Evolution poll, take two

[Vulpes bicaudata]

I'm not making my own decision based on this. I'm conducting research.

 

[Zeffy]

I choose none. Why? Curiosity kills the cat, as some says. Some things are better left undiscovered, and evolution is one of those things. The only things I know that evolve are Digimon, Pokémon, and others. You're alive, you're breathing. Be thankful that you are a living thing.

If I really have to choose though, I choose Option 4 except for the deity part.

 

[Yuoaman]

Option 4 has been thoroughly disproved.. are people still denying evolution? As for me, I have to go with both option 1 and 2. I don't deny the existence of a deity or deities but as of yet I haven't gotten factual evidence that they exist, so I can't go all in with option 2 but I can't discount it by going all in with option 1.

This isn't a debate thread - you have no right to judge someone based on personal beliefs held by someone else unless they are directly harming something else.

 

[Timbjerr]

Option 2.

I know that a deity exists and I know that natural selection exists. Additionally, I have felt that God is very hands-off and non-interventionist, sot that would be the only option that marries these various parts of my beliefs

 

[Gymnotide]

I have requested the old poll be locked, so if it hasn't yet, it should be soon.

I am researching the effect of a certain variable, to be disclosed later, on the level of support for evolution. Please vote for the option which most closely matches your beliefs on the evolution of life, including macroevolution.

Option 1: I believe in a completely naturalistic form of evolution, including macroevolution, without deities. Natural selection was the main driving force.

Option 2: I believe a deity or deities used evolution, including macroevolution, as a tool to create life, and did not interfere with its progress; in other words, they did not "guide" evolution. Natural selection was the main driving force.

Option 3: I believe that changes in life forms are guided by a deity ("intelligent design"). I do not believe in natural selection.

Option 4: I believe in a form of creationism where life forms are static and do not change, but remain as they were created by a deity or deities.

Regarding Option I:
Feel free to [quote][/quote] in the first post.

This definition of Evolutionary Theory is severely obsolete. Natural Selection, though still one of the major influences of evolution, is no longer deemed the sole factor by most evolutionary theorists. The new points, called collectively as Modern Evolution, are outlined as followed:

• Natural Selection -- Traits are "selected" to be more evolutionarily fit. Furthermore, "fitness" is ONLY defined by REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS and NO OTHER FACTORS, i.e. "fitness" has nothing to do with survival or living, physical mechanisms (other than reproductive), or attractiveness.
• Sexual Selection -- Traits are "selected" distinct from Natural Selection, based on the preference of individuals. Sexual Selection is mediated by the following: (1) direct benefits of mate selection, (2) indirect benefits of mate selection, and (3) the desire to obtain "good genes." Sexual Selection occurs through sexual conflict (the reproductive success of one individual at the expense of the other), both intra- (male-to-male combat) and intersexual (female choice of male).
• Genetic Drift -- The random progression of gene concentration. Genetic Drift CANNOT be observed, measured or quantified. It has no evolutionary basis, but can affect the evolution of species.
• Modern Synthesis -- Evolution is guided by genetics and genetics ONLY. The mechanisms of Darwinian Genetics greatly explain and reinforce this. Paleontology / gradualism reign over all other theories.
• New Genetic Determinism -- Traits are not only adaptive, but are also byproducts of other adaptations / environmental factors. Genes can be phenotypically plastic based on environment, social environment, and genetics.
• New Synthesis / Ecological Evolution -- Evolution (particularly behavioral) can be brought on my social interactions and social environment / preferences, e.g. symbiosis, altruism.

Regarding Option II

Small problem with this one -- Evolution does NOT explain how life was "created," but rather how it HAS and WILL CONTINUE to progress. Abiogenesis / biogenesis is a completely different topic that spans into cosmology, quantum mechanics, and organic chemistry. Evolution occurs after life has been created.

Regarding Option III

You can't "believe" in Natural Selection because it is a purely scientific concept, drawn from scientific data. Furthermore, science runs on the analysis of factual data and facts cannot be subject to disproving. Note that scientific "following" is different than scientific "belief" (which does not exist). Natural Selection DOES have solid proof and CAN be observed in the present day.

- - - - -

That being said, religion and evolution aren't even related. They shouldn't be compared to each other and their views should not be intermingled. They never clash, except in the case of Anti-Religious Conspiracy vs. Evolutionary Theory OR Literalism vs. Evolutionary Theory, which, honestly, are preposterous topics anyway. Having a religious views towards biogenesis does not mean genes don't exist, or that evolution doesn't occur. Evolutionary CANNOT be refuted because EVOLUTION (note: "evolution" is not the same as Evolutionary Theory) can be readily observed.

 

[Stratos99]

This isn't a debate thread - you have no right to judge someone based on personal beliefs held by someone else unless they are directly harming something else.

o_o well then! I know threads in ovp are made in a way where discussion isn't promoted, but I didn't know it was outright against the rules! Next time I'll think about asking if everyone agreed on a universally accepted fact in science before posting!

Of course, I find it kind of silly that you're calling me out on "judging someone based on personal beliefs" when your post in this thread implies people who didn't choose option number 1 have no sense. Personally I would find your comment more offensive than my question asking if people still didn't believe in evolution.

