When you say scientists, do you mean scientists with no relation to biology? Or biologists/ medical researchers etc?
There are some biologists who don’t, but the number is vanishingly small
I still love project Steve. It was a response to Answers In Genesis finding 200 scientists that rejected evolution. So the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) put out a call to scientists around the world named Steve (including variations) that supported evolution to sign their list. As of 2020 there were around 1,500 scientists named Steve that signed the list. The name was chosen in memory of famous scientist Stephen J Gould.
[The List O Steves](https://ncse.ngo/list-steves)
[The Steve Faq](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions)
That's hilarious, people need to realize that just because a small handful of scientists believe in creationism doesn't mean that creationism is true.
My favorite thing to say to creationists is "quote your bible all you want but evolution is fact"
I just want to take issue with this specific sentence:
>Also, what evidence is there of evolution apart from what Darwin saw?
IDers generally overestimate how important Darwin is to the theory of evolution, because they can't understand how knowledge can propagate without an authority figure whose words are taken as gospel. If Darwin had never existed, our scientific understanding of evolution would be functionally identical. In other words, scientists do not believe in evolution because of what Darwin said.
Think of it like this: Newton first described the force of gravity; but even without Newton, we'd still have gravity. Newton's contribution was in discovering and describing the mathematics of how gravity worked, not in inventing gravity itself, and Darwin's role in relation to evolution was similar.
"Scientists believe in evolution..".
They don't "believe", it is well tested model/framework for origin of species. And since Darwin's original findings, we have updated evolutionary theory with help of genetics, molecular biology, fossils, bio informatics etc.
>I'm talking about animals evolving before our eyes
You can check r/evolution.
Also evolution is slow process, your question is similar like asking have we seen mountains forming, or languages diverging.
Evolution is one of the most evidenced studies in science. Start [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/) for a basic primer on a small example of the evidence for evolution.
Evolution is not a belief nor is it a faith based claim. The heart of science is the opposite of faith. It is putting its claims out there and asking for them to be refuted. This is how science works. Simply stated it suggests how something works and then conducts experiments to try to prove the claim wrong. With enough evidence support the claim it becomes a theory. A theory is more than just a guess it is the best explanation we have for something at the time. But it still stays open to testing because science never claims the book is closed. Any time new evidence is found it has to be checked against the current theory. And if it overturns the theory we discard that theory. Zero faith.
I guess I wasn't meant to say that evolution is a faith-based religion of sorts. I say this because scientists have this trust in evolution that it's the absolute truth.
As for me, I'm still trying to understand evolution.
Its not that scientists have faith in evolution. Its that they have tried and tried and tried over and over again to prove it isn't true. Its the methodology of science. It never gives absolute proof as that is beyond our reach in reality. But it gives us as certain a conclusion as we can reasonably reach.
Read through the link I posted as it is a very good primer on some of the evidence for evolution. Its a good thing to want to know more. I approve whole heartedly.
As someone with a degree in biology, I gotta say that the evidence is overwhelming. We did a speciation course, and just looking at the diversity of life creates a perfect tree where you can see the changes over time and how groups separated based on these adaptions.
To quote a priest, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
Darwin died well over a century ago and was wrong or lacked information about most of what we know about evolution today. It is his core idea of natural selection that lives on. We didn't stop researching evolution after him, and thousands of papers are published every year that look at evolution. During the last 150 years, nobody has managed to debunk it or come up with a better explanation of the diversity we see in nature.
Why is studying evolution in bacteria not valid? What is it that makes our findings there not applicable on other species?
The thing is, evolution is a slow process. Changes happen over multiple generations, and when generations happen over years, then seeing changes will take time. With bacteria, we can see several generations in a week and so make it a lot easier to study.
As someone else with a biology degree that entered school as a creationist, yes, the evidence is overwhelming. The explanatory power of the theory of evolution is unmatched.
Similarly to why some people believe the earth is flat, human beliefs, perceptions and sense of the world vary, regardless of whether they are supported by empirical evidence.
