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

[Norman]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

Theories are not facts, even you admit it as is evident from your subtle yet entirely obvious change of the word to "describing facts".

Theories are also always falsifiable.

Anyway, did the evolution stop at the neck, inquiring minds want to know!

And what would you imagine could come along and falsify the theory of Evolution, and replace it with better science?

The theory of evolution is improved all the time, new publications practically every day. I think the problem here is that as a stupid liberal leftist, you don't understand how science works. Science is always falsifiable, I don't expect the theory of evolution (other than some specifics) ever to be falsified though, yet it's NOT a fact.

So did evolution stop at the neck or not? Can you answer the question? Do blacks have different brains than whites for example?

 

[nat4900]

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

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Darwin's theory is just that...a theory. He also got gemmules and inherited traits wrong. That and trace fossils which lack apparent sequential transition. That doesn't counteract adapting and overcoming though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

Theories are not facts, even you admit it as is evident from your subtle yet entirely obvious change of the word to "describing facts".

Theories are also always falsifiable.

Anyway, did the evolution stop at the neck, inquiring minds want to know!

And what would you imagine could come along and falsify the theory of Evolution, and replace it with better science?

The theory of evolution is improved all the time, new publications practically every day. I think the problem here is that as a stupid liberal leftist, you don't understand how science works. Science is always falsifiable, I don't expect the theory of evolution (other than some specifics) ever to be falsified though, yet it's NOT a fact.

So did evolution stop at the neck or not? Can you answer the question? Do blacks have different brains than whites for example?

lol, the guy who rejects evolution then tries to use it to score racist points. lolololol

 

[nat4900]

Darwin's theory is just that...a theory. He also got gemmules and inherited traits wrong. That and trace fossils which lack apparent sequential transition. That doesn't counteract adapting and overcoming though

Next, ignorant morons like you will argue that GRAVITY is ALSO a leftist theory.....LOL
......

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[Freewill]

Darwin's theory is just that...a theory. He also got gemmules and inherited traits wrong. That and trace fossils which lack apparent sequential transition. That doesn't counteract adapting and overcoming though

Next, ignorant morons like you will argue that GRAVITY is ALSO a leftist theory.....LOL
......

Being a bit disingenuous are you not? Gravity is a Law, evolution is not.

 

[Freewill]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

You point out the problem very well, thank you. Gravitation and Electromagnetism are not theory, they are law, provable. Evolution is a theory in that it can not be proved, it is merely plausible.

 

[Freewill]

I disagree. If you see, hear, or touch God you can know

Two serious questions then:

Do you feel that the God of the Christian Bible is "fact", as in 1+1=2, or is your relationship with God based on faith, which is the term we usually hear?

Also, do you really see, hear and touch God, or are you being metaphorical?
.

2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

Genesis 3:4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

Romans 1:17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Habakkuk 2:4 “See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we live by faith, not by sight.

1 Samuel 2:27 Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Did I not clearly reveal myself to your ancestor’s family when they were in Egypt under Pharaoh?

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Matthew 20:16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Casting pearls?

 

[Freewill]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

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

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

One thing to remember when discussing what other people think, especially about evolution. The discussion, just like this one, is seldom started by those who know the difference between theory and law. These types of threads are always started by those who want to try and prove someone else is a dumbass for believing what they believe. Those people starting the thread are usually some of the more closed people you could ever meet. Not an open mind among them. They accept theory as fact because that is what they want to believe, then they turn and vilify those who don't believe EXACTLY as they do.

Evolution is a hobby, it has no actually usefulness. It is not like the study of genetics it really doesn't matter at all if one believes in the THEORY or not. We can see genes, we understand DNA, we can study genetics and advance man. Evolution is just a plausible explanation for the variety of life that people who can see no other alternative can accept.

 

[PredFan]

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

Donald Trump does look he was the offspring of an Orangutan.

You misspelled Obama.

 

[PredFan]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

Theories are not facts, even you admit it as is evident from your subtle yet entirely obvious change of the word to "describing facts".

Theories are also always falsifiable.

Anyway, did the evolution stop at the neck, inquiring minds want to know!

A theory is a scientific explanation of observed facts.

Creation is a myth with absolutely zero facts.

 

[Freewill]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

Theories are not facts, even you admit it as is evident from your subtle yet entirely obvious change of the word to "describing facts".

Theories are also always falsifiable.

Anyway, did the evolution stop at the neck, inquiring minds want to know!

A theory is a scientific explanation of observed facts.

Creation is a myth with absolutely zero facts.

You don't accept yourself into evidence?

A theory is a plausible explanation of evidence.

Evolution can not and does not explain creation, that is another misunderstanding.

 

[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.

 

[PredFan]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

Theories are not facts, even you admit it as is evident from your subtle yet entirely obvious change of the word to "describing facts".

Theories are also always falsifiable.

Anyway, did the evolution stop at the neck, inquiring minds want to know!

A theory is a scientific explanation of observed facts.

Creation is a myth with absolutely zero facts.

You don't accept yourself into evidence?

A theory is a plausible explanation of evidence.

Evolution can not and does not explain creation, that is another misunderstanding.

Creation, with a capital C, refers to Creationism, a religious belief. It does not refer to the scientific creation of live on earth, if there is such a thing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The fact that we are still calling it the THEORY of Evolution rather than the LAW of Evolution suggests it cannot be proven withoit doubt.

The biggest problem here is that the Theory of Evolution can't be proven without doubt, but the theory of the Bible can't be proven with a single fact.

That's the difference.

Do you believe 99% certainty or 0% certainty?

The right wing view often seems to be, either 100% or nothing.

The key word is "belief" sorry a belief in evolution is not a fact .

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Donald Trump does look he was the offspring of an Orangutan.

Got to love liberal racism

 

[Norman]

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

Donald Trump does look he was the offspring of an Orangutan.

Got to love liberal racism

And delusion - he looks nothing of the sort.

It's the best when they combine racism and delusion - only then is the true regressive mixture reached!

None of them have answered my question yet. Does evolution stop at the brain or are there in fact differences in the say, IQs of the different races?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Darwin's theory is just that...a theory. He also got gemmules and inherited traits wrong. That and trace fossils which lack apparent sequential transition. That doesn't counteract adapting and overcoming though

Next, ignorant morons like you will argue that GRAVITY is ALSO a leftist theory.....LOL
......

Who said anything about evolution being a leftist theory you fucking moron..


A theory is just that a theory

And gravity is also a theory ...prove it to be fact?


I will wait

 

[Freewill]

Who on earth thinks theories are facts?

So you don’t think Gravitational theory and Electromagnetic theory are describing facts?

Theories are not facts, even you admit it as is evident from your subtle yet entirely obvious change of the word to "describing facts".

Theories are also always falsifiable.

Anyway, did the evolution stop at the neck, inquiring minds want to know!

A theory is a scientific explanation of observed facts.

Creation is a myth with absolutely zero facts.

You don't accept yourself into evidence?

A theory is a plausible explanation of evidence.

Evolution can not and does not explain creation, that is another misunderstanding.

Creation, with a capital C, refers to Creationism, a religious belief. It does not refer to the scientific creation of live on earth, if there is such a thing.

So? Creationism, using your term, has been believed by man since the dawn of man. There is no other plausible theory to the creation of life on Earth. What we do know is that life from non-life is an impossibility.