Do majority of Republicans think Theory of Evolution is a fact ?

[Rustic]

What???

Well, if we evolved from apes there shouldn’t be apes today!

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

I already answered that one today or yesterday.

Why wouldn't there be apes? Why are there many different species of apes? Once birds evolved, why isn't there just one species of birds? Get the point?

The apes that became us left the other apes in the forest and went walkabout into the savannas. Apes stayed in the forest. Two different environmental niches. No reason for apes to disappear.

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just do us a favour don't shove it in our faces like Matthew trys to do and we will accept it....just be normal and gradually do it.

Matthew? Sea level is up to my ass Matthew? That Matthew.

That dude's iceberg is leaking.

Lol ..i have to just tell you it's ok...

Just don't be a in your face douche bag..

Ok? We will accept it..

If you want chocolates and flowers, we have a problem.

No roses huh?

Well that sucks no pun intended

 

[MarkDuffy]

Don't know. I was just checking evolution section headlines from Science Digest. Sounds like a crazy hypothesis to me, but impacts would be a way to add energy to the system. I don't think they are trying to say that the biomolecules actually came from the meteorites. That is not necessary.

So you take this information on faith, since you don't know.

Scientists make lots of hypotheses. This was one from a recent paper. Might have merit or not.

I appreciate you are talking about this in a civil manner. My point earlier was actually that science ends up with no answer at some point as to what made the last thing on the list. What made the meteorite? There is some answer, then what made that, and so on. At that end point it requires faith that it happened on purpose or by random chance. That is what the argument is really about. Random chance is fatalistic. On purpose is optimistic.

Perhaps that is true, but biology is full of randomness. Just look at all the different types of people. Evolution needs the randomness.

 

[OKTexas]

More semantics, leave the damn thing alone and see what the outcome is..

Your continued babbling does not change that you are wrong.

Typical intellectually dishonest regressive, can't respond so you throw out and ad hom and declare victory. You're too stupid to even be funny..

You are progressively babbling goofy comments. That which is true is not ad hom. Foxfyre could not grasp that fact, either. Your "regressive are ignorant" is an ad hom by your standard.

That happens sometime when I have to deal with an intellectually dishonest regressive liar, wanting to just play word games..

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, if we evolved from apes there shouldn’t be apes today!

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

Because the common primate was not an ape. Ape's came AFTER the common primate.

LOL, we are still apes, members of the ape family; but we are not gorillas, chimps nor bonobos. We are also mammals, but we are not horses. We are also vertebrates, but we are not lizards.

Correct. However, if you look at the chart, we are hominid and apes and other monkey types are a different branch.

Quick and dirty chart.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't know. I was just checking evolution section headlines from Science Digest. Sounds like a crazy hypothesis to me, but impacts would be a way to add energy to the system. I don't think they are trying to say that the biomolecules actually came from the meteorites. That is not necessary.

So you take this information on faith, since you don't know.

Scientists make lots of hypotheses. This was one from a recent paper. Might have merit or not.

I appreciate you are talking about this in a civil manner. My point earlier was actually that science ends up with no answer at some point as to what made the last thing on the list. What made the meteorite? There is some answer, then what made that, and so on. At that end point it requires faith that it happened on purpose or by random chance. That is what the argument is really about. Random chance is fatalistic. On purpose is optimistic.

Perhaps that is true, but biology is full of randomness. Just look at all the different types of people. Evolution needs the randomness.

What is random about more protection from the Sun in some locations? Smaller stature in hostile environments? The organism is adapting and over time the organism and others like it do it as a group, then you have evolution. Randomness would be albinos.

 

[Darkwind]

A better breakdown

Ape Classification - EnchantedLearning.com

There used to be an all-encompassing chart of life classifications but I can't find it now.

 

[jc456]

What???

Well, if we evolved from apes there shouldn’t be apes today!

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

Because the common primate was not an ape. Ape's came AFTER the common primate.

How’s that work? Darwin got tossed?

 

[Markle]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

Grow up! You just look foolish!

 

[Darkwind]

Well, if we evolved from apes there shouldn’t be apes today!

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

Because the common primate was not an ape. Ape's came AFTER the common primate.

How’s that work? Darwin got tossed?

?? That is a strange question. That was just the breakdown and evolutionary branches of the Hominidae.

 

[jc456]

What???

Well, if we evolved from apes there shouldn’t be apes today!

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

I already answered that one today or yesterday.

Why wouldn't there be apes? Why are there many different species of apes? Once birds evolved, why isn't there just one species of birds? Get the point?

The apes that became us left the other apes in the forest and went walkabout into the savannas. Apes stayed in the forest. Two different environmental niches. No reason for apes to disappear.

Where’s that evidence?

 

[jc456]

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

Because the common primate was not an ape. Ape's came AFTER the common primate.

How’s that work? Darwin got tossed?

?? That is a strange question. That was just the breakdown and evolutionary branches of the Hominidae.

No, his photos showed man coming from apes and there were no branches that kept apes!

 

[MarkDuffy]

Your continued babbling does not change that you are wrong.

Typical intellectually dishonest regressive, can't respond so you throw out and ad hom and declare victory. You're too stupid to even be funny..

You are progressively babbling goofy comments. That which is true is not ad hom. Foxfyre could not grasp that fact, either. Your "regressive are ignorant" is an ad hom by your standard.

That happens sometime when I have to deal with an intellectually dishonest regressive liar, wanting to just play word games..

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Don't know. I was just checking evolution section headlines from Science Digest. Sounds like a crazy hypothesis to me, but impacts would be a way to add energy to the system. I don't think they are trying to say that the biomolecules actually came from the meteorites. That is not necessary.

So you take this information on faith, since you don't know.

Scientists make lots of hypotheses. This was one from a recent paper. Might have merit or not.

