Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

70 Comments

By "evolution", I am referring to "macro-evolution", which is the idea that a species can somehow acquire new genetic characteristics and turn into something that we would classify as an entirely different species. I am not referring to "micro-evolution", which is a completely unrelated process that involves variation within a species using DNA that it already possessed, such as the different breeds of dogs, cows, and cabbages that exist today.

Yes 200
No 40
Undecided 20
Don't know, don't care 17
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 70 )
  • guppygirl
    13 years ago | pl

    It's quite impossible to deny macroevolution.
    Evolution has simply been controversial because it contradicts the fundamentalist Christians in western society. If they didn't think it offended them, there would be no controversy.

    I think everyone that doesn't believe in it should take a few courses in Anthropology.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    8
    8
  • Darkoil
    13 years ago

    Evolution is fact. Most people don't seem to understand how it occurs though. Isolation within a species happens first, natural selection takes place over thousands of years where the isolated gene pool becomes so different that they can no longer have child bearing offspring with the species they were before they became isolated.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    5
    5
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      Natural selection can only weed out genes, not create new ones. There is currently no known way for new genetic information to come into existence naturally.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Darkoil
        13 years ago

        Actually there are about 6 or 7 known ways that new genes can occur naturally although not all of them are possible in eukaryotes.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • [Old Memory]
          13 years ago

          No, there are not. There are a few organisms that can "share" genes, but that is not the same thing. In order for evolution to be plausible, the very first living organism would have had to have had genetic code detailing the formation of every single feature that has ever existed in any living organism. Genes do not magically appear. Magic would certainly be useful to evolutionist at this point; they are running out of theories.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • jaukjiat
            13 years ago

            Great explanation. You must be a Christian!

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            4
            4
              -
            • [Old Memory]
              13 years ago

              Religion has nothing to do with it, as much as evolutionist like dragging the subject into the discussion. Science alone is sufficient to refute evolution.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
          • [Old Memory]
            12 years ago

            Then how do you explain the appendex

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • coolio75650932
              11 years ago

              One does not simply explainthe appendex

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • regressiveparty
    13 years ago

    macroevolution has been observed in the wild and in controlled environments through species that have rapid lifecycles. There have been extensive experiments that show that in relatively short periods of time species can mutate so much that they can't even interbreed.

    the argument against macroevolution is just as much an argument as it is cloroform.

    in b4
    what about the "missing link"
    & how come we still have monkeys

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • dappled
      13 years ago

      I love the "how come we still have monkeys" question. We didn't evolve from the monkeys that exist today. Everything that exists today evolved from something that existed long ago. Monkeys are included in this. They've evolved from something else too. It's just that we have a common ancestor.

      They're our cousins, not our grandparents.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      3
      3
        -
      • Faceless
        13 years ago

        Then why aint the monkeys we see nowadays aint evolved.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • dappled
          13 years ago

          They are evolved. We all are. Evolved means "different from what they were" as opposed to "using credit cards and mobile phones".

          Common myth about evolution - it is not true that humans used to be chimpanzees and then became human. Although anyone seeing the first hour of my day would recognise it as a potted version of how Hollywood describes evolution. I start each day like a confused baboon, become a chimpanzee after a shower, sit down to the news as a gorilla and only become human after I shave and deodorise.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
      • Faceless
        13 years ago

        I thought this was you question man! I believe aliens started us mann.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • dappled
          13 years ago

          Nope, not my question, mate. I haven't posted one for a while. I never ask serious ones anyway. It's always daft stuff like making people's names merge with the name of an animal.

          Anyway, yes, there's some evidence that amino acids can be formed in space and certainly every atom on this planet whether it is part of something "alive" or not was made in the core of a star (and not necessarily our sun).

