Only 39% of Americans believe in Evolution!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do you ever think a species can devolve?

I said a "general" positive direction. Sometimes something doesn't adapt fast enough, or the changes it makes are disastrous to its long term situation. Evolution doesn't always mean positive - that's what people get wrong when they say we "evolved from" monkeys.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

When a species calls for sacrifice, lowers standards of what it accepts either physically or mentally and seeks to pawn off responsibility off themselves so they deprive themselves of skills or the need to use skilled problem solving are they not devolving?
When you look at what Liberalism is, it is calling for sacrifice in the green movement, lowering standards in education, and strength for that matter, and seeking to push responsibility away from the individual, how can one not believe the 2 are tied together?
Perhaps Liberalism is a defence against overpopulation, but it's unneeded because it would be dangerous for humans to fall out of being the highest creature and population numbers are not going to all of a sudden fall from overhunting or overgathering of food, because of farming and human knowhow.

I don't think liberalism derives much from evolution any more than any other political ideology dano.

 

[Cancel10]

if you don't subscribe to evolutionary theory you're a fucking retard.

That is a half-truth. Abiogenesis requires as much faith as that of any religion, if not more so. And it is not theoretical at all - it is based on a set of assumptions (guesses), making it a hypothesis. It cannot be observed, because it has never been demonstrated, and no plausible mechanism whereby such a process can indeed occur has ever been put forth. Variation by contrast is a fact/law, and anyone who rejects it is denying reality. So I suppose the question is, what do you mean by evolution?

Does it make you feel superior to generalize an entire group of people as "fucking retards" without even understanding precisely what they believe?

 

[Cancel3]

I think applying the concepts of evolution to the political scene is risky. At best you have some over simplified explanation of what has happened in the past.

Biological evolution (which started with Darwin) is the best explanation of how the diversity of species has come about.

Yes, it is a Theory. But the scientific definition of a "Theory" is a far cry from guesses. There is a massive amount of data that supports this Theory.

The fact that some think that believing in evolution negates or harms their faith is, in my humble opinion, a reflection of their own rigid thinking.

 

[Immanuel]

That is a half-truth. Abiogenesis requires as much faith as that of any religion, if not more so. And it is not theoretical at all - it is based on a set of assumptions (guesses), making it a hypothesis. It cannot be observed, because it has never been demonstrated, and no plausible mechanism whereby such a process can indeed occur has ever been put forth. Variation by contrast is a fact/law, and anyone who rejects it is denying reality. So I suppose the question is, what do you mean by evolution?

That would have had to have been my first question to the pollster. If they gave one of their, "just answer the question, answers". I would have hung up on them.

Okay, the truth is, I don't bother to even answer their calls in the first place, thank you Caller ID (one of the greatest evolutions of the communications field if you ask me) but if they had actually gotten through by mistake, I would have asked them that question first and then hung up on them.

Immie

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Maybe Canadians did evolve from monkeys, and Americans didn't.

Either that or southern Rednecks are just plain ignorant of science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Darwin's Natural Selection and modern Evolutionary theory are very different. Most reject what Darwin actually put forward, and only celebrate because he got the ball rolling (like Freud, who has been even more pwned by modern psychology).

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a less evolved state of ourselves which monkeys also evolved from. Monkeys are not a "less evolved" form of human. They are equally evolved. It's impossible for one form of life to be "more evolved" than another, since they've all been evolving for the exact same amount of time.

And yeah, Freud is basically pseudoscience. My teacher told me that everything they taught about Freud in psychology, they only taught it so that they could tell them why that opinion was wrong (she thought it was stupid that they even mentioned him outside of the history section). Darwin is much more respectable a scientist than Freud.

If what you are trying to say is that biological evolution is not linear, then you are correct.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Spencers social Darwinism was a truly absurd idea, which I believe contradicted itself. If the fittest truly did rise to the top, they'd be at the top now, making sure everyone has their basic and that we have a functioning and healthy society (although conservatives keep us from realizing this, because they still accept social darwinism). The idea that if force ourselves to refrain from altruism everything will be better off was idiotic.

And evolution doesn't always produce the best possible path anyway - it just works in a general positive direciton.

No it doesn't. Biological evolution is completely "non-directional".

An important note. Biologist were the first to reject Social Evolution as being "non-science".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Do you ever think a species can devolve? Sort of like auto-protection against natural feeling of ease of life (perhaps as overpopulation protection)?
When a species calls for sacrifice, lowers standards of what it accepts either physically or mentally and seeks to pawn off responsibility off themselves so they deprive themselves of skills or the need to use skilled problem solving are they not devolving?
When you look at what Liberalism is, it is calling for sacrifice in the green movement, lowering standards in education, and strength for that matter, and seeking to push responsibility away from the individual, how can one not believe the 2 are tied together?
Perhaps Liberalism is a defence against overpopulation, but it's unneeded because it would be dangerous for humans to fall out of being the highest creature and population numbers are not going to all of a sudden fall from overhunting or overgathering of food, because of farming and human knowhow.

