Some Republican Presidential Candidates Do Not Believe in Evolution

[Dirt McGirt]

So remember theres, "Natural selection", and theres "Evolution by natural selection".

They are the same thing.

 

[Vintij]

They are the same thing.

No there not.

Evolution means all living things are descendants with modifications.

Natural Selection, is a way of explaining how it works.


The forces of natural selection act on phenotypes, but only if there is a change in the genotypes of a population has evolution occured.

Meaning natural selection is happening everyday through phenotypes. Not evolution. If I learn how to play the guitar and become wealthy for it, my son wont know already, nor will he be adapted to play it already. Therefore evolution has not occured until he shows signs of natural guitar playing ability. Which may or may not happen. But natural selection has occured because I have best adapted to the conditions of my struggle for life and reproduced.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

No there not.

Evolution means all living things are descendants with modifications.

Natural Selection, is a way of explaining how it works.


The forces of natural selection act on phenotypes, but only if there is a change in the genotypes of a population has evolution occured.

Natural selection and evolution by natural selection are the same thing. Migration, mutation, natural selection, and gene drift are mechanisms of the evolutionary process. Natural selection plays a huge role in the evolutionary process and denying natural selection is denying evolution. Evolution cannot work without natural selection because taking natural selection out of evolution leaves you with a huge missing piece of the puzzle on why specific organisms survived and why specific organism did not.

I think you might want to read up on natural selection again. Evolution by natural selection is not a seperate theory on evolution, it is rather an integral part of it.

 

[Vintij]

Natural selection and evolution by natural selection are the same thing. Migration, mutation, natural selection, and gene drift are mechanisms of the evolutionary process. Natural selection plays a huge role in the evolutionary process and denying natural selection is denying evolution. Evolution cannot work without natural selection because taking natural selection out of evolution leaves you with a huge missing piece of the puzzle on why specific organisms survived and why specific organism did not.

I think you might want to read up on natural selection again. Evolution by natural selection is not a seperate theory on evolution, it is rather an integral part of it.

Yes I agree, but they are NOT the same thing. You corrected me on the Evolution by natural selection being the same as natural selection. But Evolution, by definition is not the same as Natural selection. And you can have one without the other. It is possible because Evolution takes billions of years, meaning right now......you can have natural selection in the wild, with no evolutionary mutations. So yes, you can seperate them. If you couldnt then every single generation of children would show visible signs of mutation or evolutionary type advances....And if that were true there would be no home run record, no fastest mile record, no nba single game scoring record, because all of these records would have been broken with the coming of each new generation. Therefore, evolution is not visibly taking place every generation. And if it is, Its more like De-evolution....because kids are not getting any smarter with the coming of brainless television and poor education systems.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Yes I agree, but they are NOT the same thing. You corrected me on the Evolution by natural selection being the same as natural selection. But Evolution, by definition is not the same as Natural selection. And you can have one without the other. It is possible because Evolution takes billions of years, meaning right now......you can have natural selection in the wild, with no evolutionary mutations. So yes, you can seperate them.

No where did I state that evolution and natural selection were the same. I only challenged your notion that natural selection and evolution by natural selection were different. I said natural selection is an integral part of the evolutionary process, meaning it's a mechanism that explains evolutionary theory.

 

[Vintij]

No where did I state that evolution and natural selection were the same. I only challenged your notion that natural selection and evolution by natural selection were different. I said natural selection is an integral part of the evolutionary process, meaning it's a mechanism that explains evolutionary theory.

"denying natural selection is denying evolution"

That is where you connected the two on a level that I am not 100% agreed to.

Because thinking in terms of science, yes EVOLUTION is a fact and alot of people (creationists) love to say that it is a theory, when in reality it is accepted as fact all over the world.

The first theory as to how the fact of evolution could occur meaning, the mechanism of evolution, was proposed by darwins Natural Selection.

natural selection as the mechanism or "cause" of evolution in general is indeed a theory.

There is no way to prove that this is how the fact of evolution has occured, we dont know for sure that the mechanism for this was darwins theory of Natural Selection.


Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

Which is why I said earlier that whoever raised there hand at the Rep. Debate about not believing in evolution, is ignorant and stupid. Because Evolution is accepted as a FACT. Nobody will become president without at least accepting that. Trust me america is tired of stubborn old creationists.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Yes I agree, but they are NOT the same thing. You corrected me on the Evolution by natural selection being the same as natural selection. But Evolution, by definition is not the same as Natural selection. And you can have one without the other. It is possible because Evolution takes billions of years, meaning right now......you can have natural selection in the wild, with no evolutionary mutations. So yes, you can seperate them. If you couldnt then every single generation of children would show visible signs of mutation or evolutionary type advances....And if that were true there would be no home run record, no fastest mile record, no nba single game scoring record, because all of these records would have been broken with the coming of each new generation. Therefore, evolution is not visibly taking place every generation. And if it is, Its more like De-evolution....because kids are not getting any smarter with the coming of brainless television and poor education systems.

You seem to be confusing natural selection with success. Also, you seem to be equating athletic records to some sort of phenotype, which they definitely are not. For example, the best athletes could be made through hard work and mental toughness, which come from nurture, not nature. Just because you hit a lot of home runs, that doesn't increase the number of children you produce. I don't see how these athletic records are applying a selective pressure on the number of offspring produced anyway.

I think that evolution is slowing down in humans anyway, since we have been removing these selective pressures in developed parts of the world. For example, we now have modern medicine to help treat disease, removing some of the pressure on the body to fight the disease. This is not to say that our immune systems will get much worse, but that in modernized parts of the world, disease does not apply a significant pressure to select for favorable mutations in the immune system.

Evolution and natural selection are somewhat connected. If you believe in natural selection, you must believe in evolution and vis-versa. Natural selection is broader though, and evolution is essentially a subset of natural selection referring to specific circumstances. Evolution is essentially natural selection under the conditions that the selected phenotype has an associated genotype.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

During the recent Republican Presidential Debate the question was asked, “Who doesn’t believe in Evolution?” Three of the candidates actually raised their hands: Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. The capacity to deny the overwhelming evidence that supports bio-chemical evolution spotlights their capacity for self-delusion. Moreover, it shows their ability to disregard a preponderance evidence in favor of a religious belief. In my opinion, no one with those characteristics should be President.

Religion is about belief, I think their is a proponderenance of evidence to show that god created the world in seven days. Remember once you are 100% convinced of anything, you are 100% wrong in my opinion, not saying you cant be 98 or 99%, but we shouldnt turn any debate into, im right your wrong. opinion is opinion, whether its global warming or evolution, thats my humble 2 cents.

 

[Superlative]

As for evidence.... There IS overwhelming evidence that within a species evolution occurs and works as advertised. I would say that that small piece is all but proven. The problem is there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory on the emergence of totally different species from an original species. That part is all assumptions.

Until the science can provide hard evidence that such occurs that part is simply wishful thinking.

"Each generation is a filter, a sieve; good genes tend to fall through the sieve into the next generation; bad genes tend to end up in bodies that die young or without reproducing.

Bad genes may pass through the sieve for a generation or two, perhaps because they had the luck to share a body with good genes. But you need more than luck to navigate successfully through a thousand sieves in succession."

...the genetic code is in fact literally identical in all animals, plants and bacteria that have ever been looked at. All earthly living things are certainly descended from a single ancestor.

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.

"The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."

"Every living organism around today, every organism that has ever lived can state with complete confidence that every single one of its ancestors successfully reached adulthood and produced at least one child, without exception. Every living organism can therefore trace its ancestral history all the way back to the earliest primordial life form.

"Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not...."


This is a little bit of Richard Dawkins,

I choose evidence over faith.

 

[Vintij]

You seem to be confusing natural selection with success. Also, you seem to be equating athletic records to some sort of phenotype, which they definitely are not. For example, the best athletes could be made through hard work and mental toughness, which come from nurture, not nature. Just because you hit a lot of home runs, that doesn't increase the number of children you produce. I don't see how these athletic records are applying a selective pressure on the number of offspring produced anyway.

I think that evolution is slowing down in humans anyway, since we have been removing these selective pressures in developed parts of the world. For example, we now have modern medicine to help treat disease, removing some of the pressure on the body to fight the disease. This is not to say that our immune systems will get much worse, but that in modernized parts of the world, disease does not apply a significant pressure to select for favorable mutations in the immune system.