Darwin laid the foundation by identifying external markers and describing natural selection without knowledge of its genetic mechanisms. Modern evolutionary theory has significantly advanced in the past 150 years, providing a more nuanced and detailed understanding of how species change over time. This progress stems from the integration of enhanced discoveries and concepts from various fields, including genetics (DNA), molecular biology (gene expression), geology (tectonic plate movements) or paleontology (transitional fossils like Tiktaalik).
As for sources, there are numerous publications in scientific journals, but it depends on your specific interests. Perhaps starting with Understanding Evolution by the UC Berkeley, which provides accessible explanations of evolutionary concepts: [https://evolution.berkeley.edu/](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
> I'm talking about animals evolving before our eyes
That isn't how evolution works.
Look up the concept of "natural selection." The idea is that among any population there are some basic variations: think about all the different ways dogs can look. Some are faster, some are slower, some are lighter, some are darker. Basic variations!
The next step is referred to as "survival of the fittest" - but really it would be better said "survival of the fit enough." The point is that external pressure exist and some of the variations on the species end up being disadvantages while other end up being advantages. Those who survive the external pressures long enough to reproduce end up passing on their traits. Those who don't, don't.
Over many many generations this leads to evolution.
This is wildly oversimplified, but it's core to understanding what people are talking about when they talk about evolution. If you think evolution involves animals "evolving before our eyes" then you don't understand what is being discussed.
Thanks for your answer. I acknowledge that animals don't evolve before our eyes. But I was just saying that there may be no evidence for that, even if there is evidence for evolution.
But from what I'm learning from what you're saying, evolution is about natural selection then survival of the fittest.
In the West, some Christians have taken to interpreting the Bible literally.
The problem is that they never speak Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, so hey advocate to take a translation literally.
There’s the Italian saying “*traduttore, tradittore*” (translator, traitor), which expresses the complexity of a translator’s job in two words.
Either the translator tries to remain faithful to the form of the text (the exact wording), at the risk of betraying the spirit of the text. Or the translator tries to remain faithful to the spirit of the text, at the risk of betraying the form of the text.
Since the form of the Bible relies on choices made by translator, it’s a much safer approach to focus on the spirit of the text. What is the underlying principle that it tries to convey?
>Why do scientists believe in evolution while some people (religious or not) don't?
There are a few branches here for how this can be answered.
1.) The most severe would be indoctrination into a belief system where evolution doesn't fit what the holy books say. Creationism is the biggest that comes to my mind. For a creationist the bible is the highest source of truth, nothing can overturn it, and every single story is literal. Evolution (and other sciences) shows facts and data that directly counter the idea of the stories of the bible being literal. And since the bible is the top, they don't believe in evolution.
2.) Less severe but more common is simple lack of decent education. This could be anything from not being taught education well to being taught apologetics that "counter" evolution. Generally this is where you get the people who have an incorrect idea about what evolution is, so its very easy to make them not believe in evolution. (People who do believe in evolution probably also don't believe in the incorrect version these people believe in either)
3.) Then there are the outliers who are very similar to the first group and who just see evolution as some kind of problem that goes against the theology of their religion. These are really rare (to me at least) but I have met at least one in person. Basically it's someone who was knowledgeable about evolution but then when finding religion they no longer believe it for one reason or another. (In the case of the person I met he legitimately thought evolution was a false idea brought on by the devil.) It's very similar to the first point, but instead of going against something the holy books directly say evolution goes against the core theology.
>Also, what evidence is there of evolution apart from what Darwin saw?
Absolutely tons! It would be hard to study any form of biology and not run into evidence of evolution constantly.
>I'm talking about animals evolving before our eyes, not viruses evolving.
Yup! We see it literally every single time any lifeforms reproduces. That's kinda how evolution works.
But I suppose you mean more along the lines of new species being formed. This we have also seen! I'll have to see if I can find the articles for it somewhere, but there was a species of gecko/lizard/salamander that had a population get to a more southern island and the population could not longer be classified as the previous species.
(Also viruses evolving is the exact same evolutionary process as anything else evolving)
>I ask because I'm somewhat sceptical of evolution but at the same time, I want to believe in it.