I appreciate you are talking about this in a civil manner. My point earlier was actually that science ends up with no answer at some point as to what made the last thing on the list. What made the meteorite? There is some answer, then what made that, and so on. At that end point it requires faith that it happened on purpose or by random chance. That is what the argument is really about. Random chance is fatalistic. On purpose is optimistic.

Perhaps that is true, but biology is full of randomness. Just look at all the different types of people. Evolution needs the randomness.

What is random about more protection from the Sun in some locations? Smaller stature in hostile environments? The organism is adapting and over time the organism and others like it do it as a group, then you have evolution. Randomness would be albinos.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I said the organisms in a population are random. Protection from the sun is a selective pressure acting on the random population of organisms and that is not random.

Evolution is random mutation (and other mechanisms) acted upon by non-random selection.

In your case, if lack of protection from the sun resulted in mortality, the randomness of the population would be helpful in causing evolution to occur. There would be some subset geneotypes that would already be closer to a solution to the environmental problems than others. These would have a differential survivability to continue to stay alive until evolution caught up with the changing environment. These genotypes would survive while less fit genotypes died out and would pass on these genes to the next generation. If the environment changed too quickly so that migration would not be a solution, we would then be talking extinction.

 

[OKTexas]

Typical intellectually dishonest regressive, can't respond so you throw out and ad hom and declare victory. You're too stupid to even be funny..

You are progressively babbling goofy comments. That which is true is not ad hom. Foxfyre could not grasp that fact, either. Your "regressive are ignorant" is an ad hom by your standard.

That happens sometime when I have to deal with an intellectually dishonest regressive liar, wanting to just play word games..

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You are progressively babbling goofy comments. That which is true is not ad hom. Foxfyre could not grasp that fact, either. Your "regressive are ignorant" is an ad hom by your standard.

That happens sometime when I have to deal with an intellectually dishonest regressive liar, wanting to just play word games..

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

 

[PredFan]

Maybe you could explain your question. The definition of theory is:
Definition of theory

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

The definition of fact is: a thing that is indisputably the case

Definition of plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable

So using those definitions, your question then becomes an Oxymoron: definition: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).

As can be seen the theory of evolution is not fact, but could be fact.

So EVERYONE would need to answer your question, "accept the theory of evolution as fact?" with the answer no. Your real question should be, do Republicans accept the theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation for the rise of man, or variety of the animals?

Plausible thus becomes the sticking point but to be honest to substitute fact for plausible seems to me to be a mistake. Or, it is not a mistake, it is a way that people word things to make their point seem more valid. I get from you question, you are actually asking, do Republicans accept the FACT of evolution, or are they a bunch of dumbasses? Again the oxymoron of accepting theory as actual fact.

Then we can get started on micro and macro evolution. It is pretty easy to see micro evolution. But in fact, micro evolution is merely adaptation, survival of the fittest. If the environment changes the animal usually dies, or adapts trait that allows the animal to live, but they stay the same animal with different traits. Those animals that can't adapt die as we have seen from the fossil record.

Macro evolution, where one animal turns into another completely different animal is harder to find the facts to support. Could be just a case of plausibility. In my opinion the fossil record does not support macro evolution. I am far from an expert but I do not see evidence of animals with 1/2 a developed eye. Or do I fully understand why an Ape, or whatever was the common ancestor to man, would move out of the habitat and develop into man. Usually migration of animals is based on pressure from things like availability of food. That would not seem to be the case in the migration of man out of Africa. Or maybe it is like spilling paint and man just grew out of Africa.

Which now gets us into the problem of evolution, did it stop? If man evolved from earlier man in Africa does that mean those in Africa are less evolved? (Africa used as a general term for the origin of man wherever that actually may have occurred.)

The polar bears, global warming isn't happening fast it is happening rather slowly over a period of time. So why have the polar bears not evolved to live in the changing habitat? If evolution theory is accepted as fact, wrongly, then it is the natural course of events for the polar bear to go extinct if it can not adapt or evolve. Who are we, as mere men, to get in the way of nature?

For me the plausibility of the rise of life from non life is not explained by the theory of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence of life starting from non-life. Considering the complexity of the human body it is more plausible to me that life didn't start by a remarkable set of chances all occurring when there was no reason for them to occur. i.e. a single cell evolving into two cells. Let alone DNA happening by chance, adaptation or random selection. Too complicated to believe we happened by chance.

So there really is only one plausible answer to the rise of man, one that since the dawn of man, has been believed.

Ever notice how Creationists never defend creationism, they can only attempt to attack evolution. 100% of the time, creation cannot meet the high standards they impose on evolution.

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. What makes you think things weren't created to adapt to changing environments?


.

Actually, as I have said twice in this thread, I believe just that.

But that is irrelevant to the post.

 

[OKTexas]

That happens sometime when I have to deal with an intellectually dishonest regressive liar, wanting to just play word games..

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

 

[PredFan]

Don’t believe we evolved from apes? I present every single liberal in the US as exhibit A.

Game, set, match.

 

[saveliberty]

Not sure what you are getting at here. I said the organisms in a population are random. Protection from the sun is a selective pressure acting on the random population of organisms and that is not random.

Evolution is random mutation (and other mechanisms) acted upon by non-random selection.

In your case, if lack of protection from the sun resulted in mortality, the randomness of the population would be helpful in causing evolution to occur. There would be some subset geneotypes that would already be closer to a solution to the environmental problems than others. These would have a differential survivability to continue to stay alive until evolution caught up with the changing environment. These genotypes would survive while less fit genotypes died out and would pass on these genes to the next generation. If the environment changed too quickly so that migration would not be a solution, we would then be talking extinction.

We all have levels of melanin, nothing random about that. There is diversity in the level. You are talking about natural selection, which leads to evolution.