          The more I learn, the less distinction I make between "alive" and "not alive" and the more I see the earth as just a part of the Universe as opposed to an enclosed system.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • Mr-Time
    13 years ago

    Of course, its a fact

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • Faceless
    13 years ago

    Sumerian tablets say way something different.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • koko91
    13 years ago

    I believe that GOD made everything (Creation)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • coolio75650932
      11 years ago

      what if god created apes and than made them evolve? seems reasonable,right?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      That is a very reasonable belief. There is currently no known way that the universe or life could have come to exist by purely naturalistic processes, so belief in God is simply employing Occam's Razor.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -3
      -3
        -
      • Legion
        13 years ago

        Maybe God created the process of evolution.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        4
        4
          -
        • SnifferOuter77
          13 years ago

          This is literally like the best answer I've heard this whole time.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • Sunshine:)
    10 years ago

    No, there definitely isn't enough data.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Jakki
    10 years ago

    You actually believe all that evolution?! GOD is the creator of all things!!!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • cathyt112
    10 years ago

    You don't need to Be--LIE--ve in evolution, you can Know it. In fact, you can know the truth of how life works. You can check this in your own life to verify if it's true.

    Google "Truth Contest" and open up The Present.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Heterarch
    12 years ago

    No. Let's star with people. where did they come from? "apes" where did they come from? eventually going to the starting point. It's impossible. Animals may seem intelligent, but it's natural to the and meaningless, never changing. By that I mean like a bird's song. A monkey was a monkey is a monkey and forever will be a monkey. You can't get a T-Rex from a gecko. It's impossible for macro evolution. Micro is plausible, as it's been said "shuffling DNA around" Why such bashing on Christians? just because we don't believe it?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • NormalIsInsane
    12 years ago

    Yes. I can see why religion may be an argument to some but it's is just that, at the most. It is not scientifically, a tool to prove or counter prove anything (and in my opioin, historically). But whoever said "theory of gravity" Im sorry but that is not a theory it's proven unless you think the earth is flat... Which is a whole different story in its self..

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • TotalAspie
    12 years ago

    While the Theory of Evolution is still just a theory (and will most likely always remain a theory), I'm in no position to deny that macro-evolution occurs, nor have I seen others able to bring this into serious doubt.

    The Theory of Evolution is my primary belief in how species exist, because the theory is formulated through scientific means. By using scientific means, challenges to the theory are not only allowed, but they're encouraged.

    I don't dabble in the scientific community, but the only challenges I've seen to the Theory of Evolution are theological in nature, with the alternate conclusion being very overly simplified, but also being something many people (including myself) doesn't believe to exist. (And cannot be proven in any rational way to exist.)

    The only theological beliefs I know of that go against evolution is Christian Creation Science, which I view as being a flawed means as a basis for formulating theories of the Earth (and life on Earth), because the only support that's used is the Bible, and challenges to the Bible are discouraged.

    Moreover, I don't see how Creationism can be accepted over Evolution because the Bible says so, while I'm sure the most devout Christians of the 21'st. century believe that the Earth is round, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the Earth moves, and that the Sun appears in more northern and southern places in the sky despite the fact that the Bible contains inferences contrary to all of these things.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • stone_love
    12 years ago

    Lol it's not a "theory" anymore.

    I'm very much an atheist, but if I were religious, your best argument would be that God started up the universe 14 billion years ago. At least atheists can't disprove that. (Although it's still a ridiculous proposal.)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • sleepingbeauty
    12 years ago

    I feel I should add that belief in the process of evolution does not automatically discount the existence of God!

    Evolution just makes an arguement against the bible, not God! The bible was written by men 'inspired by God' and is their personal interpretation.

    I have no problem believing in both, I personally think it would make much more sense for God to create evolution as a natural and independent process.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • theinsecurekiwi
    12 years ago

    I'm from the U.S.I go to a public school in rural Ohio.

    I don't even know how evolution works because learnign is "bad".

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • 343Boy
    12 years ago

    No, it's just a theory. Theories aren't fact. I won't believe in it until it's actually proven, just like it would be silly for me to believe in the theory of gravity.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • notexactlynormal
    12 years ago

    What do you think happened to all those pterodactyls and dinosaurs? They evolved into birds and lions and shit.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • SnifferOuter77
      12 years ago

      Yup. And they have fossils for every step of development except one... and that one happens to be the same one missing in all the millions of species...... all missing the same piece? Pretty high number of coincidences to base your hypothesis on.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Legion
    13 years ago

