Y or N? Do you believe in Evolution? Why?

[Jet2]

1. Yes.
2. Because I don't believe in god.

[Tormod]

1. Yes (although I'm uncertain as to what "tradition" implies)
2. Because it is a compelling scientific theory that is well documented.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

2) Because my dachshund is the missing link between puffadders, crocodiles, cane rats and Satan:

Awww... You can really see the Satan in the eyes.

[jab2]

Y
One would be a fool not to.

See my answer to your other thread at http://hypography.com/forums/biology...tml#post208879

[Pyrotex]

Yes
Because of all the fossils that link Man to our common ancestors with other members of the Ape family.
Because of all the fossil record.
Because of all the DNA record.
Because of all the common bio-chemistry among all life.
Because of all the evidence.
Because of all the facts.
Because of all the logic.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

1) Yes.
2) Because my dachshund is the missing link between puffadders, crocodiles, cane rats and Satan:

Boerseun,
what, pray tell, are you doing with a devil-dog in your house????

[Buffy]

1. Yes
2. Men are obviously an inferior species to women, thus providing endless, daily proof that evolution works.

Garden of Eden was very nice, Adam never work in Paradise,
Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

The believe in evolution in the sense of forward progression. Even religions and science have evolved over time. Where I depart is the traditional models do not tell the whole story.

For one thing traditional thinking places evolution in the hands of genetics, even though environmental potentials is what sets the potential for the genetics to adapt or change. Place clones in two different environments. Adaptations will not be random for both but specific to both.

The fossil data is discontinuous data. The life forms with the most units will be the ones we are mostly likely to find fossils of. That is why missing links are often not a significant part of this data. There were too few units to increase the odds of finding as many fossil as the big ticket items. This discontinuous data has led to theories that are discontinuous.

Selective advantage and survival of the fittest does not always have to mean evolution. The mammals are higher in the evolutionary chain than dinosaurs, yet dinosaurs had selective advantage when mammals first appeared. The shark has rather primitive genes, since it has not changed much in 100M years, yet it too has selective advantage and is a good example of survival of the fittest not being the most evolved.

Multicellular differentiation allows cells with the same DNA to specialize or narrow down the full genetic expression without the need of mutations. It is conceivable that the multicellular transition created diversity, without a single mutation being involved. Yet mutations will get all the credit.

Lastly the definition of life is still stuck at the level of philosophy. That means the science is something between science and science philosophy. Evolution is more slanted toward science philosophy. But unlike philosophy that has the requirement of reason, evolution is too dependant of a type of mathematical fortune telling called statistics. This is lower than reason. It is based on the middle age crystal ball, before reason was required.

To summarize; I believe in evolution. But I don't give to much credibility to science philosophy that is too dependant on irrational math. Even with the biased data, that crystal ball can pretends this is all that is needed. If it was more rational, then one would be able to see the many shortcomings.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

To summarize; I believe in evolution. But I don't give to much credibility to science philosophy that is too dependant on irrational math. Even with the biased data, that crystal ball can pretends this is all that is needed. If it was more rational, then one would be able to see the many shortcomings.

I don’t know to what math and evidence you’re referring, HydrogenBond. Can you be more specific?

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The believe in evolution in the sense of forward progression. .......

Selective advantage and survival of the fittest does not always have to mean evolution. The mammals are higher in the evolutionary chain than dinosaurs, yet dinosaurs had selective advantage when mammals first appeared. The shark has rather primitive genes, since it has not changed much in 100M years, yet it too has selective advantage and is a good example of survival of the fittest not being the most evolved.

Evolution is not about forward progression.

Mammals are not higher in the evolutionary chain than dinosaurs.

The shark does not have primitve genes (certainly not in the sense which you imply).

Hydrogen Bond, please stop making statements that fail to reflect the consensus understanding of evolution, unless and until you are prepared to offer reasoned argument or relevant citations to support these statements. Until that point those statements are not alternative views, but simply errors of understanding. Alternative views are welcome - that is how progress in the sciences are made - but these views must have a basis in fact, not be merely unsubstantiated statements, endlessly repeated.

Multicellular differentiation allows cells with the same DNA to specialize or narrow down the full genetic expression without the need of mutations.

What allowed cells to group together in the first place? That's right - mutations.
What allowed cells to 'narrow down the full genetic expression'?
That's right - mutations.

Variation, on which selection acts, is created in large measure - though not exclusively - by mutations.