Option 1, because I can think for myself and have come to the conclusion that any other option has none of that sense thing.

@Gymnotide; Well said.

 

[Gymnotide]

I would also like to add that you can't disprove evolution. You can choose not to follow Evolutionary Theory, but you can't say that evolution doesn't occur. It is a fact that species adapt over time, whether you are religious or not. We can observe it very readily. Our bodies (not the individual body because evolution occurs in species, not individuals) are an example of a large super-organism composed of many types of tissues. The tissues themselves undergo changes, which can be said to be an analogue to evolution (e.g. the Immune System). Some organisms have been observed to have underwent selection directly over the course of a human lifespan, like moths. Other species have vestigial structures, and many have convergent features, which are both ghosts of evolution.

With this, I am not trying to deface anyone's beliefs, but it is a fact that evolution occurs. Denying evolution is like saying genes don't exist, whereby we might as well just throw away all of our advancements in biology and chemistry thus far.

...

Moreover, I have no problem with people not following Evolutionary Theory, but the fact of the matter is that believing in religion does not mean you can't follow Evolutionary Theory because evolution and religion are completely unrelated. In fact, it might even be advantageous to follow both spectrums:

[jq]"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein[/jq]

... That is not to say that one should believe in religion, but merely understand its mechanisms, uses, and fundamental aspects.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Option 2. I'm casting my vote in favor of Church teaching, here.

Yes, evolution is a scientifically strong theory (I hesitate to say "Fact." Yes, I believe in evolution, but evolution can't be proven or disproved in a few years, decades, or centuries. Same with the Big Bang, which I also believe in). And, yes, many Christian radicals are... utterly nuts about fundamentalism.

However, the black and white drives me utterly insane...

 

[Gymnotide]

Option 2. I'm casting my vote in favor of Church teaching, here.

Yes, evolution is a scientifically strong theory (I hesitate to say "Fact." Yes, I believe in evolution, but evolution can't be proven or disproved in a few years, decades, or centuries. Same with the Big Bang, which I also believe in). And, yes, many Christian radicals are... utterly nuts about fundamentalism.

However, the black and white drives me utterly insane...

Did I tl;dr you? Evolution as a process has definitely been proven, both in theory and in observation. Evolutionary Theory (why evolution occurs) is a completely different story.

 

[Yuoaman]

o_o well then! I know threads in ovp are made in a way where discussion isn't promoted, but I didn't know it was outright against the rules! Next time I'll think about asking if everyone agreed on a universally accepted fact in science before posting!

Of course, I find it kind of silly that you're calling me out on "judging someone based on personal beliefs" when your post in this thread implies people who didn't choose option number 1 have no sense. Personally I would find your comment more offensive than my question asking if people still didn't believe in evolution.



@Gymnotide; Well said.

It wasn't against the rules, you just sounded rather judgmental - which annoys the hell out of me. You may not have meant it that way, but that was what came across when I read it.

And I wasn't intentionally implying that, I believe no such thing. And I meant from my standpoint none of the other options made sense - not that my opinion was any more valid. And adding 'it makes none of the sense' is just me throwing things from my speech pattern into what I say online.

 

[Esper]

Option 1 most closely aligns with my views, mostly regarding the lack of a supernatural 'hand' guiding things along. I can't say I completely understand all aspects of evolutionary theory, but from what I do know it seems most likely.

 

[Stratos99]

It wasn't against the rules, you just sounded rather judgmental - which annoys the hell out of me. You may not have meant it that way, but that was what came across when I read it.

Well I was absolutely judging people, lol. If you don't "believe" in evolution I think you're a little bit silly! Of course, I never said anything to slander those people, I just asked if there were still people who didn't believe in it. I find it concerning that you're using your leverage as a moderator to tell people what to do just because it annoys you though, that seems a bit unfair but if that's the way you guys do things around here who am I to say otherwise.

And I wasn't intentionally implying that, I believe no such thing. And I meant from my standpoint none of the other options made sense - not that my opinion was any more valid. And adding 'it makes none of the sense' is just me throwing things from my speech pattern into what I say online.

Intentionally or not it was implied, much like you drew offense from my post people might draw offense from you're "speech pattern"! Well... I don't know what you mean "from your standpoint", I think everything anybody says is from their standpoint. I think the appropriate use of that word would be more along the lines of you being offended by my post for whatever reason, not vice versa.

I will counter by saying I ask questions offline so I decided to ask them online as well, this should slide with you since I'm just incorporating my speech patterns!

 

[Åzurε]

Option 4. "According to their own kind", and I have yet to see sound proof of macroevolution. Is life unchanged? Hardly. There is physical variation between the same "kinds". But no transition between "kinds" of life.

 

[Gymnotide]

Option 4. "According to their own kind", and I have yet to see sound proof of macroevolution. Is life unchanged? Hardly. There is physical variation between the same "kinds". But no transition between "kinds" of life.

You obviously fail to understand any aspect of evolution
And, to note, the evidence is not grounded in each different point, but each one serves to galvanize the last.

It's several pages long.
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/