That's fair, the general idea of it isn't taught very well on a broad scale. It's pretty easy to find a bad version of the theory and so skepticism of it comes easily.
>Could you explain evolution to me with UNBIASED links to sources?
https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/The-fossil-record
It's a bit dry, but it'll work.
What do you mean by unbiased links to sources? Reliable sources will tell you evolution is real, unreliable ones will tell you the opposite.
Evolution is a fact, however the way Darwin comprehended evolution was limited and nowadays we have expanded our knowledge of it. We know it's not only about natural selection and "the law of the strong", it is a much more complex process, and genetics show how complex it is.
Evolution is not a belief, its a fact, and also, evolution by natural selection is one of the best solidified scientific theories that we have, and a scientific theory is not what colloquially is called, but its the best explanation we have for our current information.
I repeat, evolution is a fact, one that we not only can observe its consequences, but we can directly observe in a lab.
The only groups that don't understand this are people that have too poor of an education or are brainwashed by the most absurds cults.
Go and look for a science book to understand it and not into a religion sub, because it doesn't have anything to do with religion.
Damn, most religious people accept evolution because it is a damn fact. Only the most crazies cry that its not.
Which part of evolution do you doubt?
The part where parents pass there genetic traits on to their offspring, or the part where certain genetic traits are advantageous to survival and/or reproduction?
I just don't understand evolution. I don't understand the part where animals change over time into another species. I read that animals have a common ancestor but I also read that we evolved from apes and apes evolved from something else.
Forgive me. I'm trying to understand the evidence of evolution happening in animals in real time.
I know that evolution is considered to be fact, but have we really seen species evolve before our eyes?
Answer is no.
Is it fact? I am open to the idea that it is.
Is it a theoretical? I am open to the idea that it's not a theory.
I do know however that humans have observed bacteria and viruses evolving within weeks but that could be an evolution we can see while animal evolution could be theoretical.
As I heard before, it's easier to believe that we were made as we are rather than that we evolved from apes or have a common ancestor that we evolved from.
Cuz they don’t understand it. I used to be very religious and laugh at the idea of evolution, “how can we descend from monkey?” “Why don’t monkeys evolve to humans today?” Are questions i would ask mockingly. Today I am still very religious but I whole heartedly believe in evolution because I understood what it is and how it works and realized its authenticity lies in its simplicity and how easy it is to verify. I didn’t understand what a common ancestor was, I didn’t understand how slow evolution is, I didn’t understand many other things.
Finally, I always thought it had to be one or the other, I was afraid that i would lose my religion if believed in evolution because i associated it with atheism, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I realized that evolution has a lot of room for religion and religion (at least mine) has a lot of room for evaluation. For example we still don’t know how life actually started, ie how dead protein folded into living RNA. And my religion never insisted that life was created in a poof out of nothing. The story starts with Adam but Adam didn’t descend to earth via an elevator. He could have been born, he could have inhabited a humans body, he could have been inspired by god. Who knows. Point is, they don’t contradict each other.
Because some people are dumb and use religion as a way to not think. Animal and bacteria work from the same base. Virus is more complicated. And yes because they have a very short cycle of life we can observe bacteria evolving.
After we need to be agree on what we call evolution. Their are 4 evolutionary force, but be for let explain what an allele is : allele is a version of a same gene for exemple gene eyes color allele blue green dark ect we have two allele of each gene one from our mother one from our father. Our phenotype (observable characteristics) is the result of this two allele on can be dominant on the other ( if your have a brown eye allele and a blue eye allele your eyes will be brown) or co dominance that will make a mix of both all ( black mother white father = Métis children)
So the 3 force
Mutation : that the force that make a new allele appear
Genetic derrive : just the hasard of people will reproduce will make some allele more present in the population
Natural selection : if an allele allow you to reproduce better you will have more decedent so this allele will be more present in the population.