Evolution and natural selection are somewhat connected. If you believe in natural selection, you must believe in evolution and vis-versa. Natural selection is broader though, and evolution is essentially a subset of natural selection referring to specific circumstances. Evolution is essentially natural selection under the conditions that the selected phenotype has an associated genotype.

Well, as I said before, Natural selection Is not Evolution. Dont you people read? Natural Selection is the Mechanism of Evolution. It is a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a fact and not debated. There is evidence that supports this fact, but new scientific discoverys have produced different theorys of The mechanism of Evolution (example- modern synthesis). If you dont know what im talking about then you are not up to date on science. Natural Selection IS a theory and It is NOT evolution, It is the theory of the Mechanism of Evolution, or the process in which evolution could take place.

If someone can show me identical definitions of the two, I will throw away my books and believe you.

Also

There has been no scientific observation of any permanent change in species through natural selection. There are plenty of proven cases of adaptation, which involves non-genetic changes. There are examples of natural selection changing the balance of populations within a species. Yet there are no known instances of a natural population experiencing a permanent, meaningful change.

So we know that evolution must have existed, but what we dont know is the natural selection was the mechanism behind it. Because our current studys have shown that short term natural selection always leads to short term changes as a result of the surrounding environments. But as soon as that environment returns to normal or homeostasis, then the process of natural selection reverses and goes back to the normal species that once existed. Which you can read about in the Neo-darwin studys of the bird and moth species.

So basically what im trying to say is, natural selection does exist in the short term, but to combine that with the long term effects of Evolution is not accepted as the best theory anymore... Because every single study that has been conducted using natural selection, resulted in no permanent (evolutionary) change in any species, only short term changes within that species and then the gradual return to the normal structure of the same population of species.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient.


I lean more toward modern synthesis.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Well, as I said before, Natural selection Is not Evolution. Dont you people read? Natural Selection is the Mechanism of Evolution. It is a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a fact. There is evidence that supports this fact, but new scientific discoverys have produced different theorys of The mechanism of Evolution. If you dont know what im talking about then you are not up to date on science, you are looking back not foward. Natural Selection IS a theory and It is NOT evolution, It is the theory of the Mechanism of Evolution, or the process in which evolution could take place.

If someone can show me identical definitions of the two, I will throw away my books and believe you.

They are not the same thing, but they are necessarily connected. You can't have evolution without natural selection, and vis-versa. Natural selection is equivalent to a car, and evolution is a specific type of car, say a new Toyota Camry. You are correct in saying that the definition of a natural selection and evolution are not identical, and analogously a new Toyota Corolla is not identical to the definition of a car. However, you are wrong in saying that you can have Evolution without natural selection. That is like saying you can have a new Toyota Corolla without having a car. See, it is possible for two things with different definitions to be necessarily connected.

 

[Vintij]

They are not the same thing, but they are necessarily connected. You can't have evolution without natural selection, and vis-versa. Natural selection is equivalent to a car, and evolution is a specific type of car, say a new Toyota Camry. You are correct in saying that the definition of a natural selection and evolution are not identical, and analogously a new Toyota Corolla is not identical to the definition of a car. However, you are wrong in saying that you can have Evolution without natural selection. That is like saying you can have a new Toyota Corolla without having a car. See, it is possible for two things with different definitions to be necessarily connected.

Did you not read my entire post? Natural Selection is not even widely accepted as the best theory of the mechanism of evolution? Yes natural selection does exist as a fact and plays a role in evolution, but it is only speculated that natural selection is the MAIN cause (Mechanism) of evolution.

Do you know what Modern Synthesis is?

Darwin was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.

2.It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.

3.It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

In other words, Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals.

Yes Darwin did discover natural selection and it is proven. But he believes that natural selection was the cause of evolution which is simply not proven. It may play a role, but it is not the mechanism of evolution, at least not without hard evidence. And with modern synthesis, we have genes and genetic drift as hard evidence.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Did you not read my entire post? Natural Selection is not even widely accepted as the best theory of the mechanism of evolution? Yes natural selection does exist as a fact and plays a role in evolution, but it is only speculated that natural selection is the MAIN cause (Mechanism) of evolution.

Do you know what Modern Synthesis is?

Darwin was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.

2.It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.

3.It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

In other words, Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals.

Yes Darwin did discover natural selection and it is proven. But he believes that natural selection was the cause of evolution which is simply not proven. It may play a role, but it is not the mechanism of evolution, at least not without hard evidence. And with modern synthesis, we have genes and genetic drift as hard evidence.

