he is an elected offical!

We have a guy running for governor in Alabama who believes the 10 commandments should be publicly displayed. These commandments are completely irrevelant 2000 years on.

We can sit and discuss the merits of having religion in ones life but the use of it in society is what divides this country.

We are at war both home and abroad. Religion will lose and its not people like me who are to be blamed for its downfall but the people that take religion to far.

Would you please use the proper form of the word to/too. I know I live in backwards Texas and therefore have no educational background, much less culture, but don't point out other people's so-called faults before correcting your own. You go by Miss Catholic, so I'm sure you know the parable of taking a speck out of your neighbor's eye. Matthew 7:3-5

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm. You quote one of the many sources that I threw out of my initial search.

From the Paleo 21 discussion on macroevolution from the Natural History Museum :

1. Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level

2. One striking macroevolutionary pattern that has emerged from the fossil record is that major groups and evolutionary novelties have not originated randomly in time and space ... mechanisms underlying the origins of novelties remain poorly understood.

3. Much macroevolutionary research was triggered by the realization that many species appeared to be almost static morphologically after their first appearance in the fossil record rather than evolving continuously. This led to the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, which holds that most evolutionary change accrues at the branchpoints of species' histories rather than over the duration of established species. ... Still unclear is whether these different evolutionary tempos and modes are distributed unevenly among taxa, habitats, regions, or ecological categories.

My comment: So, evolution occurs, until it doesn't?

4. Mathematical models have also been used to good effect. The most extensively explored methods to date have been models of taxonomic diversification, in which the dynamics of clades or entire faunas are modeled with simple equations to explore the effects of variations in extinction, origination, and the strengths of interaction among and within groups

Yes, this is a start, but it's a poor start. Like a prof told me when I showed interest in chaotic dynamics, "Unless the models you make can be observed, then it's only speculation and not science" (I of course paraphrase).

In fact, modeling phenomenon using chaotic (nonlinear) has become something of a past-time among applied mathemeticians. Not that mathematicians shouldn't find new ways of being able to solve systems of  nonlinear differential equations without recourse to FORTRAN and supercomputer number-crunching, but so far, mathematical applications to biology, particularly biology that attempts to explain more than population shifts and such, seems far-fetched.

In fact, the professors of this symposium seem intuitively to feel the same way, as most of the interdisciplinary focus involves areas outside of, say, physical sciences:

5. ...electronic databases will play an important role, but targets should expand beyond the synoptic taxonomic databases that have dominated the field, to include morphological, ecological, phylogenetic and biogeographic information; collecting and standardizing such data will be a major challenge in many instances.

I guess the very best I can say about this theory is that it is now about the same level as astronomy was during the age of Brahe, but before Kepler -- a mass of data that no one has yet to systemise.

[ilikeverin]

2, 3, 5, or 6

Over the summer I didn't go that much (business and out-of-town-ness) but I'm getting back in the habit

Anyway, I think the process was mostly natural, but God may have given it a bit of a poke now and then.  Maybe.

[Erc]

Option 2...in the sense that, insofar as God created the universe, he certainly had some hand in its ultimate outcome.

But I am by no means an advocate of Intelligent Design or Creationism, and the existence or non-existence of God has no relevance to the scientific fact.

[Hatman 🍁]

Torn between #3 and #6

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I should probably say then I am between #2 and #5. I do go to church, but rather rarely.

[Hatman 🍁]

I should probably say then I am between #2 and #5. I do go to church, but rather rarely.

You're kidding me, right?

PRUDE BRTD IS A RELIGIOUS

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm. You quote one of the many sources that I threw out of my initial search.

Why did you throw it out?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can have little change in a population for long periods of time. See turtles and alligators, for example. That probably means that there's no minor modification that improves their fitness much. Eventually a major modiciation will occur through mutations, or an outside pressure will make something more desirable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you expect? It's a statistical model.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a lot of math being used in biology. Computational biology is an exploding field. Some parts of biology are easier to quantify than others. Genetics is fairly mathematical, and so are predator-prey relations. So other things don't work as well. Biology is not the only science to suffer from lack of quantization in some areas. Geology doesn't do so great either.

Anyways, the fact that we don't have precise equations for everything in Biology now is no evidence against evolution.

Ever hear of genetic algorithms?

[Platypus]

either 5 or 6

[MODU]

So far, we have:

God involved - 25 votes
God not involved - 14 votes

[Giant Saguaro]

A combination of the first and second.

That vast majority is no more or less brainwashed than you are, but you don't recognize that fact - you're right and everyone else is wrong. Science is right and religion is wrong. Sounds a lot like what you accuse religious people of, only you're really lashing out at them. Except they're just there, they believe what they believe and keep going. They've bought into a value system like you have. So if I ripped into you for putting your faith in science and not religion, which I could but won't, I would be what? An intolerant brainwashed gung-ho sexist right wing nutcase, to be kind. And I could come back with the atheist left-wing totalitarian rights-trampling you-were-born-in-a-testtube-marked-failure type rhetoric too, but that wouldn't get us very far, would it? I think not.

[Sam Spade]

A mix of 4 and 5, more likely 5.