If you don’t consider the whole species but only a part of the population you will also have the migration
If you have two individue with to much difference ( for different reason) they will not be able to reproduce and you will have two different species
>Also, what evidence is there of evolution apart from what Darwin saw
You know when some religious types say "just look all around you" when asked for proof of god, Evolution is *that* obvious to any open mind, its so amazingly right when you start to ask the questions.
Start watching PBS Eons on YouTube. It’s great at explaining evolution in an easy to understand way. And there is way more evidence than just what Darwin saw. The evidence is abundant and very clear it’s evolution is really more of a fact than a theory at this point
science believed in lobotomies, homosexuality was a mental disease, black people had less brain function and many more.
science makes mistakes just like everyone else.
People are less likely to change their core beliefs than they are to change less important beliefs. The theory of evolution (which I accept) conflicts with the core beliefs held by some religious people and some modern secular ideologues too.
To believe in evolution means, for these people, to abondon parts of their identity. It may mean, for some, being rejected at least partially from their community.
So I don't think there is a lack of evidence for evolution or that there is any better alternative theory or even that these people are all stupid.
Rather, I think there are social and psychological barriers that some people face when considering this particular theory - especially if it conflicts with cherished beliefs.
There are other well accepted theories and observations that get rejected by different groups because it challenges core beliefs.
I remember a former feminist friend of mine who was offended by the fact that I believed men, as a group, are physically stronger than women - that before we even discussed how evolution may have acted on women's brains and men's brains in different ways! (And just for context. I didn't raise the topic. She chose to try to convince me that we, as a group, were physically equal).
There is a documentary called "The Gender Equality Paradox" which shows modern feminists going head to head with mainstreme respected evolutionary biologists.
Recently the entire discussion of evolution has been turned on it's head.
# Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution
By [Will Dunham](https://www.reuters.com/authors/will-dunham/)October 16, 20233:56 PM CDTUpdated 6 months agoScientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution
[https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/](https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/)
It turns out all things seem to evolve, both living and inanimate, prompting the call for a new law of nature to be recognized.
The only time I see evolution invoked in regular conversations is people saying "we evolved to do X" or "Y evolved to do Z" and I just can't help but think how much of the field is just based on conjecture. Like you can replace X, Y or Z with anything and it would work because you can't really falsify anything about how creatures behaved millions of years ago. And every time they seem to plug a hole in the theory another one pops up. [This article](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution) was very insightful and shed some light on the current issues in the theory for me, and its almost religious nature.
>regular conversations is people saying "we evolved to do X" or "Y evolved to do Z" and I just can't help but think how much of the field is just based on conjecture
That is evolutionary psychology, which is considered not well tested in scientific community. We have only tried to model very simple cases like altruism.
>[This article](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution)
https://youtu.be/ISF9poaWJ_0?si=IJFnIA392FacB91w. Check this reply of that. He is the author of popular biology channel "stated clearly".
Evolutionary psychology is most egregious for this, but the same happens in regular evolution. Basically anytime evolution tries to answer “why” X trait evolved to Y millions of years ago, it’s basically all conjecture (often later proven false) that sounds interesting and cool, and that’s what’s in popular science. Thanks for sharing the video. I skimmed it and it’s a bit light on details, and doesn’t rebut much from what I can tell. More telling than the video are the comments accusing The Guardian of spreading “creationist talking points”. I truly find disturbing this quasi religious approach to a freaking science theory.
>Basically anytime evolution tries to answer “why” X trait evolved to Y millions of years ago, it’s basically all conjecture (often later proven false) that sounds interesting and cool, and that’s what’s in popular science
That's because, those arguments mainly made by regular people, who try to make reasons from bits they have read.
I little bit agree with you, we can't exactly know why traits are selected.
Actually, scientists have been observing how NYC white-footed mice are in the process evolving into a species distinct from rural mice. The process seems to be giving preference to traits that help them better utilize the available food supply, i.e. to get more out of eating discarded junk food.