Don't take this personally Vintij but it's my opinion that you've really misunderstood the concepts of evolution theory. I'm under the impression that you just wiki'd natural selection and evolution in the last couple of days. I didn't want to call you out on it earlier but it's pretty clear you bungled very specific terms like mutation, adaptation, and natural selection while wrongly using evolution as a blanket definition. Darwin's theories on natural selection are sound and you've clearly misunderstood them. I think you're talking over your head.

 

[Vintij]

Don't take this personally Vintij but it's my opinion that you've really misunderstood the concepts of evolution theory. I'm under the impression that you just wiki'd natural selection and evolution in the last couple of days. I didn't want to call you out on it earlier but it's pretty clear you bungled very specific terms like mutation, adaptation, and natural selection while wrongly using evolution as a blanket definition. Darwin's theories on natural selection are sound and you've clearly misunderstood them. I think you're talking over your head.

Ofcourse darwins theorys are sound. Who said otherwise? He is a pioneer. It is your theory that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution, that is unsound. Science is always changing with technology and infact, the theory of evolution existed long before darwins time. He is the one who put research in, and gave it a real explanation. See I will admit that I know nothing about psychology, or neuroscience. I wont go into those subjects pretending otherwise. What I do know, is Biology and Astrophysics. Therefore I am inclined to speak my mind on the subject from what I have learned so far.

If you dont mind me asking, what are your main subjects of study? Because we all know political science, but I want to know what you love to speak about, and maybe you can enlighten me.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Ofcourse darwins theorys are sound. Who said otherwise? He is a pioneer. It is your theory that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution, that is unsound. Science is always changing with technology and infact, the theory of evolution existed long before darwins time. He is the one who put research in, and gave it a real explanation. See I will admit that I know nothing about psychology, or neuroscience. I wont go into those subjects pretending otherwise.

Huh??????? You're grasping now.

Natural selection and evolution by natural selection are the same thing. Migration, mutation, natural selection, and gene drift are mechanisms of the evolutionary process. Natural selection plays a huge role in the evolutionary process and denying natural selection is denying evolution. Evolution cannot work without natural selection because taking natural selection out of evolution leaves you with a huge missing piece of the puzzle on why specific organisms survived and why specific organism did not.

I never said that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution, what I said was that you can't challenge natural selection but still believe in evolution. Someone who leans towards "Modern Synthesis" should know that evolution is co-dependent upon natural selection and genetics.

What I do know, is Biology and Astrophysics. Therefore I am inclined to speak my mind on the subject from what I have learned so far.

How much do you know? You talking high school classes here? You just previously argued that evolution by natural selection was different from natural selection. You also wrongly referred to mutation as evolution; adaptation as evolution; you wrongly referred to a decrease in human performance to de-evolution; and you also said that evolution was dependent upon the theory of common descent, which it does not.

 

[Vintij]

Huh??????? You're grasping now.


I never said that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution, what I said was that you can't challenge natural selection but still believe in evolution. Someone who leans towards "Modern Synthesis" should know that evolution is co-dependent upon natural selection and genetics.


How much do you know? You talking high school classes here? You just previously argued that evolution by natural selection was different from natural selection. You also wrongly referred to mutation as evolution; adaptation as evolution; you wrongly referred to a decrease in human performance to de-evolution; and you also said that evolution was dependent upon the theory of common descent, which it does not.

Ok, now your are twisting my words. I said that Evolution by natural selection is different from natural selection itself. Meaning it is possible to study natural selection based on different organisms, without forcing the evolutionary theory that permanent change is needed to create natural selection. (which I have shown you that permanent change and mutation are not proven through natural selection based on several studys')

I never said mutation or adaptation is evolution, it is a sub-topic of evolution that natural selection can not explain on a major population type level, and on a permanent level without going back to its original nature.

Please show me where I said, literally mutation is equal to evolution, in that case, people with physical disorders have evoloved?

What I meant when I said natural selection is different from evolution is not that it has nothing to do with it....no that is not what I meant. What I meant was that natural selection alone, can not prove evolution as it has no explanation for genetic drift and other post darwin discoveries. Please show me the link where natural selection proves evolution exists!

