news.nationalgeographic.com — People in the United States are much less likely to accept Darwin's idea that humans evolved from apes than adults in other Western nations, a number of surveys show. A new study of those surveys suggests that the main reason for this lies in a unique confluence of religion, politics, and the public understanding of biological science in the US
Aug 11, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountAug 11, 2006
yeah the headline if f**king stupid
boilerbluesAug 11, 2006
"Evolution is not "just a theory" it is a provable fact. The entire science of biology is based on evolution. Not only do we have enough fossil evidence to back up evolution, but we see bacteria evolving on a regular basis requiring new and different antibiotics in order to combat them."I'll disagree with you on this. It is a theory, not a provable fact. For it to be a fact there would have to be witnesses and ALL information available. However, there is still information being discovered and new steps being made in discovering how everything came into being. We do not know EVERYTHING yet, so it can not be called a fact. A theory is an explanation that has been tested and is supported by available information. However, a theory can be revised as new information becomes available.Remember that Newton's Laws of gravity and motion were accepted as laws and facts for 200 years, but in recent times, due to people like Einstein, those laws have been shown to be incomplete.To say we know everything there is to know is a very ignorant statement. At that point you become what you are accusing religious people of, turning off your critical thinking and accepting what someone somewhere says is true.
slynkiAug 11, 2006
*posted in wrong place.
slynkiAug 11, 2006
@BoilerbluesYou missed the point by a lightyear.In scientific terms, theory is fact. Until falsified by evidence. Gravity is just a theory, and interstingly enough, there is less evidence for gravity than evolution. Please, feel free to reject gravity as 'just a theory'.
arianebAug 11, 2006
"I'll disagree with you on this. It is a theory, not a provable fact. For it to be a fact there would have to be witnesses and ALL information available. However, there is still information being discovered and new steps being made in discovering how everything came into being. We do not know EVERYTHING yet, so it can not be called a fact"It is a fact, to call it anything less than a fact is a misunderstanding of the nature of science.Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, Newtonian physics is absolutely right with bodies below the speed of light. Einstein just added to it. Euclidean geometry is right as well on a flat plane, Riemann and Gauss et. al. just added to it.Evolution is a fact, and just because we are discovering new provisos and addendums to the evolution, does not make it any less of a fact. LIFE EVOLVED -- period end of sentence. No future revisions or discoveries in biology, zoology, paleontology or genetics, will ever change that sentence. Yes there are unanswered questions and yes there will be changes to our current understanding, but evolution as a process of biological change is most definitely a fact.
nitsujAug 12, 2006
Your post is full of creationist ignorance.Namely, your objections have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. It's the sciences of geology and cosmology you seem to have a problem with.Evolution is a scientific theory within the field of biology.
slinkAug 12, 2006
@polumrakI stand corrected. I always thought it was one of those misquotations or phrases that get attributed to people but that they never really said. I'm sure I read somewhere that there's something key to the theory of evolution that was never explicitily mentioned by Darwin but was coined buy one of his contemporaries and I thought that was it, but evidently not.I really must read that book sometime...
fooplexAug 12, 2006
Doctors don't rely on evolution to heal us. There is no drug that relies on evolution to treat us. We can create new strains of corn, or breed different types of cattle, but none of that has anything to do with evolution, that's genetics.I guess you're saying that maybe someday we'll create a new vaccine, or a new type of surgery that relies on the theory of evolution in order to work? Well, I doubt it, since it would take millions of years in order to have an effect.So who's clueless now?
boilerbluesAug 14, 2006
Gravity is a fact, Newton's explanation of it was a theory. That theory was later discover to be an inaccurate description.All the evidence on evolution is not in, so you can't say that the current explanation if it is a fact. It is a theory, one that will be adjusted as more evidence becomes available.
moonpigAug 15, 2006
So you agree that Man and Ape had a common ancestor, right? And that would have been what exactly? An Aardvark perhaps? Isn't it more likely that it was simply a more primitive ape? I don't understand yourarguement exactly and would love to know what you base it on. I don't think you understand natural history.
slynkiAug 15, 2006
That was an insult to apes everywhere!;-)
adaptationAug 21, 2006
@ all evolutionistsYou all have staunchly supported the Theory of Evolution and you have even unequivocally stated that it is fact. The one thing that you have not done is provided any real proof of the factual nature of Evolution.Some of you have stated that there is proof of evolution as fact in the fossil record. Please provide a detailed explanation of how the fossil record proves that it is factual. Some of you have stated that the ability of microbes, viruses, bacteria etcetera to adapt to and resist anti viral, antimicrobial, antibacterial agents is proof of Evolution being factual. How does that prove that Evolution is factual? Please provide a detailed explanation of how adaptation in itself proves that it is factual. Some of you have said that insects developing a resistance to pesticides are proof of evolution being factual. How does that prove that Evolution is factual? Please provide a detailed explanation of how adaptation in itself proves that it is factual. When the flu virus adapts to and resists antibiotics does it become something other than a flu virus? No it is still a flu virus. When fire ants adapt to and resist a pesticide that has been affective against them for years does this mean a new species of insect has developed? No fire ants are still fire ants.I could go on but I will stop here because I am confident that you are all intelligent enough to figure out what I am looking for. It is real easy to assert that you are smarter because you accept a certain line of thinking. But that does not actually make one intelligent. For instance an intelligent person is capable of understanding first what a theory is. Let us use the first definition provided at dictionary.com (Quick side point intelligent people also know that it is the Law of Gravity not the theory of gravity)Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomenaFirst off let me point out that nowhere in this definition or any other that I found does it state that a theory is fact. However it is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. No one disputes the facts used in the theory of evolution they dispute the theory. Therefore they dispute the statements devised in the explanation of the facts.The definition goes on to state that it is especially one that has been repeatedly tested. Now I for one cannot figure out how you test something repeatedly that according to the theory takes aeons of time to happen in the first place. I will not hold strictly to this point because some disagree.Some scientists have tried to simulate evolution by giving it some help. Such as by creating mutations in fruit flies or other species; all of these tests only proved that mutations can occur not that a new species formed because of them (the mutations were not repeating). A mutated fruit fly was still a fruit fly.The definition continues again or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. I admit that the theory of evolution is widely accepted no dispute here. And predictions could be made by anyone on anything so that cannot be disputed at this point.So all and all Evolution qualifies as a theory, but it is not a fact. As a matter of fact Merriam-Webster’s on line dictionary definitions 2-6 dispute that unequivocally.Theory:2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject synonym see HYPOTHESISNotice that under the reference to synonym it says to see Hypothesis.Natural Selection: Remember Darwin’s finches since his observations there has been opportunity for more scientist to make their own observations. In the 1970’s a research group led by Rosemary and Peter Grant studied these 13 species of finches. They discovered that during a one year drought, finches that had slightly larger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. The Grants initial conclusion was that if a drought occurred every ten years on the island a new species of finch might arise in only about two hundred years. However in the years following the drought finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Peter Grant and graduate Student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal “Nature” in 1987 that they had seen a “reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991 Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes.In 1966 evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffery Swartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.”Fossil Record: Presently world wide scientists have unearthed and cataloged 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Based on this evidence many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. Biologist Jonathan Wells after reviewing the fossil record wrote” At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well supported theory.”Please note that I have used quotations from scientist ones who see the evidence first hand and who admittedly are having trouble finding concrete proof of evolutionary change.If you have any concrete proof I would love to see it and I am sure they would love to see it as well.Thank you for you attention.