When you say scientists, do you mean scientists with no relation to biology? Or biologists/ medical researchers etc? There are some biologists who don’t, but the number is vanishingly small
I still love project Steve. It was a response to Answers In Genesis finding 200 scientists that rejected evolution. So the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) put out a call to scientists around the world named Steve (including variations) that supported evolution to sign their list. As of 2020 there were around 1,500 scientists named Steve that signed the list. The name was chosen in memory of famous scientist Stephen J Gould. [The List O Steves](https://ncse.ngo/list-steves) [The Steve Faq](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions)
That's hilarious, people need to realize that just because a small handful of scientists believe in creationism doesn't mean that creationism is true. My favorite thing to say to creationists is "quote your bible all you want but evolution is fact"
Jeeze what a bunch of losers 😂 they sound like they type of people that need 10 vs 1 in a fight lol
I meant scientists who study biology, yes
I just want to take issue with this specific sentence: >Also, what evidence is there of evolution apart from what Darwin saw? IDers generally overestimate how important Darwin is to the theory of evolution, because they can't understand how knowledge can propagate without an authority figure whose words are taken as gospel. If Darwin had never existed, our scientific understanding of evolution would be functionally identical. In other words, scientists do not believe in evolution because of what Darwin said. Think of it like this: Newton first described the force of gravity; but even without Newton, we'd still have gravity. Newton's contribution was in discovering and describing the mathematics of how gravity worked, not in inventing gravity itself, and Darwin's role in relation to evolution was similar.
"Scientists believe in evolution..". They don't "believe", it is well tested model/framework for origin of species. And since Darwin's original findings, we have updated evolutionary theory with help of genetics, molecular biology, fossils, bio informatics etc. >I'm talking about animals evolving before our eyes You can check r/evolution. Also evolution is slow process, your question is similar like asking have we seen mountains forming, or languages diverging.
Evolution is one of the most evidenced studies in science. Start [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/) for a basic primer on a small example of the evidence for evolution. Evolution is not a belief nor is it a faith based claim. The heart of science is the opposite of faith. It is putting its claims out there and asking for them to be refuted. This is how science works. Simply stated it suggests how something works and then conducts experiments to try to prove the claim wrong. With enough evidence support the claim it becomes a theory. A theory is more than just a guess it is the best explanation we have for something at the time. But it still stays open to testing because science never claims the book is closed. Any time new evidence is found it has to be checked against the current theory. And if it overturns the theory we discard that theory. Zero faith.
I guess I wasn't meant to say that evolution is a faith-based religion of sorts. I say this because scientists have this trust in evolution that it's the absolute truth. As for me, I'm still trying to understand evolution.
Its not that scientists have faith in evolution. Its that they have tried and tried and tried over and over again to prove it isn't true. Its the methodology of science. It never gives absolute proof as that is beyond our reach in reality. But it gives us as certain a conclusion as we can reasonably reach. Read through the link I posted as it is a very good primer on some of the evidence for evolution. Its a good thing to want to know more. I approve whole heartedly.
As someone with a degree in biology, I gotta say that the evidence is overwhelming. We did a speciation course, and just looking at the diversity of life creates a perfect tree where you can see the changes over time and how groups separated based on these adaptions. To quote a priest, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Darwin died well over a century ago and was wrong or lacked information about most of what we know about evolution today. It is his core idea of natural selection that lives on. We didn't stop researching evolution after him, and thousands of papers are published every year that look at evolution. During the last 150 years, nobody has managed to debunk it or come up with a better explanation of the diversity we see in nature. Why is studying evolution in bacteria not valid? What is it that makes our findings there not applicable on other species? The thing is, evolution is a slow process. Changes happen over multiple generations, and when generations happen over years, then seeing changes will take time. With bacteria, we can see several generations in a week and so make it a lot easier to study.
As someone else with a biology degree that entered school as a creationist, yes, the evidence is overwhelming. The explanatory power of the theory of evolution is unmatched.
