do you believe in evolution and why if you do?

[potluck6]

i'm having trouble believing in evolution yes there are some people who look ape like for instance black men from africa not saying anything in a bad way., but how in the world did we evolve for millions of years.also how can scientists say 150million years ago this was going on way to difficult to prove

[Snoozey]

Well if you consider the evidence there is no denying that evolution exists. Many of the "missing links" have been found and there is a fish that can survive on land!
I have a friend who doesn't believe in evolution, and even her mom thinks it's stupid of her (they are both Christian)

[Falconer02]

i'm having trouble believing in evolution yes there are some people who look ape like for instance black men from africa not saying anything in a bad way., but how in the world did we evolve for millions of years.also how can scientists say 150million years ago this was going on way to difficult to prove

Because of things like well-known Atavisms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism ) and the massive fossil record containing millions of ancestral organisms that scientists have found and recorded information about throughout the world. It's hard to argue against things that the individual has within their own genetic makeup.

Heck, even pesticide resistance is a picture-proof example of microevolution- http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Pesticide_resistance.asp

Btw we all look like apes, but remember that evolution does not say that we are apes. Humans and apes just ascended from a more "ancient breed" of mammal (to put it as lightly as I can). Do some more research on it though-- the more you read up on it, the more fascinating the world will be to you.  

Well if you consider the evidence there is no denying that evolution exists. Many of the "missing links" have been found and there is a fish that can survive on land! I have a friend who doesn't believe in evolution, and even her mom thinks it's stupid of her (they are both Christian)

I wouldn't label that as stupidity (as referring to someone who is mentally challenged). It's just blatant ignorance and fear of change since they're comfortable with mythology rather than the mysteries that nature holds. Or it could just be laziness :-/

[potluck6]

wow this place is great you can ask a question and get an answer i'm going to look into the websites suggested  thanks

[mardukblood2009]

Yes, it all makes sense. If idiots havn't stuck their religion in the equation it would make sense to everybody. If you watch the show Ancient Aliens they will tell you aliens had a hand at it too. Aliens or God, I would put my money on aliens anyday of the week because at least that is really possible. 

[Falconer02]

Yes, it all makes sense. If idiots havn't stuck their religion in the equation it would make sense to everybody. If you watch the show Ancient Aliens they will tell you aliens had a hand at it too. Aliens or God, I would put my money on aliens anyday of the week because at least that is really possible.  

A lot of people tend to mistake that evolution encompasses the origin of life. You're actually referring to Abiogenesis in this quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

And yes, religion should definitely stay out of science all together. Creationism and ID are laughably absurd pseudoscientific movements that preach the dumbing down of our country and I do believe it's a part of the reason why education had really plummeted and remains stagnant in the US.

[Abrupt]

I also agree that evolution does not propose an origin of life.  It does suggest an origin of modern man.  I don't support the total idea of evolution as it has way too many holes in it.  I find the adaption/mutation parts perfectly acceptable though.  For evolution to work as it suggested there would have to a mechanism that allows for the senses to recode the dna, and while this may be possible I have never seen them offer any support of this or even suggested it as a possibility.  Basically, my current acceptance of evolution only includes adaption and mutations and not the bulk of the rest of it that relies on one 'pretending and ignoring'.  Now DNA is complex and there are 'hidden timers' within it.  I have no problems with these timers being triggered by internal/external/counter/duration/or other such events (not suggesting that they are or are not setup with that in mind, mind you).  I see symmetry in form and am immediately drawn to such a way of thinking and perhaps this is partly from my familiarity with programming and loops and recursive calls and my personal experience with aberrant results from a lack of bounds checking in values and memory handling.  My coding memories are but simple compared to the complexity of DNA and life and the addition of an expansive and indeterminate degree of external variables and interactions.  I could well see a working and believable explanation of evolution within such conditions as I put forth, but that isn't what I see suggested by the current 'science' (cough) of evolution.  To me it seems that most of the proponents of evolution are so afraid to expose the weaknesses and problems with it (something a true scientist would immediately do) that I have to be dubious about anything they put forth when trying to qualify most of their efforts as science.  For the most part I see them as advocates of some sort of 'magic' more than a science, but perhaps I am too critical when people try to bullshit me too much.

Regarding the aliens reference earlier.  I for one believe there is other life out there, but if you cannot see the problems with your suggestion of us requiring alien intervention to explain our existence you should really take a step back and apply the same reasoning to explain the aliens existence.