    Read this about Darwin: Warning, long post

    Darwin and the insufficiency of sound bites
    There is no simple answer to questions about Darwin’s religious sympathies. This is partly because they changed over time. To a first approximation, his trajectory was from the Christian orthodoxy of his Cambridge years to a non-biblical deism at the time the Origin was published to a more thoroughly agnostic position in later life. This makes a neat and ironic story, given Darwin’s initial training to become an Anglican priest and given the clerical attacks on his theory that he had to endure. But it means that what was credible for him at certain times in his life was not at others. For example, the sensitivity with which in the early 1830s he responded to the sublime beauty of the Brazilian rain forest, and which he said had been associated with his belief in God, faded in old age. In 1859, at the age of fifty, he could still believe that the laws governing the evolution and diversification of life had their origin in a Creator.

    Sourcehttp://www.issr.org.uk/darwin-religion.asp

    He had religious beliefs, and even though they chaanged over time, he believed that god existed, but had a tendency to question it from time to time.
    Maybe Agnostic in his later years, But NOT AN ATHIEST!!!!!

    There is a difference

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • SnifferOuter77
      13 years ago

      Props that somebody actually knows the difference. At least agnostics will believe what you can show them. Athiests have a rather strict system of beliefs(for "non-believers") that keeps them bound to theories made by other people.

      P.S.- the book "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder(a scientist) will stop ANY evolutionist DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS. Agnostics may read this book, only because of their open-minded willingness to learn. Athiests won't, because they're too smart lol.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • dr_rock
    13 years ago

    @maskedgunman I suggest you read a book

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      Like what?

      "The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins?

      "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution", Also by Richard Dawkins?

      "Why Evolution is True" By Jerry Coyne?

      Just about every reputable book on evolution published in the last twenty years by atheist priests posing as scientists?

      BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

      Now I suggest you do some reading. Yes, I am actually suggesting you do some genuine research into what you think you believe, instead of blindly swallowing everything you are fed by the media.

      Here it is:

      http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dr_rock
        13 years ago

        I think a degree and phD in genetics counts as research, btw Darwin believed in God.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
      • lola27
        13 years ago

        @MaskedGunman

        Also I think you've done a bit of selective reading.

        1. Atheists and evolutionists are not the same
        2. Dawkins/Hitchens/Sagan don't represent atheists
        3. As others have already said, there is a much wider array of literature out there than what the "trio of New Atheism" expunge in their quest to rid the world of Catholicism through the selective use of evolutionary biology

        Nonetheless, a$$holes or not, evolutionary biology DOES make sense and has been demonstrated and supported beyond genetics, philosophy, and extends into numerous other fields. The reason why (other than being a Kuhnian like example of paradigm shifts) that there is a supposed rift between "Evolution" and "Creationism/ID" is that ID is just Genesis BS put out by the more zealoty churchers because it can't accept that humans aren't "Special" and "God Like" - meaning they're also just a sack of carbohydrates and all their preaching means diddly squat.

        Or, you can take the middle road. Evolutionary theories will continue to be improved until another better idea comes along (ID isn't it) and for the time being, as one user said "God created the universe, and it evolved"

        Not that hard, is it?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • [Old Memory]
          13 years ago

          1. Evolution is the creation myth of atheism. It is what makes it a viable belief system.

          2. Dawkins is one of the most outspoken atheists in the world.

          3. Most of it is speculative garbage. The last book I mentioned was specifically written to explain at a non-college level to the general public why, as the title states, evolution is true. It fails miserably.

          Evolution does not "extend into any fields" of science whatsoever. Doctors, astronauts, engineers, etc, have no need to study evolution, and it is rarely in any such curriculum. It is trivia (and trivial.)

          Evolution is not "well supported by genetics." Genetic study of various animals has caused evolutionists to completely throw out cladistic trees that had been based on fossils. Creatures that your parents were taught shared a common ancestor ended up being completely unrelated to each other genetically. Genetics is proving to be one of the greatest threats to the theory of evolution, second to the complete lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

          As for ID being "Genesis BS", you wouldn't think that if evolutionists didn't have such a legal stranglehold on the media. It is nearly impossible for ID material to be published. Many reputable scientists have lost their jobs for expressing any doubts about evolution.

