Survey for those who do not believe in evolution

i dont know what any of those words mean...at least not anymore....some of them i recognize from highschool and college.


Let me say this though in my defense of being ignorant about these terms: One need not know the intimate details of every subject area or concept in life to be right about what they entail. Science is great, everyone pretty much agrees, however...its completely lost sight of the value of internal processes of thought and understanding like intuition that can allow a person to decide for themselves what seems most likely to be correct or right for themselves.

Some people say things like: well if you havent studied it you can't dismiss it and be intelletually honest...and thats true to a point....but i think most ppl would agree we dont have the time in life to intimately study every topic to the satisfaction of the person trying to convince us of its merits. However, I concede that in areas like creationism or evolution, since it has to do with the origin of man, deserve MORE of our attention than many other areas in life, like say, how a car or tv works.

1. Would you say that you understand the scientific process by which evolutionary relationships are determined?

No, only my laymen understanding. My laymen understanding is that mostly random gene changes are selected for based on their ability to survive natural pressures in the environment. For example, if you live in the ocean, it will select for genes that accommodate it. This might have to do with swimming or high pressure tolerance or sensitivity to the sun coming through the water or the need for oxygen.

Apparently, this happens over a long period of time. Evolution is so slow that it falls behind, even. For example, it's claimed that obesity is so high now because our bodies are still holding onto fat on the presumption that we will need it for winter or during a famine. Of course, in our modern world, there're less famines and winter does not stop us from eating nearly as much at it used to. As a result, we're gaining unnecessary weight. We're like fish trying to walk on land!

I've read that under tremendous stress evolution can speed up, at great cost. True?

If i answer this question wrongly, sorry. Maybe if it were rephrased.

2. Is natural selection the only way that evolution can occur? Or can you list other ways?

It might also depend on our inadvertent actions. What about the evolution of society or art? Do the natural pressures in our environment dictate the type of society or kind of art which will evolve? I do not think every instance of evolution in art or society has to benefit our survival in concrete terms.

3. Do you know what the following words mean?

a - Taxonomy

Seen it before, but no.

b - Phylogeny

Nope.

c - Parsimony

Nope.

d - Synapomorphy

Nope.

e - Cladogram

Nope.

4. Do you believe that you are accurately able to interpret a cladogram?

Nope.

5a. Are you familiar with morphological, genetic, and fossil-based determination methods?

No idea, probably not. I have read some about the martian meteorite and about how morphological evidence is not enough to establish the presence of ancient martian fossil remains.

5b. Are you familiar with the pros, cons, and balancings between these methods?

Don't think so, no.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I know little about the details of evolution. And even in general I know it only in passing. I've read a bit about Vicariance and have read various news articles about evolutionary topics. For example, this morning I was searching for an old link about researchers "inducing" evolution in bacteria. I can't recall the details of it, but somehow they were able to cause changes in the sample.

EDIT: Found it! A quick google led me to this:
www.newscientist.com - Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab...

EDIT: A big sorry for the OP. I failed to read that this survey is for peole who do NOT believe in evolution. I skipped passed that somehow. Too eager I was to review my laymen understanding.

Nonetheless, I have a belief in evolution because I do not know it's fact. I can only trust that it's fact and it's on the shoulders of millions of scientists who've given their lives to their craft. The same applies to other things. I do not know Obama exists; I've never met him face to face.

Is my belief in evolution all that different from a person who doesn't believe it?

Originally posted by instigatah
Let me say this though in my defense of being ignorant about these terms: One need not know the intimate details of every subject area or concept in life to be right about what they entail. Science is great, everyone pretty much agrees, however...its completely lost sight of the value of internal processes of thought and understanding like intuition that can allow a person to decide for themselves what seems most likely to be correct or right for themselves.