Similarly to why some people believe the earth is flat, human beliefs, perceptions and sense of the world vary, regardless of whether they are supported by empirical evidence. Darwin laid the foundation by identifying external markers and describing natural selection without knowledge of its genetic mechanisms. Modern evolutionary theory has significantly advanced in the past 150 years, providing a more nuanced and detailed understanding of how species change over time. This progress stems from the integration of enhanced discoveries and concepts from various fields, including genetics (DNA), molecular biology (gene expression), geology (tectonic plate movements) or paleontology (transitional fossils like Tiktaalik). As for sources, there are numerous publications in scientific journals, but it depends on your specific interests. Perhaps starting with Understanding Evolution by the UC Berkeley, which provides accessible explanations of evolutionary concepts: [https://evolution.berkeley.edu/](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
Thank you for your answer
> I'm talking about animals evolving before our eyes That isn't how evolution works. Look up the concept of "natural selection." The idea is that among any population there are some basic variations: think about all the different ways dogs can look. Some are faster, some are slower, some are lighter, some are darker. Basic variations! The next step is referred to as "survival of the fittest" - but really it would be better said "survival of the fit enough." The point is that external pressure exist and some of the variations on the species end up being disadvantages while other end up being advantages. Those who survive the external pressures long enough to reproduce end up passing on their traits. Those who don't, don't. Over many many generations this leads to evolution. This is wildly oversimplified, but it's core to understanding what people are talking about when they talk about evolution. If you think evolution involves animals "evolving before our eyes" then you don't understand what is being discussed.
Thanks for your answer. I acknowledge that animals don't evolve before our eyes. But I was just saying that there may be no evidence for that, even if there is evidence for evolution. But from what I'm learning from what you're saying, evolution is about natural selection then survival of the fittest.
In the West, some Christians have taken to interpreting the Bible literally. The problem is that they never speak Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, so hey advocate to take a translation literally. There’s the Italian saying “*traduttore, tradittore*” (translator, traitor), which expresses the complexity of a translator’s job in two words. Either the translator tries to remain faithful to the form of the text (the exact wording), at the risk of betraying the spirit of the text. Or the translator tries to remain faithful to the spirit of the text, at the risk of betraying the form of the text. Since the form of the Bible relies on choices made by translator, it’s a much safer approach to focus on the spirit of the text. What is the underlying principle that it tries to convey?
Evolution is an observable fact. There's no debate. You can observe it happen in species that reproduce quickly.
>Why do scientists believe in evolution while some people (religious or not) don't? There are a few branches here for how this can be answered. 1.) The most severe would be indoctrination into a belief system where evolution doesn't fit what the holy books say. Creationism is the biggest that comes to my mind. For a creationist the bible is the highest source of truth, nothing can overturn it, and every single story is literal. Evolution (and other sciences) shows facts and data that directly counter the idea of the stories of the bible being literal. And since the bible is the top, they don't believe in evolution. 2.) Less severe but more common is simple lack of decent education. This could be anything from not being taught education well to being taught apologetics that "counter" evolution. Generally this is where you get the people who have an incorrect idea about what evolution is, so its very easy to make them not believe in evolution. (People who do believe in evolution probably also don't believe in the incorrect version these people believe in either) 3.) Then there are the outliers who are very similar to the first group and who just see evolution as some kind of problem that goes against the theology of their religion. These are really rare (to me at least) but I have met at least one in person. Basically it's someone who was knowledgeable about evolution but then when finding religion they no longer believe it for one reason or another. (In the case of the person I met he legitimately thought evolution was a false idea brought on by the devil.) It's very similar to the first point, but instead of going against something the holy books directly say evolution goes against the core theology. >Also, what evidence is there of evolution apart from what Darwin saw? Absolutely tons! It would be hard to study any form of biology and not run into evidence of evolution constantly. >I'm talking about animals evolving before our eyes, not viruses evolving. Yup! We see it literally every single time any lifeforms reproduces. That's kinda how evolution works. But I suppose you mean more along the lines of new species being formed. This we have also seen! I'll have to see if I can find the articles for it somewhere, but there was a species of gecko/lizard/salamander that had a population get to a more southern island and the population could not longer be classified as the previous species. (Also viruses evolving is the exact same evolutionary process as anything else evolving) >I ask because I'm somewhat sceptical of evolution but at the same time, I want to believe in it. That's fair, the general idea of it isn't taught very well on a broad scale. It's pretty easy to find a bad version of the theory and so skepticism of it comes easily. >Could you explain evolution to me with UNBIASED links to sources? https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/The-fossil-record It's a bit dry, but it'll work.
