Do you believe in evolution or not?

@MartinTheFirst I find the exact opposite to be true. Most who oppose it cite religious belief (it's not impossible for a God to have kickstarted evolution) or say things like "why are apes still here?" which shows they have a lack of understanding of it.

What makes you reject it outright?

@MartinTheFirst Peppered moths... Look em up

@SW-User Then show me some evidence you've read about.

@MartinTheFirst Again, what about evolution do you reject? Do you reject the idea of natural selection? Do you reject the evidence of early hominids and hominiforms? Or do you just reject the idea that it can explain the origin of consciousness or intelligence?

@SW-User I asked you to show me some evidence for the theory of evolution which you've read about, anything.

@SW-User He probably just rejects the origin of man which is like the smallest part of evolution. Evolution as a whole is about adapting to your environments and passing your genes on. Natural selection, genetic drift, genetic migration, mutation. All proven things that he could Google.

@MartinTheFirst Peppered Moths

@Qwerty14 I read about it, and it's a change on such a small scale that it doesn't affect the part of evolution I reject. That being the transition from one species over to another one. These two moths are still the same species.

@MartinTheFirst One piece of evidence for evolution is what's known as homologous features.

"Homologous" means that these features are due to two species having a common ancestor. I study linguistics, and the descent of languages have similar patterns: if two languages share a base vocabulary word, we can assume the languages had a common ancestor.

An example of a homologous feature can be seen in embryonic development. In all vertebrates whose embryos we've observed, there is a tail and gill slits present. In humans, these develop into other forms (the tail becomes the coccyx and does not develop into a full tail). But the similarities in the embryos suggests these are all variations on one original embryo, that of a common ancestor (the original "vertebrate" which all modern vertebrate are descended bone).

Whales have a hind leg bone that is homologous to that found in mammals and birds. Since whales have no legs, it does not serve that function in them. But its presence suggests that they descended from an ancestor that had fully functional hind legs.

Again, this does not prove that "humans came from soup" or whatever. I actually am not an atheist and I happen to believe in divine intelligence. But it does suggest that evolution is a natural process whose evidence we can observe and explore.

@MartinTheFirst You understand evolution isn't just about species changing into other species right? There's so much more to it. You needa be far more specific with your comments

@SW-User Key word:
I'm glad that you have read a bit about it at least.

@Qwerty14 I do understand, it's just a part of it, the part that I reject. It has never been proven to be an animal that has transitioned into another species through mutations, it is only assumed. These assumptions do not solidify the theory of evolution. Therefore, it is not a fact as you said it was.

@SW-User do Tennesseans have a tailbone?

@SW-User Evolution actually makes sense from an intelligent design perspective. Why create a creature that couldn't adapt to its environment? Lol just a thought

@MartinTheFirst Of course it's an assumption. That's how many scientific theories work. We don't claim to have all the knowledge. It's not "finished" by any means. That's why the idea of "believing" in it seems odd to me. I don't believe in it because it's not a doctrine or dogma. What evidence comes forth in the future could drastically change it. Or not. Maybe it will only reinforce what we already assume.

And sometimes, of course, assumptions can turn into proof. For example, on the basis of whales being mammals and the evidence of leg bones, we assumed they might have once had legs or descended from something that did, but we don't know any current aquatic mammals that actually have legs. It was just a guess though. Then we actually discovered fossils of prehistoric animals that were aquatic (like whales) but had actual legs. It went from just a guess to something we could actually see.

(Just to provide a linguistic example, because I understand linguistics better than I understand evolution: a linguist in the late 19th century assumed that Indo-European had an "h" sound at the beginning of words that explained certain vowel patterns in later languages like Greek. Only problem: there was no evidence for this "h" sound. No known IE language had such a sound. It was just a guess. Then Hittite was discovered on ancient tablets. It was translated and proven to be Indo-European and it was shown to have this "h" sound where the linguist assumed it would be. It was astonishing, really).