Some people say things like: well if you havent studied it you can't dismiss it and be intelletually honest...and thats true to a point....but i think most ppl would agree we dont have the time in life to intimately study every topic to the satisfaction of the person trying to convince us of its merits. However, I concede that in areas like creationism or evolution, since it has to do with the origin of man, deserve MORE of our attention than many other areas in life, like say, how a car or tv works.

I see where you are coming from, but the difference is this:

Creationists and other hardcore religious folk flat out dismiss and deny many forms of science. They do it without having any understanding of the subject (or science in general) and often bring up points that are demonstrably wrong. Pull up the top 5 topics in this section for evidence of this. Sure, they COULD be right about creation, but that does not change the validity of science and evolution. I'm not saying you can't believe in religion or have faith in creation, but when you debate the validity of a field of science, you NEED to understand it. If you don't, the only honest answer is "I don't know, but I believe XYZ". To come into a discussion forum and tell people that you know for a fact that evolution is a lie and science is a massive conspiracy when you haven't studied the very basics, you are being dishonest. If you were debating something like gun control or abortion or some other opinion based debate, that might be acceptable, but we're talking about science here. It's called science because it's based on valid method of fact discovery.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
A brief survey, as I am curious... please answer honestly and kindly. This is not meant to be a quiz, or intimidating, or judgmental.

1. Would you say that you understand the scientific process by which evolutionary relationships are determined?


2. Is natural selection the only way that evolution can occur? Or can you list other ways?


3. Do you know what the following words mean?

a - Taxonomy

b - Phylogeny

c - Parsimony

d - Synapomorphy

e - Cladogram


4. Do you believe that you are accurately able to interpret a cladogram?

5a. Are you familiar with morphological, genetic, and fossil-based determination methods?
5b. Are you familiar with the pros, cons, and balancings between these methods?

Thank you very much!

edit on 8/13/2013 by ravenshadow13 because: (no reason given)

Do believers in evolution know what the following terms mean?

a. Faith

b. Belief

c. Spirit

d. Fate

e. Grand design

Also, it is important to understand the fact that the nature of our universe, our very reality is in every sense of the term, a best guess. Perhaps we should look to answer those questions before we attempt to assert a scientific fact, which by definition allows the fact to be changed in the light of new knowledge as an absolute fact.

I believe in evolution, just not evolution of the human species.

Hmmm.....Throwing out a bunch of big words, that is part of Ad Hominem technique to intimidate people. Can't you translate those into the common english language? I don't think it is worth my time to look all those up. Some of them I knew forty years ago but they weren't worth remembering, I replaced the words with useful information.

Big Words don't intimidate me at all. I don't believe in the theory of evolution because it has so many flaws and does not allow for a lot of variables that are still unknown....Like WHY did DNA and RNA form in the first place and how come so many things in nature are so advanced beyond belief that we cannot even comprehend the full picture.

There is structure to everything, it is like everything is somehow connected. Random chaos did not get the life on this planet created.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Hmmm.....Throwing out a bunch of big words, that is part of Ad Hominem technique to intimidate people. Can't you translate those into the common english language? I don't think it is worth my time to look all those up. Some of them I knew forty years ago but they weren't worth remembering, I replaced the words with useful information.

Big Words don't intimidate me at all. I don't believe in the theory of evolution because it has so many flaws and does not allow for a lot of variables that are still unknown....Like WHY did DNA and RNA form in the first place and how come so many things in nature are so advanced beyond belief that we cannot even comprehend the full picture.

There is structure to everything, it is like everything is somehow connected. Random chaos did not get the life on this planet created.

Using big words isn't Ad hom. It's part of understanding the concept. People always talk about flaws in evolution yet can't point out a single one that has anything to do with the science behind the theory. Why did DNA and RNA form in the first place? I don't know, and neither do you, but that's not a flaw in evolution. Evolution requires DNA to already be present. Anyways you just completely proved the point the OP was making in that you should understand a scientific theory before criticizing it, because when you don't, it only makes you look bad. Origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. Funny how people constantly use this argument, yet it has no basis in reality. Straw manning evolution is the primary tactic for the evolution deniers. Nobody's saying you have to believe everything about it 100% absolutely. They are saying don't knock what you don't understand. Denying evolution is akin to denying gravity or the earth revolving around the sun. We might not know every single thing about it, but blind denial is silly.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


When you can explain the Cambrian explosion, where all of the new DNA information came from then we can talk evolution.