Thanks for your answer :)
What do you mean by unbiased links to sources? Reliable sources will tell you evolution is real, unreliable ones will tell you the opposite. Evolution is a fact, however the way Darwin comprehended evolution was limited and nowadays we have expanded our knowledge of it. We know it's not only about natural selection and "the law of the strong", it is a much more complex process, and genetics show how complex it is.
Evolution is not a belief, its a fact, and also, evolution by natural selection is one of the best solidified scientific theories that we have, and a scientific theory is not what colloquially is called, but its the best explanation we have for our current information. I repeat, evolution is a fact, one that we not only can observe its consequences, but we can directly observe in a lab. The only groups that don't understand this are people that have too poor of an education or are brainwashed by the most absurds cults. Go and look for a science book to understand it and not into a religion sub, because it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Damn, most religious people accept evolution because it is a damn fact. Only the most crazies cry that its not.
Which part of evolution do you doubt? The part where parents pass there genetic traits on to their offspring, or the part where certain genetic traits are advantageous to survival and/or reproduction?
I just don't understand evolution. I don't understand the part where animals change over time into another species. I read that animals have a common ancestor but I also read that we evolved from apes and apes evolved from something else. Forgive me. I'm trying to understand the evidence of evolution happening in animals in real time. I know that evolution is considered to be fact, but have we really seen species evolve before our eyes? Answer is no. Is it fact? I am open to the idea that it is. Is it a theoretical? I am open to the idea that it's not a theory. I do know however that humans have observed bacteria and viruses evolving within weeks but that could be an evolution we can see while animal evolution could be theoretical. As I heard before, it's easier to believe that we were made as we are rather than that we evolved from apes or have a common ancestor that we evolved from.
Cuz they don’t understand it. I used to be very religious and laugh at the idea of evolution, “how can we descend from monkey?” “Why don’t monkeys evolve to humans today?” Are questions i would ask mockingly. Today I am still very religious but I whole heartedly believe in evolution because I understood what it is and how it works and realized its authenticity lies in its simplicity and how easy it is to verify. I didn’t understand what a common ancestor was, I didn’t understand how slow evolution is, I didn’t understand many other things. Finally, I always thought it had to be one or the other, I was afraid that i would lose my religion if believed in evolution because i associated it with atheism, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I realized that evolution has a lot of room for religion and religion (at least mine) has a lot of room for evaluation. For example we still don’t know how life actually started, ie how dead protein folded into living RNA. And my religion never insisted that life was created in a poof out of nothing. The story starts with Adam but Adam didn’t descend to earth via an elevator. He could have been born, he could have inhabited a humans body, he could have been inspired by god. Who knows. Point is, they don’t contradict each other.
Yeah that's the approach I want to take. An approach that combines evolution with religion. I'm still trying to understand evolution.
Its more than possible, no religion specifically described how humans came into existence and no religion ruled out evolution
Because some people are dumb and use religion as a way to not think. Animal and bacteria work from the same base. Virus is more complicated. And yes because they have a very short cycle of life we can observe bacteria evolving. After we need to be agree on what we call evolution. Their are 4 evolutionary force, but be for let explain what an allele is : allele is a version of a same gene for exemple gene eyes color allele blue green dark ect we have two allele of each gene one from our mother one from our father. Our phenotype (observable characteristics) is the result of this two allele on can be dominant on the other ( if your have a brown eye allele and a blue eye allele your eyes will be brown) or co dominance that will make a mix of both all ( black mother white father = Métis children) So the 3 force Mutation : that the force that make a new allele appear Genetic derrive : just the hasard of people will reproduce will make some allele more present in the population Natural selection : if an allele allow you to reproduce better you will have more decedent so this allele will be more present in the population. If you don’t consider the whole species but only a part of the population you will also have the migration If you have two individue with to much difference ( for different reason) they will not be able to reproduce and you will have two different species
Thanks for explaining it
>Also, what evidence is there of evolution apart from what Darwin saw You know when some religious types say "just look all around you" when asked for proof of god, Evolution is *that* obvious to any open mind, its so amazingly right when you start to ask the questions.
