Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.

February 12 is Darwin Day and Evolution is Still Controversial

posted by janrinok on Monday February 11 2019, @03:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the monkey-business dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Darwin Day is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday, the theory of evolution and science in general. This year marks his 210th birthday and 160 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. Those looking to celebrate or learn more about Darwin and evolution will find a wealth of events going on, or if you'd rather not leave the house, try a Darwin Day card with designs generated by simulated evolution.

Recently, an important finding in man's evolution was announced; the so-called Missing Link was confirmed. Australopithecus Sediba fossils were found in 2010 but it took a decade of research and debate for scientists to confirm that this was indeed the missing link that connects man's evolution in an unbroken chain back to primate ancestors.

Not everyone is down with Darwin. The Pew Research Center reports, "In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans. In fact, about one-in-five U.S. adults reject the basic idea that life on Earth has evolved at all." In Indiana, senator Dennis Kruse introduced a bill that would, among other things, "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
February 12 is Darwin Day and Evolution is Still Controversial | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 249 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @03:55PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @03:55PM (#799546)

    Maybe you should try to stop conflating the theory of evolution with the theory of common descent. It is entirely possible, and scientific, to agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   -1  

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by https on Monday February 11 2019, @06:06PM (3 children)

    by https (5248) on Monday February 11 2019, @06:06PM (#799651) Journal

    Am I the only one who has actually read the goddamn boring book? SO BORING. I didn't enjoy the style one bit. But it was boring for a reason - so that there would be no mistaking the author's meaning, and no possibility of "you're making shit up" or "you left something out" accusations. And it causes near physical pain when idiots like you get it wrong, because it's so simple it seems like getting it wrong must be deliberate:

    Evolution is not a theory. It is a direct observation, and Darwin provided examples that anybody smart enough to run a farm would have direct knowledge of. Natural selection is a theory, a first draft of trying to explain the fucking weird observations.

    --
    Offended and laughing about it.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 11 2019, @09:15PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 11 2019, @09:15PM (#799754) Journal

      It is a direct observation...

      We directly observed this moth change it's colors in response to changes in it's environment. [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:50AM (#799926)

        I directly observed that, even if theirs' too misplaced apostrophes in the link text above, the target of the link is correct.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @10:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 11 2019, @10:34PM (#799791)

      Darwin provided examples that anybody smart enough to run a farm would have direct knowledge of

      So you are saying native americans are incapable of understanding evolution? Because democrats say they have trouble farming:

      Though the condition of the Indians shows a steady and healthy progress, their situation is not satisfactory at all points. Some of them to whom allotments of land have been made are found to be unable or disinclined to follow agricultural pursuits or to otherwise beneficially manage their land. This is especially true of the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, who, as it appears by reports of their agent, have in many instances never been located upon their allotments, and in some cases do not even know where their allotments are. Their condition has deteriorated. They are not self-supporting and they live in camps and spend their time in idleness.

      I have always believed that allotments of reservation lands to Indians in severalty should be made sparingly, or at least slowly, and with the utmost caution. In these days, when white agriculturists and stock raisers of experience and intelligence find their lot a hard one, we ought not to expect Indians, unless far advanced in civilization and habits of industry, to support themselves on the small tracts of land usually allotted to them.

      http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/grover-cleveland/state-of-the-union-1894.php [let.rug.nl]

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday February 11 2019, @08:38PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 11 2019, @08:38PM (#799740) Journal

    By "entirely possible" do you mean possible without contravening critical supporting evidence? When we find that species that the fossil record shows appearing at a certain time, and morphologically similar species preceding(and often coinciding with) it, in the same region, the interpretation that they are related isn't without reason.

    When we later invented DNA sequencing and found that almost every such related species show overwhelming genetic similarity compared to species we deemed slightly more distantly related, and those showing more similarity than ones that had a connection further back in time, that was a powerful confirmation.

    Moreover, the demonstration of speciation in laboratory settings has been a powerful confirmation of the fact that there can be two species with proven shared ancestors.

    To offer a contrary theory to these without rejecting that evidence would be something less than "entirely" possible. "Somewhat possible based on specific evidence" might be appropriate.