Totally shocking. Only 26%?
I don't know anyone who really believes the Biblical version of evolution. Do you?
Does anyone on these forums believe God created the world, with Adam and Eve being our first ancestors? It seems unbelievable to me. Ok I can accept a few Mormon kids in middle America still believing this crap, but 74% of Americans?
There are either a lot of uneducated Americans, or a lot are just paying lip service to religious belief.........maybe to help them progress?
26% of Americans accept Darwinism
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
26% of Americans accept Darwinism
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 26% of Americans accept Darwinism
[quote]if we evolved from monkeys then why do monkeys still exist?[/quote]
Are you taking the michael? No - drinking?
[quote]how come all the other monkeys didnt evolve.[/quote]
Drinking and taking the piss. (they all have evolved btw)
[quote]if evolution is about survival then those monkeys should be dead.[/quote]
What? Why?
[quote]also since when in the history of mankind did you ever hear or anyone every born with any sort of defect that was actually an IMPROVEMENT of anything.[/quote]
Defects aren't improvements. No one has said they were. Evolving is a series of physical diversities that give a slight advantage over competitors or predators, which gives that organism a better chance of reproducing. It's not a series of defects!
You seriously need to read up on evolution mate!
Since Darwin and God are both bollocks, what is your theory on life's existence?
Are you taking the michael? No - drinking?
[quote]how come all the other monkeys didnt evolve.[/quote]
Drinking and taking the piss. (they all have evolved btw)
[quote]if evolution is about survival then those monkeys should be dead.[/quote]
What? Why?
[quote]also since when in the history of mankind did you ever hear or anyone every born with any sort of defect that was actually an IMPROVEMENT of anything.[/quote]
Defects aren't improvements. No one has said they were. Evolving is a series of physical diversities that give a slight advantage over competitors or predators, which gives that organism a better chance of reproducing. It's not a series of defects!
You seriously need to read up on evolution mate!
Since Darwin and God are both bollocks, what is your theory on life's existence?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 26% of Americans accept Darwinism
My original posting was to find out who believes in the Biblical version of evolution, not to debate a Darwinian alternative but here goes....
[quote]and where in history is a documented case of any animal or human developing any of these physical diversities that then gets passed onto its offspring.[/quote]
How about having your Mums blue eyes, or your Dads ginger hair? Without genetic diversity, we'd all look exactly the same..........and there'd be one sole organism on Earth.........not the billions we have/had.
[quote]i also dont have to give an alternative theory for it.[/quote]
No you don't. You have however given a long, well thought out post on a negative. Hell, you may have been onto something if you'd have spent that time thinking up a better theory! !happy!
What you did is known as a 'cop-out' !wink!
[quote]But what about mutations then, what are they and how can they be beneficial?.............................................................................................
..........................................................
.........................You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don?t happen.[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by 'mutations'. Replicating dna doesn't make many mistakes, that's a given, but '1 in 10,0000' is pretty frequent when you consider the amount of genes in a strand of dna along with all their alleles. Then there are the amount of times the dna needs to copy itself into nearly every cell in an organism. While at the beginning of evolution, mutations must have happened frequently enough to survive in the gene pool, once life flourished then less and less mutations would be needed. All that needs to happen is for the right genes to be turned on or off. For instance, your body has every single genetic code do produce a pair of wings............or fins and the ability to breath underwater, they're just turned off (or ignored).
You're correct in that it's hard -usually- for a certain genetic trait to be passed on and replicate in a gene pool, to the extent it dominates, but that's under a period of success. In times of hardship -for instance, lack of food- only the 5-6 Giraffes with a slightly longer necks will survive and mate. The 'longer neck' gene hasn't overwhelmed the gene pool, just that the conditions the Giraffes were living in meant the 'shorter neck' gene found it harder to replicate for a while (due to death of the organism).....and on we go.
We only have to look at how easily man has bred 100's of different dogs of various size, colour and behavioural tendencies -from 1 or 2 original breeds- to show how often genetic mistakes happen. Man just exploited those mistakes. You'd be hard pressed to find a Dalmatian wondering Europe just before the last ice age! We breed sheep that produce more wool, and cows that produce more milk than their wild counterparts.....I could go on and on.
Another example was an experiment in Madagascar with a certain breed of Finch. They measured the average beak size, and studied what berries and seeds it ate. The progressively fed the birds bigger seeds to where only the Finches with the slightly bigger beaks could eat them. Within 17 generations of Finches, the average beak size had grown by 5mm. (note: the beak growth and amount of generations it took may not be exact. It was a long time ago I read up on this during a Biology study, but you get the idea!) I think the experiment was over 12 years. Imagine what would be possible in 10,000 years? Totally different birds right? Probably not even classified as Finches anymore eh? That's not theory. That's just about fact that Darwinian evolution is on the right track.
[quote]and heres some articles on the subject of evolution being wrong although im 100% certain you wont read them because most perople refuse to question anything they believe pasionately.[/quote]
Actually I probably will. It interests me, and I'm open to be persuaded either way. Are these articles damning Darwin without giving a reasonable alternative though? Like a 'you're wrong but I don't know a better way' sort of thing? Something to make a name? Whatever, I'll try read them over the weekend. Thanks for the info !thumbsup!
[quote]ust because someone doesnt agree with you sam doesnt make them an idiot.[/quote]
Hey I hope you didn't think I was calling you an idiot? (I know for definite I didn't). I just asked if you was taking the piss or had been drinking. It was a light-hearted jibe, nothing more.