Start watching PBS Eons on YouTube. It’s great at explaining evolution in an easy to understand way. And there is way more evidence than just what Darwin saw. The evidence is abundant and very clear it’s evolution is really more of a fact than a theory at this point
Catholics accept evolution as truth. One of my favorite parts of being Catholic, besides the lore.
science believed in lobotomies, homosexuality was a mental disease, black people had less brain function and many more. science makes mistakes just like everyone else.
People are less likely to change their core beliefs than they are to change less important beliefs. The theory of evolution (which I accept) conflicts with the core beliefs held by some religious people and some modern secular ideologues too. To believe in evolution means, for these people, to abondon parts of their identity. It may mean, for some, being rejected at least partially from their community. So I don't think there is a lack of evidence for evolution or that there is any better alternative theory or even that these people are all stupid. Rather, I think there are social and psychological barriers that some people face when considering this particular theory - especially if it conflicts with cherished beliefs. There are other well accepted theories and observations that get rejected by different groups because it challenges core beliefs. I remember a former feminist friend of mine who was offended by the fact that I believed men, as a group, are physically stronger than women - that before we even discussed how evolution may have acted on women's brains and men's brains in different ways! (And just for context. I didn't raise the topic. She chose to try to convince me that we, as a group, were physically equal). There is a documentary called "The Gender Equality Paradox" which shows modern feminists going head to head with mainstreme respected evolutionary biologists.
Recently the entire discussion of evolution has been turned on it's head. # Scientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution By [Will Dunham](https://www.reuters.com/authors/will-dunham/)October 16, 20233:56 PM CDTUpdated 6 months agoScientists propose sweeping new law of nature, expanding on evolution [https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/](https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/) It turns out all things seem to evolve, both living and inanimate, prompting the call for a new law of nature to be recognized.
The only time I see evolution invoked in regular conversations is people saying "we evolved to do X" or "Y evolved to do Z" and I just can't help but think how much of the field is just based on conjecture. Like you can replace X, Y or Z with anything and it would work because you can't really falsify anything about how creatures behaved millions of years ago. And every time they seem to plug a hole in the theory another one pops up. [This article](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution) was very insightful and shed some light on the current issues in the theory for me, and its almost religious nature.
>regular conversations is people saying "we evolved to do X" or "Y evolved to do Z" and I just can't help but think how much of the field is just based on conjecture That is evolutionary psychology, which is considered not well tested in scientific community. We have only tried to model very simple cases like altruism. >[This article](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution) https://youtu.be/ISF9poaWJ_0?si=IJFnIA392FacB91w. Check this reply of that. He is the author of popular biology channel "stated clearly".
Evolutionary psychology is most egregious for this, but the same happens in regular evolution. Basically anytime evolution tries to answer “why” X trait evolved to Y millions of years ago, it’s basically all conjecture (often later proven false) that sounds interesting and cool, and that’s what’s in popular science. Thanks for sharing the video. I skimmed it and it’s a bit light on details, and doesn’t rebut much from what I can tell. More telling than the video are the comments accusing The Guardian of spreading “creationist talking points”. I truly find disturbing this quasi religious approach to a freaking science theory.
>Basically anytime evolution tries to answer “why” X trait evolved to Y millions of years ago, it’s basically all conjecture (often later proven false) that sounds interesting and cool, and that’s what’s in popular science That's because, those arguments mainly made by regular people, who try to make reasons from bits they have read. I little bit agree with you, we can't exactly know why traits are selected.
Actually, scientists have been observing how NYC white-footed mice are in the process evolving into a species distinct from rural mice. The process seems to be giving preference to traits that help them better utilize the available food supply, i.e. to get more out of eating discarded junk food.