Originally posted by Helious
Do believers in evolution know what the following terms mean?

a. Faith

b. Belief

c. Spirit

d. Fate

e. Grand design

Also, it is important to understand the fact that the nature of our universe, our very reality is in every sense of the term, a best guess. Perhaps we should look to answer those questions before we attempt to assert a scientific fact, which by definition allows the fact to be changed in the light of new knowledge as an absolute fact.

I believe in evolution, just not evolution of the human species.

Sorry but it's not just a guess, it's an explanation based on facts. A guess would be a hypothesis. There's no such thing as an absolute fact because the universe is constantly changing, however there are plenty of truths. Gravity is one, even though the causes have been debated for years. Nobody is going to say gravity doesn't exist or that it's a lie. That type of thinking is just as silly as thinking evolution is a lie. Creation might be true, but even if it is, evolution is also true. They can easily coexist, but the problem is creationists stubbornly single out evolution as if it's impossible, and it's solely based on faith and belief in literal translations of ancient texts, rather than scientific experiment. How many of the terms you listed above can be proven objectively or are rooted in tangible evidence? If you said zero, you are correct whereas with the OP, each one of the terms is based on real experiments using the scientific method of discovering facts. People are asking creationists to end the war on science, not to give up their faith. If ya don't like science, that's fine, don't use it. You don't see scientists interrupting church services denouncing things like walking on water and performing miracles.

I should also point out that human evolution is very well documented, although many folks can't seem to get past their own ego when stepping back and looking at it objectively. Everyone wants to be special.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

When you can explain the Cambrian explosion, where all of the new DNA information came from then we can talk evolution.

Can YOU explain the Cambrian explosion? Can YOU explain why it goes against evolution? If not, then I guess we cannot talk evolution, because you clearly don't understand it. I'm not trying to knock you, just stating the obvious. Another one proves the OP correct. I'm going to keep tally of the amount of people in here that preach against evolution despite having close to no knowledge about it. Don't you guys realize you're falling right into his trap? Stop the war on science! It's one you won't ever win. Creation vs Evolution is a complete farce. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could very well be both. No evolution supporter even considers it a debate, because it's not. There's scientific data and then there's denial of it, but when facts are provided, creationists claim THEY are the ones being attacked when they started the whole thing by denying science in the first place. Why not promote the positive aspects of your faith instead of attacking an established field of science? I don't understand it in the least.

reply to post by Barcs


I was really into studying the theory of evolution when I was young, I found that it only addressed evolution and not the reason for our being. I also am not a big believer in creationism as a dictator of religion. Evolution is real, and ongoing but as you say it does not address why.things started, just what happened once life had already started.

The problem with the study of evolution is that people are assuming that things followed a defined path. The original Adam and Eve are just a part of our genetics, Adam and Eve were not pure either, they were a blend of a lot of others before them.

I believe in Evolution, I just do not believe in the theory of evolution. I also believe something, like an extreme consciousness, is steering the universe. I believe it is made up of all life and elements in the universe. Is that god? I don't know, I thought god was supposed to be human like, yet our universe looks like a leaf on the tree of life. A frequency that resonates with our DNA. So by definition, I guess this consciousness is not what they call god.