I am not going around spouting that Evolution must exists because natural selection proves it. No I would never say something like that because I know it is simply not true and if it is, it is simply not proven yet. Natural Selection is a big part of evolution as we know it even today, but I do not personally believe it to be the main mechanism of evolution..I believe it may be a combination of things.. but that is only my opinion and granted Im not a scientist, but I am not someone who cant make predictions or form and test there own theorys. And ofcourse I have had and am still receiving a formal college education, but I am not tied down to the theory that all students are products of what they learn in school.

Also

I did not literally state that contemporary human performance is de-evolution, you are all wrong on that part. I was being sarcastic, and even boarder line comical when I said that.

Nor did I say that evolution is dependent on the theory of common decent. Again, If you read clearly....I was being sarcastic when I wrote about baseball players and performance. Please dont confuse that rhetoric with actuall research.

Dont confuse my argument with anti-darwinism or creationism. I embrace neo-darwinism and there would be no logical evolutionary theory without it. I just have my own opinion on the mechanism of evolution despite what everyone else believes. Surely with your masters degree you would understand that nothing is set in stone when it comes to science, and opinions are as far apart as our political climate.

I respect you and I have nothing against you at all. Infact I enjoy talking with you, and would love for you to enlighten me on more subjects. Do you have any recomendations for books or websites. I have been looking for a website to discuss science with other people on a message board or chat room.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Ok, now your are twisting my words. I said that Evolution by natural selection is different from natural selection itself. Meaning it is possible to study natural selection based on different organisms, without forcing the evolutionary theory that permanent change is needed to create natural selection. (which I have shown you that permanent change and mutation are not proven through natural selection)

I never said mutation or adaptation is evolution, it is a sub-topic of evolution that natural selection can not explain on a major population type level, and on a permanent level without going back to its original nature.

Please show me where I said, literally mutation is equal to evolution, in that case, people with physical disorders have evoloved? No I never said that.

What I meant when I said natural selection is different from evolution is not that it has nothing to do with it....no that is not what I meant. What I meant was that natural selection alone, can not prove evolution as it has no explanation for genetic drift. Please show me the link where natural selection proves evolution exists! Please I would love to see it. See I know evolution exists, and maybe im being a jerk by not buying into your general knowledge of neo-darwinism. But......I am not going around spouting that Evolution must exists because natural selection proves it. No I would never say something like that because I know it is simply not true and if it is, it is simply not proven yet. Natural Selection is a big part of evolution, but I do not personally believe it to be the main mechanism of evolution....That is my opinion.

I did not literally state that contemporary human performance is de-evolution, you are all wrong on that part. I was being sarcastic, and even boarder line comical when I said that. How can you take that seriously?

Nor did I say that evolution is dependent on the theory of common decent. Again, If you read clearly....I was being sarcastic when I wrote about baseball players and performance. Please dont confuse that rehtoric with actuall research.

Please stop confusing my argument with anti-darwinism or creationism. I embrace neo-darwinism and there would be no logical evolutionary theory without it. I just have my own opinion on the mechanism of evolution. Surely with your masters degree you would understand that nothing is set in stone when it comes to science, other than scientific laws.

As I stated in PM, I've no desire to turn this into a personal pissing match. You go ahead and believe what you want. But based on what you've stated about evolution, I reserve the right to think that you're either misinterpreting it or don't understand some of the principles of it. We'll have to agree to disagree.....even though you're wrong.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I respect you and I have nothing against you at all. Infact I enjoy talking with you, and would love for you to enlighten me on more subjects. Do you have any recomendations for books or websites. I have been looking for a website to discuss science with other people on a message board or chat room.

I don't frequent science message boards...threads like "how to construct your own lightsaber" don't hold my interest.




Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone here has ever started a thread on another message board about building lightsabers?

 

[Vintij]

I don't frequent science message boards...threads like "how to construct your own lightsaber" don't hold my interest.




Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone here has ever started a thread on another message board about building lightsabers?

What are you talking about, I OWN a lightsaber, its my first amendment right to bare a lightsaber. Im against lightsaber controll laws.

haha

I did come across this elitist type group though, I forget the name but they meet together once a year and discuss different things, with other high IQ type people. I doubt I could get in though, plus you have to pay.

 

[Mr.Conley]

evilution is teh debils works!11!!!1 lololol