<p>I believe that EVERYTHING evolves through some sort of natural selection. Not just living organisms.</p>
<p>Products
Businesses
Customs
Beliefs
Environments
Friendships</p>
<p>Think about it</p>
<p>I don’t “believe” in evolution either. I accept it (thanks, madad, for sharing that quote.)</p>
<p>I think a better question to ask would be:</p>
<p>What percentage of people who understand evolution don’t believe in it?</p>
<p>Most people who don’t believe in evolution are either too dumb to understand it and/or are ignorant of it.</p>
<p>Undclrd Stdnt,
Your logic does not prove that theory of evolution is correct. I am not saying that it is incorrect either. I am saying that I cannot take sides for insufficient evidence for all kind of theories of irigin.</p>
<p>I believe that people who don’t believe in evolution are the best evidence against intelligent design.</p>
<p>I admit that I am both too dumb and ignorant. It does not change anything. We are not talking about characteristics of people who believe/do not believe. This is totally different point, there are reasons that are different from one person to another.</p>
<p>In the midst of this important discussion, let us not forget that there is more than one theory of Intelligent Design and that all theories should be given proper consideration:
[Open</a> Letter To Kansas School Board](<a href=“http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/]Open”>Open Letter To Kansas School Board – Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)</p>
<p>Oh, MWM2K. That is great.</p>
<p>I was all set to get huffy about teaching “alternative theories,” but thought I should check the link. I, too, believe in the link between the declining number of Pirates and global warming. That connection has been underreported for years.</p>
<p>Pirates! I knew it!</p>
<p>The theory of Intelligent Falling as an alternative to the “Law” of Gravity:</p>
<p>[Evangelical</a> Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory | The Onion - America’s Finest News Source](<a href=“The Onion | America's Finest News Source.”>The Onion | America's Finest News Source.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Apples and oranges. I am using “theory” in the scientific sense, you are using it in the colloquial sense of speculation or hypothesis. Creationism may be a “theory” in the colloquial sense of the word, but it is not a scientific theory, or science at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is a matter of collected evidence, of predictions made by the theory turning out to be true, etc.</p>
<p>And one can most certainly test particular claims of macroevolution. Rather than list a bunch of examples, I will post a link that does it for me. :)</p>
<p>[29+</a> Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent](<a href=“http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/]29+”>http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/)</p>
<p>Recently, on NPR’s Science Friday, I heard an interview with Darwin’s great great grandson. He said he was amazed at how easily Americans believed things in the face of a complete absence of evidence. He also agreed that faith and science are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>and the Word, is not just in Kansas.
[FSM</a>](<a href=“http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9906870-52.html]FSM”>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9906870-52.html)</p>
<p>but what if you are gluten intolerant?</p>
<p>FSM book 2 chapter 1 verse 3
" and yea whosoever does not the gluten injest shall be cast out…"
you are outa luck Emerald kitty</p>
<p>Way to completely misunderstand my point.</p>
<p>People doubt macroevolution because you can’t decide you want to test it in a laboratory and go do it. You can’t see it happening from beginning to completion. You can’t follow one species of organism in a laboratory and watch as it changes into something completely different. Time scales do not allow this.</p>
<p>I’m not saying, nor did I ever say, there wasn’t evidence for it. I said that the evidence that does exist is just laying around places. Another way of saying this is that evolution is mostly used as a descriptive tool, not as a predictive one. You cannot predict, using the theory of macroevolution, what will happen in the future. Maybe you can make very general predictions, but people wouldn’t see this as an application of evolution, but of common sense.</p>
<p>I can go see some chemicals react in a lab. I can’t see macroevolution. Theories - even those supported by overwhelming evidence - are more plausible if you at least have the chance to make it happen yourself. People don’t like macroevolution because it is a scientific theory that has next to no bearing on everyday life. You can’t go make a technology out of macroevolution. Takes too long.</p>
<p>For your information, I suppose I don’t really care one way or the other. I think that’s the bigger point. Most people don’t care. If they don’t like it, they just ignore it. If I proved P = NP tomorrow, and there was a poll about whether you believed P = NP or not, I’m guessing most people would say “no” or “I don’t care”. I think that’s fair and it certainly doesn’t hurt my feelings.</p>
<p>I think part of it has to do with not even understanding evolution in the first place. I’m willing to bet at least 75% of the people who don’t believe in evolution believe that evolution states that humans evolved from monkeys. Indeed, my father told me not to believe in that “evolution hogwash” because, “we did NOT evolve from monkeys!”. I felt like telling him that evolution doesn’t suggest this at all, and it instead implies that humans and monkeys both share a common evolutionary ancestor, but I decided to do him a favor and not let him think his son is a heretic. -_-</p>
<p>AuburnMathTutor,
From your above statement, you do not understand the theory of evolution nor are you aware of the over-whelming scientific evidence (including extensive laboratory work and mathematicla modeling) for it. May I recommend the following text:</p>
<p>Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma</p>
<p>This is a college level text that assumes the reader has taken a year of college freshmen biology. It will take a while to work through the text, but it is definitely worth it. Happy Reading!</p>
<p>yawn - I agree. My parents don’t believe in evolution because they find it insulting to suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. I want to ask, “insulting to humans or monkeys?” but my mom is already making my handbasket so I don’t argue.</p>
<p>yorkyfan:</p>
<p>I honestly don’t have the time to read an entire book.</p>
<p>Perhaps you can just explain to me how macroevolution can be observed in a laboratory, and we’ll leave it at that. I was under the impression that macroevolution took millions of years to happen, but I could be mistaken.</p>
<p>Thanks for your interest in helping me learn more about this. Never had a college biology course, because - as I’ve previously indicated - I don’t find it that interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please define the term “macroevolution.” There are really no such concepts as micro or macro evolution. There are some specific technical definitions in the scientific literature, but they’re not what is usually talked about. It’s a term that’s been basically taken over by the usual doubters to set up some arbitrary and ill-defined limits. The goal being, of course, to shift the limits up when the evidence gets inconvenient. </p>
<p>Seems like so far, your definition of what “macroevolution” is is that it’s a long process that takes millions of years. And why can’t it be observed? Well, because it’s a long process. This is a strawman - you’ve defined evolution to be something that can’t be seen, and now you’re asking people why you should believe it if you can’t see it.</p>
<p>The best resource for education on this issue is the TalkOrigins site. Here’s a link to their page on macroevolution:</p>
<p>[Macroevolution:</a> Its definition, Philosophy and History](<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html]Macroevolution:”>Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History)</p>