@SW-User It doesn't have to be a doctrine or a dogma for you to believe in it. When someone tells you some information, you can either decide to believe in them or not believe in them. I don't understand what your fear for "belief" is. Technically everything you think you know, is a belief. You believe that you know.

@MartinTheFirst You know there is more evidence to support Evolution than there is to support gravity right? You don't see people debating that on the internet. Also even though I kinda hate paleontology (long story) they have found fossils that show evolution on a larger scale.

@MartinTheFirst But there's a difference between faith and acceptance of empirical experience. The point of faith is that is not necessarily supported by empiricism. It's one thing to say "I believe that I will not die tomorrow". I have no empirical evidence that I won't die, but I believe it anyway on probability and hope. But what we believe is based on what evidence we're exposed to.

I'm also trying to illustrate the fact that science is not like religion. Religion is founded (most religions at least) on the idea that it will never change, in fact, cannot change. Science can change. There many people that treat science like religion and act as if it is perfect and infallible and will never change, and this is a problem. It causes people to be closed-minded and reject new evidence.

@Qwerty14 Yup, there is more evidence. Why is there more evidence? Because we need more good evidence to prove the theory of evolution. The law of Gravity is directly observable and testable. The theory of evolution? Not so much. The quantity doesnt determine the outcome, the quality does.

@SW-User That's just an illusion. Perhaps a delusion. You think that more experience, more observations, and more "evidence" removes the element "faith". Which is ultimately not the truth. No matter the evidence, you still need to hold faith in order to believe/know something.

@SW-User As you stand right now, right where you are: Do you KNOW how this world was created from the moment it was 'born'? Do you KNOW? Awaiting for a time when you will know is hardly a great answer. It fascinates me how some people can go on about their 'facts' to such great depths whilst missing the most important question. There are some mysteries to this world that humankind will never fully understand. Or, is it that everything of life is meant to be understood? I highly doubt it :)

@Justbychance Ah, but coming to the conclusion that humanity will never know is just one belief among many. Perhaps we may know all these things. I don't necessarily believe that we won't.

@MartinTheFirst That's a load of shit. The reason there's less evidence to prove gravity is because to prove it they need to find the gravitational force, something no one knows how to do. It is something they all think is there but no one can say for sure. Evolution however is easy to see. We observe it all the time, this have built up a lot of evidence for it

@MartinTheFirst I know people who've had religious experiences that were so powerful that they claim that they don't just believe in God, they know God exists and it is not even a question. The line between knowledge and belief is not necessarily so clear, you are correct.

"Knowledge" could then be said to be belief with a sense of perceived certainty. But even what we claim to be knowledge could be falsified by further evidence (this is the principle behind most scientific knowledge).

Consider possible combinations of rationality and belief:

Belief despite the lack of corroborating evidence
Belief due to overwhelming corroborating evidence
Disbelief despite overwhelming corroborating evidence
Disbelief due to the lack of corroborating evidence

Knowledge could then be said to be the progression from the 2nd and 4th lines here. Knowledge requires corroborating evidence and reasoning. Belief alone need not.

@SW-User on a philosophical and psychological basis... Knowledge is subjective. Everything you observe is filtered in your brain, you can never know for sure. Our brains on a biological level notice no difference between belief and knowing. That is exactly why someone can say that evolution is a "proven fact" when it clearly isnt, because to them belief and fact is the same in this case.

@SW-User Science amazes me in how far it cannot yet delve. Science amazes me in how (apparently) there must surely be answers to everything. Science 'overworks' itself, whilst the deeper we get into Science itself, the more we don't understand of those questions it raises after we find the answers. There truly are more questions than answers and that shall forever be. We don't know all things, we will never know all things.

I would think it narrow minded of myself to consider that Science holds all the answers; failing that, I would consider it foolish to comprehend that a day will come when all questions will be answered; that won't happen, you know it and I know it. To say that Science holds all the answers, in essence, belittles what life itself is simply because it is so deeply complex in so many ways we have yet to both discover and then resolve.