          I challenge you to find any religion-oriented arguments in the following site:

          http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          -1
          -1
            -
          • Legion
            13 years ago

            What the hells with creationism? I do believe that god created the universe, but i feel that he set the "building blocks" and the plan in place, then set it to autopilot. I just dont believe that everything was made in its current form. If if was, we wouldent have a problem with anti-biotic Resistant germs, or have dinosaur bones in the ground. We wouldent be able to live here if we didnt have the ability to change.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • sumthinbluexx
    13 years ago

    I am a Christian i used to think that evolution is the dumbest thing on earth and that God created the world in exactly 7 days. But in class my professer brought up sumthing i have never thought of b4 that God may have made everything in exactly 7days but he could have brought the world together and let nature take its course knowing what would become of it so i would conclude that it could have possibliy happened and happened that way. But your opinion is based on how far your leap of faith is. Oh and if you dont beleive in any religion that has to deal with one God creating everything i would ask if you would like to share your opinion

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      The idea that God created the world in six (not seven) days is based on a potential misinterpretation of Genesis 1. The Hebrew word translated "day" ("yohm") in this chapter does not exclusively refer to a literal 24 hour day, but is also frequently used throughout the Bible to refer to an age or period of time, the way an elderly person might say "back in my day...".

      HOWEVER

      The idea that the earth is millions and millions of years old is mostly based on evolutionary bias. Rock layers are determined to be old based on the fossils found in them, and the fossils are determined to be old based on the rock layers they are found in. See the problem here? The earth has to be extremely old in order for evolution to account for the variety of life on earth today, which is why the hypothesized age of the earth accepted by scientist has grown older and older as time goes on; the more we discover about biology, the more preposterous the theory of evolution becomes.

      The earth could be 6,000 years old, or 6,000,000,000 years old. I really don't care.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • BoredGuy
    13 years ago

    @MaskedGunman You are one of the reasons that evolution moves so slow... retarded genes into he gene pool fcks any specie.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • robbieforgotpw
      11 years ago

      What an intelligent argument! Don't deal with any of his assertions or add anything intelligent to the conversation... just insult him? Typical when you can't outthink someone.
      Amazing reasoning skills!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • BoredGuy
        11 years ago

        Had this conversation thousands of time. Now instead I hope some darwin awards to be handed.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Darkoil
    13 years ago

    Look i don't even know why you are arguing, new genes being created is an established fact, doing a quick sweep on pubmed will give you 100s of published papers you can read about how it happens.
    There's a good one freely available through goole called origins of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.
    When i was 16 in college we were taught some of this in genes and genetic engineering honestly its pretty simple biology.
    Although you believe some scientists believe mutations are the cause, well mutations can sort of produce new genes but it doesn't have anything to do with evolution so we won't talk about that.
    Finally you gave a link to a webpage, sorry but that is pretty low when it comes to quality of sources, id fail my dissertation ive i used something like that as a source.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      The webpage I gave you is owned by a non-profit organization called Science Against Evolution. They publish a monthly online newsletter where they attack evolution using ONLY verified scientific data. They never use religious arguments of any kind. They cite their sources very, very well. It is hard to find quality sources on this subject because the evolution mafia has pretty much made it impossible for anti-evolution material to be published. If you can read even a handful of the information on that page and continue to believe in evolution, then I admire your faith.

      As for new genes being created, I don't think you understand what I am talking about. Detailed descriptions of how to construct a fully-functional pair of wings, eyes, etc. DO NOT MAGICALLY APPEAR in an organisms DNA. There is no known way that this could occur. Modern evolutionary researchers so far do not agree on any one theory as to how this could happen.

