Does /pol/ believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution?
>>79644516
Bump
>>79644516
10 ebin :-D
He's from my town so I kind of have to
It's a flawed synopsis of what we can observe superficially. on the surface. It's a theory and nothing more. That doesn't mean I'm a whack job creationist either
>>79644516
Yep.
>>79644516
no i am a #Lamarcktorpedo
>1 post by this ID
Ignore this thread and move on. OP is not going to participate in the thread.
>>79645803
I was taking a shit m8
>>79644516
>>79644516
you do not believe in a theory
it is scientifically proven and science never falls
exactly like e-con-omy
>>79644516
Not even charles himself believes in his theories.
>>79645193
>it's a theory and nothing more
>it's a theory
>>79644516
HE IZ NOHT A DOCTA
HE IZ NOHT A DOCTAAAA
>>79644516
it's not really a question of belief, it's a demonstrable reality that is the basis for all of modern biology and medicine
you should be asking "does /pol/ accept the reality of evolution?"
>>79652713
/thread
>>79651606
kek
>>79644516
That's a bit like asking if someone believes in Newton's or Decartes' theory of gravity. It was a good start but the theory has been greatly refined since then.
>>79644516
Until I hear a theory that explains biology better yes.
>>79645193
But what flaws did you find?
Evolution is a theory in the same sense gravity is a theory.
>>79654364
zzzzzzzz
Fact does not require your belief. Reality is stranger than fiction; truth exists with or without your knowledge.
Evolution is about as well verified as it could possibly be. To not accept that is irrelevant.
yes
>>79654631
God exists with or without your knowledge
Theism is about as well verified as it could be. To not accept that is irrelevant
>>79644516
If you got at least some intelligence you should know that Darwin's theory of evolution was about nature. Hintidy hint: human concrete isn't nature, human laws aren't nature laws. Why do retards keep comparing Charles Darwin's theory to humanity?
>>79644516
yes
>>79645193
>thinks theory means hypothesis
You can't wave it away for being "just a theory". A scientific theory is well-supported by evidence.
>>79644516
nope
>>79654943
>Theism is about as well verified as it could be.
Stopped reading. Of all the things religion is, "well-verified" is not one of them.
>>79644516
I don't, but I have no problem with people that do. It seems really possible to me and I guess it might be true. Just remember it doesn't prove/disprove anything else
>>79644516
I believe in Social Darwinism which I guess is to edgy for the lefties that love feeling smug about their pop science
>>79644516
>Does /pol/ believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution?
First off,
>believe in
is a phrase used to discuss religion,you don;t "believe in " a scientific theory.
But that quibble aside, to answer the question,
with some modifications and reservations, yes.
Darwin's ( and Wallace's, and Patrick Matthews's, who best them both to it but who did not develop it, he just tossed it off as a concept in the appendix of a book about something else) theory of Natural Selection attempts to provide an answer to WHY the observed fact of evolution happens.
He got it pretty much right, though I argue that the process is not the constant gradual one envisioned, but rather one characterized by long periods of stasis, followed by intense bursts of change, as conditions generally favor, but then change and disfavor, existing features of a species.
>>79655444
>stopped reading
of course you did, that's why you accept evolution
>>79646974
/pol/ has evolved beyond the need to take your primitive "shits."
>>79652713
>it's a demonstrable reality
That evolution occurs is a demonstrable reality. That Darwin's (et al) theory of why it happens is correct is harder to demonstrate, but seems sound and has not been displaced by a better one..
>>79655141
By what possible rationale do you put an animal evolve din nature, living in nature, according to the laws of nature, into a separate, non-natural, category?
>>79644516
I generally believe in abiogenesis and the evolution of life from basic forms to more complex life forms. But I don't know enough to talk about the details.
>>79655141
Darwin himself did that. Herbert Spencer didn't start Social Darwinism, there's enough in his own writings which can be seen as Social Darwinism already.
>>79649399
Glad the UK left. Hopefully they can stop the mass muslim immigration now and deport some so dont get too comfy Ahmed.
>>79644516
No, his theory is obsolete since like the 50s
fag
>>79644516
>Believing in Darwinian Evolution
Its the best theory we have so far but it has flaws and until a better theory is discovered it should be taught.
>>79656743
Darwin is the guy who theorized EVOLUTION, not creationism. You got the wrong guy m8.
>"The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change."
I consider evolution to be a possibility but i'm not going to say it most definitely is what happened.
Christian reporting in.
>>79649315
science always proves itself wrong after a decade. A lot of things we know now will not be the same soon.
>Going strictly by science
>Everything you vouch for now isn't concrete and science will ironically prove it wrong
Enjoy adapting your beliefs every decade.
>>79644516
If evolution was real, then why isn't Charles Darwin on the £20 note?
Checkmate.
>>79654943
You can't just take what I said and apply it to God, it doesn't work that way. Evolution has mountains of evidence, God has absolutely nothing.
But I don't need to explain that to you, deep down you know that already. That's what faith is for. Belief without evidence, muh feels bruh.
>>79645193
>it's a theory
>>79656864
>Darwin is the guy who theorized EVOLUTION
No, Lamarck was the first to create a theory of evolution, although his was discredited later
Darwin created a different theory which explained things better, but he didn't know about DNA.
In the 50s Darwin theory was updated with new knowledge, becoming the neo-darwinian theory.
It adds genetic flux and genetic drift.
>>79645193
>It's a theory and nothing more
That's what every whack job creationist says about anything science related
It's barely even a theory, it's, like, self evident.
Just combine together
> children tend to be like their parents
with
> dead people don't have as many children
and there you go, traits the parents have that cause you to die don't end up in as much of the population. Muh evolution.
>>79659144
well, youre right, the application of evolution (selective breeding/growing) by far predates the theory of evolution
>>79652713
/thread
>>79644516
Yes. Talmud said it before anyway.
>>79645193
I know niggers who walk exactly like that except way slower.
>>79644516
Of course not. We believe in the wholesomeness that is God, the flat Earth and the grace of the lord himself. Do not be fooled by the jew sciences!!!!!!!!
>>79644516
Of course
>>79656916
>Cambrian explosion
All that is is a fossil record phenomenon. There are inherent limitations to fossil records. For starts only hard-bodied organisms are really going to appear. Could easily be that Those species had been evolving for longer and the 20 million period is the period when those species developed exoskeletons hard enough to fossilise, etc. The evidence so far is the Cambrian explosion was not an event of speeded up evolutionary diversity but just a period of more abundant information retention for us to find.