[falcon9]

I also agree that evolution does not propose an origin of life.  It does suggest an origin of modern man.  I don't support the total idea of evolution as it has way too many holes in it.  I find the adaption/mutation parts perfectly acceptable though.  For evolution to work as it suggested there would have to a mechanism that allows for the senses to recode the dna, and while this may be possible I have never seen them offer any support of this or even suggested it as a possibility.  Basically, my current acceptance of evolution only includes adaption and mutations and not the bulk of the rest of it that relies on one 'pretending and ignoring'.  Now DNA is complex and there are 'hidden timers' within it.  I have no problems with these timers being triggered by internal/external/counter/duration/or other such events (not suggesting that they are or are not setup with that in mind, mind you).  I see symmetry in form and am immediately drawn to such a way of thinking and perhaps this is partly from my familiarity with programming and loops and recursive calls and my personal experience with aberrant results from a lack of bounds checking in values and memory handling.  My coding memories are but simple compared to the complexity of DNA and life and the addition of an expansive and indeterminate degree of external variables and interactions.  I could well see a working and believable explanation of evolution within such conditions as I put forth, but that isn't what I see suggested by the current 'science' (cough) of evolution.  To me it seems that most of the proponents of evolution are so afraid to expose the weaknesses and problems with it (something a true scientist would immediately do) that I have to be dubious about anything they put forth when trying to qualify most of their efforts as science.

The 'theory of evolution' is just that; a theoretical hypothesis put forth to account for the observed evidence.  Unexplained gaps and the like are addressed by some within their fields of study just as they are in other fields.  Whereas the proponents of such outre' "theories" as creationism are loathe to confront the glaring lack of supportive evidence for their 'theories'.  The scientific method is applied to test the theory of evolution, that theory is not a "science" in of of itself.  Conversely, when the scientific method is applied to faith-based ideas, those evaporate more quickly than reason in a church.

For the most part I see them as advocates of some sort of 'magic' more than a science, but perhaps I am too critical when people try to bullshit me too much.

Oddly enough, advocates of creationism, (an implied opposing theory to evolution, not one you overtly proposed), rely completely upon some sort of "magic" as the basis for their belief.  Conversely, there is nothing inherently 'magical' about the mutation/adaptation phases you concurred with above.

Regarding the aliens reference earlier.  I for one believe there is other life out there, but if you cannot see the problems with your suggestion of us requiring alien intervention to explain our existence you should really take a step back and apply the same reasoning to explain the aliens existence.

You're apparently alluding to a 'first cause' premise; an inherent assumption questioning how anything came about to mutate/adapt.  My personal theory involves emergent phenomenon and chaos theory in a specialized sense, (e.g., "islands of stability/order" as emergent phenomenon).  In this theory, there was no 'beginning' in the sense of a primary cause because the emergent theory is a cyclic one, (no big bang or steady-state).

[diala84]

Yes I believe in evolution because you can see it in progress even by looking at your family lineage. By looking at the traits that you get from the relatives you can see how genetics played a part in making you who you are today. Wearing glasses, height, eye color, body shape, genetic defects, etc.. can often be found by looking at a persons family heritage.

Now this is a small scale example but given a much larger scale of time doesn't it make sense that certain traits would be more common over time if they were in response to certain environmental concerns. This can happen with all life forms but much more quickly for lifeforms that use dna from two sources to reproduce. These changes are very slow and take a long time to develop but over time it can even change one species into a different one.

This can also be seen by the fact that sometimes two different species can produce offspring like in the case of a horse and donkey mating and producing a mule/hinny. I saw an article a couple days ago that shows two species of shark reproducing so that they can survive in a colder climate.

Origin of life however is thus far unexplained by science and just because one believes in god or creationism doesn't mean that evolution in general is impossible. Science doesn't have to be an enemy to religion it is only taking it's own approach to explain the world around us. 

[sigmapi1501]

I laughed when I read the original post.  He/she says black guys look like apes but follows it with "not saying anything in a bad way".  Classic. it's like the "no offense but.... (extremely offensive remark)"   I love the hillbillies on this forum.

[handllucas]

I believe in evolution to a point. I think God created the earth, heavens and it's inhabiants. However each species could have evolved, or made some changes to adapt to environment. I do NOT believe that one species evolved into another. We are in NO MEANS descendants of apes.

[ladavia89]

I've personally never seen any person that looks like an ape but I'm also not an ignorant racist that thinks no offense overrules whatever offensive comment you just made

Back to the topic. Obviously people and things have evolved throughout time to better adapt to their surroundings. That is about as far as the majority people will agree on.

I am a little concerned that someone will more readily believe in aliens than a god.To each their own I suppose

[duroz]

says black guys look like apes but follows it with "not saying anything in a bad way".  Classic. it's like the "no offense but.... (extremely offensive remark)"   I love the hillbillies on this forum.

I've personally never seen any person that looks like an ape but I'm also not an ignorant racist that thinks no offense overrules whatever offensive comment you just made

TY both!!

I am a little concerned that someone will more readily believe in aliens than a god.To each their own I suppose

I am also a little concerned (appalled) that someone in the year 2012 actually says something like this to other people:

yes there are some people who look ape like for instance black men from africa

[Falconer02]

I am a little concerned that someone will more readily believe in aliens than a god.To each their own I suppose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r0lO5nFEBA

[falcon9]

I am a little concerned that someone will more readily believe in aliens than a god.To each their own I suppose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r0lO5nFEBA

Bravo.  Unfortunately, the lack of substantive evidence for their specious religious beliefs does not deter the believers.  This provides circumstantial evidence of them being berift of critical thinking and resorting to 'blind faith.'  This wouldn't be much of a concern were it not for the potential, (and actuality), of irrational religious influence over the lives of others who eschew it.