      And you try to distance yourself from the mutation theory like it was old news? EVERYONE IN THE WORLD who believes in evolution has been taught that mutations were essentially the sole driving force behind it. Only recently have professional researchers begun to abandon it, and that is because experiments have shown time and again that mutations could not possibly have had anything whatsoever to do with evolution. The trend seems to be that, whenever they actually apply the scientific method to evolution, it fails miserably. That leaves them without a leg to stand on. The theory has not been successfully replaced; no one can explain what exactly it is that causes one species to turn into another, just as no medieval alchemist could really explain what exactly it is that could cause lead to turn into gold.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • Darkoil
      13 years ago

      *google.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • dappled
    13 years ago

    Macro and micro evolution are the same thing. It's just human classification of what makes a "species" that forces us to classify evolution too. Same thing with stars, planets and satellites. It's all just balls of rock going around other balls of rock.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • dappled
      13 years ago

      P.S. I do believe in it, by the way. Not only would I stake my life on it, I think I already have.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      They are absolutely not the same thing. Micro-evolution is merely the shuffling around of EXISTING genetic information. All of the different breeds of dogs, cows, cabbages, etc. that exist today are all (as unbelievable as it sounds) expressions of genes that already existed within the original parent variations of each species. If you let a bunch of different dog breeds loose in the wild to breed with each other, their offspring would eventually become homogeneous, and would resemble the original dog "breed". This is not a theory, but a fact that is well known by breeders of all kinds.

      Macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW genetic material. For nearly a century, children in public schools have been taught that mutations are the mechanism for macro-evolution. Extensive experimental evidence has proven this to be impossible. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO KNOWN WAY FOR MACRO-EVOLUTION TO OCCUR.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -2
      -2
  • Akumay
    13 years ago

    Eh? i believe i grew up in the same town.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • sheilarae1987
    13 years ago

    Evolution, what would the world be without, eh?
    -No, I'm not Canadian, especially when I live in a town called Ontario-

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Akumay
    13 years ago

    Absolutley but you never know.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • disthing
    12 years ago

    It is still a theory. It can only be a theory until we've actually documented it happening over hundreds of thousands of years, only then can it be deemed scientific fact.

    I do find it convincing though, so I'm happy to believe it unless something more plausible or provable is proposed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    The fossil record clearly shows that multiple complex organisms suddenly appeared out of nowhere around the Cambrian period. There is no valid naturalistic explanation for this.

    IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, READ THE ARTICLES ON THE FOLLOWING WEBPAGE:

    http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    The very mechanism of macro-evolution is not even known. Most of the world's public still believe that mutations are the mechanism, but many evolutionary "scientists" are contesting this themselves today. There is currently no known way for macroevolution to occur. The theory is as viable as alchemy.

    As for the idea that Christian fundamentalism is the only reason people reject evolution, consider the following: Pope John Paul II once issued a statement concerning evolution to his fellow catholics, saying that the theory was not in conflict with Christianity (even though it is). The current pope reiterated this recently as well. IN SPITE OF THIS, 40% of Catholics still do not believe in evolution. Why could that be? Is it that, perhaps there are scientific reasons to reject the theory?

    There are hundreds.

    IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, READ THE ARTICLES ON THE FOLLOWING WEBPAGE:

    http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • lola27
      13 years ago

      @MaskedGunman

      Here's a hint. The Vatican issues edicts frequently that never reach lay Catholics. They're still caught up in the catholic education system (church, school, community) that teaches same old same old unless the local bishopry allows the local priest do so so, and in catholic schools, for example, evolution isn't even taught to begin with.

      So people aren't going to believe in something they've never heard of. Just like all those people who weren't raised religious who think the concept of God is a joke, and it makes perfect sense that human beings are just another kind of animal, so why not a different version of a previous animal? After all, we're not exactly like our parents, are we?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        13 years ago

        "so why not a different version of a previous animal?"

        Because that would require the addition of new DNA. There is no known way that this could occur by natural processes.

        I take it you've never studied the theory of evolution beyond periodically skimming through old issues of "National Geographic" at the dentist's office. Don't worry, you're apparently far from alone alone.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • XxKatiexX
    13 years ago

    Of course.
    I have a friend who believes in Creation...and I think it's ridiculous!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • jaukjiat
      13 years ago

      Why do you think Creationism is ridiculous? Evolutionism is just a fairy tale!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -2
      -2
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    I find it stupid trying to figure out the past when the present is messed up and the future will be even more messed up. I think it would be better focusing on the present and the future and then once those two are sorted out then we have time for something thats already past (The past).

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -5
    -5
  • wigsplitz
    13 years ago

    Who cares? Honestly, what difference does it make? I see no point in knwoing or caring about anything like this.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -2
    -2
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      13 years ago

      I respect that.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0