I'll stick my neck out though. If you think a mysterious God created the universe within 7 days and now just sits back watching us kill eachother then you are a teeny weeny bit idiotic in my book. !wink!
[quote]and where in history is a documented case of any animal or human developing any of these physical diversities that then gets passed onto its offspring.[/quote]
How about having your Mums blue eyes, or your Dads ginger hair? Without genetic diversity, we'd all look exactly the same..........and there'd be one sole organism on Earth.........not the billions we have/had.
[quote]i also dont have to give an alternative theory for it.[/quote]
No you don't. You have however given a long, well thought out post on a negative. Hell, you may have been onto something if you'd have spent that time thinking up a better theory! !happy!
What you did is known as a 'cop-out' !wink!
[quote]But what about mutations then, what are they and how can they be beneficial?.............................................................................................
..........................................................
.........................You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don?t happen.[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by 'mutations'. Replicating dna doesn't make many mistakes, that's a given, but '1 in 10,0000' is pretty frequent when you consider the amount of genes in a strand of dna along with all their alleles. Then there are the amount of times the dna needs to copy itself into nearly every cell in an organism. While at the beginning of evolution, mutations must have happened frequently enough to survive in the gene pool, once life flourished then less and less mutations would be needed. All that needs to happen is for the right genes to be turned on or off. For instance, your body has every single genetic code do produce a pair of wings............or fins and the ability to breath underwater, they're just turned off (or ignored).
You're correct in that it's hard -usually- for a certain genetic trait to be passed on and replicate in a gene pool, to the extent it dominates, but that's under a period of success. In times of hardship -for instance, lack of food- only the 5-6 Giraffes with a slightly longer necks will survive and mate. The 'longer neck' gene hasn't overwhelmed the gene pool, just that the conditions the Giraffes were living in meant the 'shorter neck' gene found it harder to replicate for a while (due to death of the organism).....and on we go.
We only have to look at how easily man has bred 100's of different dogs of various size, colour and behavioural tendencies -from 1 or 2 original breeds- to show how often genetic mistakes happen. Man just exploited those mistakes. You'd be hard pressed to find a Dalmatian wondering Europe just before the last ice age! We breed sheep that produce more wool, and cows that produce more milk than their wild counterparts.....I could go on and on.
Another example was an experiment in Madagascar with a certain breed of Finch. They measured the average beak size, and studied what berries and seeds it ate. The progressively fed the birds bigger seeds to where only the Finches with the slightly bigger beaks could eat them. Within 17 generations of Finches, the average beak size had grown by 5mm. (note: the beak growth and amount of generations it took may not be exact. It was a long time ago I read up on this during a Biology study, but you get the idea!) I think the experiment was over 12 years. Imagine what would be possible in 10,000 years? Totally different birds right? Probably not even classified as Finches anymore eh? That's not theory. That's just about fact that Darwinian evolution is on the right track.
[quote]and heres some articles on the subject of evolution being wrong although im 100% certain you wont read them because most perople refuse to question anything they believe pasionately.[/quote]
Actually I probably will. It interests me, and I'm open to be persuaded either way. Are these articles damning Darwin without giving a reasonable alternative though? Like a 'you're wrong but I don't know a better way' sort of thing? Something to make a name? Whatever, I'll try read them over the weekend. Thanks for the info !thumbsup!
[quote]ust because someone doesnt agree with you sam doesnt make them an idiot.[/quote]
Hey I hope you didn't think I was calling you an idiot? (I know for definite I didn't). I just asked if you was taking the piss or had been drinking. It was a light-hearted jibe, nothing more.
I'll stick my neck out though. If you think a mysterious God created the universe within 7 days and now just sits back watching us kill eachother then you are a teeny weeny bit idiotic in my book. !wink!
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
middle_aged_dutchman
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 26% of Americans accept Darwinism
The fact that only 26% of the Americans accepts Darwinism does not mean 74% accepts creationism.
But if 74% of the Americans really takes the Bible literally, this only proves Darwin was right. You have to be stupid to survive in a society guided by religious zealots.
But if 74% of the Americans really takes the Bible literally, this only proves Darwin was right. You have to be stupid to survive in a society guided by religious zealots.
Re: 26% of Americans accept Darwinism
I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Pastafarian.
Our beliefs are:
An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, including a mountain, trees and a midgit.
All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses two points:
1. It has beer volcanos as far as the eye can see
2. It has a stripper factory.
This is mostly why I am a Pastafarian.
Pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians - yaarrrr!!
May you be blessed by his noodly appendage.
FSM for life, RAmen.
In truth FSM was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson to protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the "Pastafarian" theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design.
If you've read Dawkins you will surely be aware of FSM, he frequently uses it to illustrate points.
Our beliefs are:
An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, including a mountain, trees and a midgit.
All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses two points:
1. It has beer volcanos as far as the eye can see
2. It has a stripper factory.
This is mostly why I am a Pastafarian.
Pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians - yaarrrr!!
May you be blessed by his noodly appendage.
FSM for life, RAmen.
In truth FSM was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson to protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the "Pastafarian" theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design.
If you've read Dawkins you will surely be aware of FSM, he frequently uses it to illustrate points.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: 26% of Americans accept Darwinism
"by the way. i dont believe in god either. bollocks."
Strange then that all the references given by SpankyMonkey are from Christian or Creationism sites.
Mart
Strange then that all the references given by SpankyMonkey are from Christian or Creationism sites.
Mart
Re: 26% of Americans accept Darwinism
There's probably only 30% of americans who understand what it means. The majority probably thought the world was created in some movie with Charlton Heston or such.