Does explaining Evolution have to include knowing big words.....No. I can sum it up in a short paragraph yet understanding how it effects us requires extensive studying of genetics and the junk DNA. It not only has to take in food sources but has to include the why do the animals decide to eat different foods to force evolution. If it was survival of the fittest, we would have little diversification, some animals went off to eat differently even though it made them ill at first. Why....It was like their consciousness and compassion drove them to make sure their brothers could survive. So what's the difference if your a bird and you got a longer beak, you made a sacrifice so the others could survive also.....This reason of the consciousness causing diversity is not addressed in the theory of evolution, it is like wild animals have no consciousness. It is a hollow theory bent by lack of comprehension that everything has consciousness.

Originally posted by rickymouse

Does explaining Evolution have to include knowing big words.....No. I can sum it up in a short paragraph yet understanding how it effects us requires extensive studying of genetics and the junk DNA. It not only has to take in food sources but has to include the why do the animals decide to eat different foods to force evolution. If it was survival of the fittest, we would have little diversification, some animals went off to eat differently even though it made them ill at first. Why....It was like their consciousness and compassion drove them to make sure their brothers could survive. So what's the difference if your a bird and you got a longer beak, you made a sacrifice so the others could survive also.....This reason of the consciousness causing diversity is not addressed in the theory of evolution, it is like wild animals have no consciousness. It is a hollow theory bent by lack of comprehension that everything has consciousness.

Well you, really, can't sum it up in a short paragraph...

It not only has to take in food sources but has to include the why do the animals decide to eat different foods to force evolution.

.....why animals decide to eat different foods?............to force evolution???............ their consciousness and compassion drove them to make sure their brothers could survive???

This is unheard of, and if true is very very interesting. If so could you please post a few sources, evidence that kind of thing.

However if it's merely what you feel, what you want to be true......don't bother, the thread already has enough wishful thinking and not enough evidence (because it sounds like nonsense tbh).

reply to post by Prezbo369


Hmmmm...Saw that on Nova on PBS, it was a show on evolution. I have no knowledge on how to link or how to find that show about the beaks of the birds on that island and how they needed to adapt so all of them could live there.

So since I have no knowledge on how to find this evidence, than my knowledge from reading at minimum fifty thousand research articles over the years is just an opinion. I can live with that.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Hmmmm...Saw that on Nova on PBS, it was a show on evolution. I have no knowledge on how to link or how to find that show about the beaks of the birds on that island and how they needed to adapt so all of them could live there.

So since I have no knowledge on how to find this evidence, than my knowledge from reading at minimum fifty thousand research articles over the years is just an opinion. I can live with that.

No mention of these phenomenons in any of the fifty thousand research articles you've read?

Not a single link to be found on the web at all?

I put it to you that what you are claiming is nonsense, it goes against all we know about evolution and sounds like something that someone who knows next to nothing about evolution would make up out of thin air.

Why do people feel the need to do this with evolution? do people also make stuff up about germ theory or theory of general relativity?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Interresting approach to your OP.

When you don't believe something, and have proven that something wrong in your mind, why would you be too concerned with knowing all the "ology" areas of defense used to justify what you concider "wrong" or "in error".

For me personally I do know what these things are, as I was a scientist early in life, so it is not applicaable to me specifically, but to play "devil's advocate" here, the tables can be turned around to illustrate a point.

For those of you who don't belief in Creation are you familiar with the following:

- The 57 truths of the Church of God as revealed through Apostles over the last 2000 years?
- The Mystery of the Ages literary work which reveals the purpose of creation, and why you exist physically on Earth.
- The plan and purpose of God for the salvation of all mankind over the course of 7100 years total, seperated into 3 major ages? This plan is contained in the understanding of the Annual Holy Days commanded by God to be kept "forever" as a sign of those being worked with by God.
- The understaning of the 7th day Sabbth and why it is to be kept, as it teaches the understanding of the first 7000 years of God's plan for all mankind to live and die under the sun.
- The Bible does not give Earth as 6000 years old, simply the "age of mankind's self rule" upon it as that length.

I just get the feeling everyone who doesn't believe in Creation doesn't understand the evidence that produces that belief.