This is complete nonsense. You don't understand what biological evolution is or how it works or you wouldn't possibly be making such silly comments.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I agree, it was simplistic at best, and never was well explained. Simply put, the "fittest" might be the most physically strong in the wild; those that prevailed in conflicts would be the victors in mating, etc. and their progeny would carry the species forth. That doesn't address the "fitness" concept in more complex species, and this was never well considered and hence poorly if at all defined.

and none of this has anything to do about biological evolution.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't think liberalism derives much from evolution any more than any other political ideology dano.

Oh his comments are completely asinine. He's just making an adhominin attack on liberalism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think applying the concepts of evolution to the political scene is risky. At best you have some over simplified explanation of what has happened in the past.

Biological evolution (which started with Darwin) is the best explanation of how the diversity of species has come about.

Yes, it is a Theory. But the scientific definition of a "Theory" is a far cry from guesses. There is a massive amount of data that supports this Theory.

The fact that some think that believing in evolution negates or harms their faith is, in my humble opinion, a reflection of their own rigid thinking.

So far you're the only person who's posted that shows any understanding of evolutionary theory. This, as a biologist, is what frustrates me most about the polticization of evolution. It is so poorly taught to the general public that most people just simply don't understand it at all because it was never properly taught to them in order to avoid conflict and controversy.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is a half-truth. Abiogenesis requires as much faith as that of any religion, if not more so. And it is not theoretical at all - it is based on a set of assumptions (guesses), making it a hypothesis. It cannot be observed, because it has never been demonstrated, and no plausible mechanism whereby such a process can indeed occur has ever been put forth. Variation by contrast is a fact/law, and anyone who rejects it is denying reality. So I suppose the question is, what do you mean by evolution?

Does it make you feel superior to generalize an entire group of people as "fucking retards" without even understanding precisely what they believe?

And what does the hypothesis of abiogensis have to do with evolutionary theory? Hardly anything. One is an unsubstantiated hypothesis the other is a proven scientific theory.

Evolutionary theory is stated as "A shift in allele frequency with in a population over time". This fact is based on three biological laws of nature first formulated by Darwin. The law of inheritance. The law of variation and The Law of superfecundancy which, when taken together, form the process of natural selection.

Now, please explain to me where faith is involved in these easily observable facts?

 

[Topspin]

evolution is an uneven process, look at knuckle dragging Dixie for christ sakes.

 

[KingCondanomation]

This is complete nonsense. You don't understand what biological evolution is or how it works or you wouldn't possibly be making such silly comments.

Of course I understand what it is, nor was I attempting to explain it, I was expounding on it with a suggested theory. Anyone who actually READ what I wrote can see that.
Why do lemmings jump off cliffs? Why does anthropological records of many civilizations show sacrifice of victims in poor harvests? And sacrifice of material goods in good times?
Darwin's theory applies well to individuals, with social or pack animals, they often demand what is best for the whole or common good.

Liberalism or any leftish communal ideology is completely in synch with that. Look at the slaughter of the 20th century under Communist/Socialist regimes, look at the sacrifice they demand now.
You are just unable to be critical of your own political beliefs in even attempting to entertain the possible notion that your ideology could derive from something darker and more primitive and I would also add (as for the reasons I mentioned before) - outdated.

 

[Onceler]

Of course I understand what it is, nor was I attempting to explain it, I was expounding on it with a suggested theory. Anyone who actually READ what I wrote can see that.
Why do lemmings jump off cliffs? Why does anthropological records of many civilizations show sacrifice of victims in poor harvests? And sacrifice of material goods in good times?
Darwin's theory applies well to individuals, with social or pack animals, they often demand what is best for the whole or common good.

Liberalism or any leftish communal ideology is completely in synch with that. Look at the slaughter of the 20th century under Communist/Socialist regimes, look at the sacrifice they demand now.
You are just unable to be critical of your own political beliefs in even attempting to entertain the possible notion that your ideology could derive from something darker and more primitive and I would also add (as for the reasons I mentioned before) - outdated.

This is so melodramatic.

Liberals aren't evil people, Dano.

 

[Topspin]

its music to my ears,
4 yrs ago republicans got beat like rented mules
2yrs ago same strategy and they get beat as bad as Ohio State
I'm loving the same strategy, Steele outta be good for some serious republican seats lost a couple years from now.

 

[Cancel3]

So far you're the only person who's posted that shows any understanding of evolutionary theory. This, as a biologist, is what frustrates me most about the polticization of evolution. It is so poorly taught to the general public that most people just simply don't understand it at all because it was never properly taught to them in order to avoid conflict and controversy.

Thanks Mott. Perhaps I should have gone on to teach high school biology, but the money lured me elsewhere.

The average person's understanding of biology is sad.

 

[DamnYankee]

Either that or southern Rednecks are just plain ignorant of science.

Why would you call me a redneck?