If you have proven Creation to be false, you will not put in much effort to understand the "ology" areas of defense for Creation.

Again I have studied both and I have far more Creation evidence as a result of God's Church than Evolution evidence as a result of achedemia.

God Bless,

Originally posted by ElohimJD
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

Interresting approach to your OP.

When you don't believe something, and have proven that something wrong in your mind, why would you be too concerned with knowing all the "ology" areas of defense used to justify what you concider "wrong" or "in error".

For me personally I do know what these things are, as I was a scientist early in life, so it is not applicaable to me specifically, but to play "devil's advocate" here, the tables can be turned around to illustrate a point.

For those of you who don't belief in Creation are you familiar with the following:

- The 57 truths of the Church of God as revealed through Apostles over the last 2000 years?
- The Mystery of the Ages literary work which reveals the purpose of creation, and why you exist physically on Earth.
- The plan and purpose of God for the salvation of all mankind over the course of 7100 years total, seperated into 3 major ages? This plan is contained in the understanding of the Annual Holy Days commanded by God to be kept "forever" as a sign of those being worked with by God.
- The understaning of the 7th day Sabbth and why it is to be kept, as it teaches the understanding of the first 7000 years of God's plan for all mankind to live and die under the sun.
- The Bible does not give Earth as 6000 years old, simply the "age of mankind's self rule" upon it as that length.

I just get the feeling everyone who doesn't believe in Creation doesn't understand the evidence that produces that belief.

If you have proven Creation to be false, you will not put in much effort to understand the "ology" areas of defense for Creation.

Again I have studied both and I have far more Creation evidence as a result of God's Church than Evolution evidence as a result of achedemia.

God Bless,

So as a 'former scientist' you present the Bible, and nothing else, as an alternative to evolution?

That kind of scientific work may be why you were not in the job for very long.....

reply to post by Prezbo369


I'm sorry, I memorize the concept of what I read and observe, not particular things like link addresses.

I am now in the middle of studying the effect of interferon activity on viruses and cancers. I will not memorize the links for these either nor will I memorize all the names of all the APOBEC enzymes, I just studied which enzymes are pertinent to preventing cancer and am trying to figure how to inhibit or increase activity with food choices. My main focus of research is the effect of food on genetics and foods effect on evolution and disease. That is where fifty percent of the articles I read relate to. It includes all species of animals. Now I'm severely off topic so I should quit.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

I'm sorry, I memorize the concept of what I read and observe, not particular things like link addresses.

The devil's in the details

Originally posted by rickymouse
I don't believe in the theory of evolution because it has so many flaws and does not allow for a lot of variables that are still unknown....Like WHY did DNA and RNA form in the first place and how come so many things in nature are so advanced beyond belief that we cannot even comprehend the full picture.

Science does address some of these issues. And some of the above terms may help you to understand its "flaws".

reply to post by ElohimJD


Well, you know, some religious beliefs are caused by tumors in certain regions of the brain in some individuals, or minor seizure syndromes. This has also been proven.

I'm not saying it is the case for everyone, but there is likely some wiring responsible for a tendency to have faith in something you do not have evidence for that can be tested in some way.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I looked up some of the terms, the bird example I was talking of above, some of the birds had longer beaks to get at nectar while others had short beaks for the original food. They were both the same birds by DNA, but had acquired different gene expression I think. That doesn't really fall into Synamorphy though because there isn't always permanent evolutionary changes with gene expression. There are also fish up in Canada that can adapt to salt/fresh water changes within a generation. This expression of changes in their gill structure is just temporary, they can flip back and forth. Like I say, I believe in evolution but do not believe in the theory of evolution, it has too many problems. It's like they used a horse lasso to try to catch a dragon.

I watch a lot of These kind of shows on PBS. The wife calls me down from the computer if there is anything I am interested in on there. I usually do a little verification on the shows to see if their information matches consensus of others and it usually checks out pretty well.