U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[Spartan Erik]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200608...nceofevolution

Apparently, the United States is the second lowest in the world with the ability to grasp genetics and accept evolution. Seriously, are we that stupid? I bet Denmark, Sweden, France, and Japan are laughing their rears off at us, since up to 80% of their population understands genetics and accepts evolution. The only country that was worse than us in this study was Turkey.

"The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible."

"While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say."

Favorite line of this article: “American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

Finally this gives people in the U.S. a reality check; if we don't shape up we're the laughing stock of the world.. what are your opinions?

[dillbertdabomb]

Well most christan people don't believe in evoloution. and nobody is making us either. hopefully the cult will wear out soon.

[Rufio1]

What i dont get is how and why people continue to deny that we evoled. Christians argue against the threoy of evolution without providing their own answer. People weren't created from dust or mud. A master being didnt clap and there was light, or blow into mud and dust to make people. We continually adapted to or environment...lol my old history teacher said that the bacis chain of survival was to get MAD. Move, Adapt, or Die. We have scientific evidence that proves where and what we came from. Yet Christians still manage to deny it.

lol the sad part is that Im technically Catholic Christian. I've been in Catholic schools all my life.

[jvp856]

.... Yet Christians still manage to deny it...

I'm a Christian aswell, but I'M FROM BELGIUM, so I'm realistic, there is religion and there is science, as there is nonsense and...er... sh!t...Idonnowhatexactly

You can be sure of it that we think you're fools, you who deny genetics and evolution.

[Theotherside]

I too am a christian (and not ashamed to say it either ), and when you say "except" that we evolved, that implies that there is sufficient evidence for evolution's validity, but there are still more flaws in it then solid proof. As a christian I believe in Micro evolution, where there are small changes in species to adapt, it's around us, look how people who live in different climates have different features to help them survive. The thing I don't believe in is Macro evolution, thus enters the theory of evolution. New species coming from a species not the same. The closest Darwin came to prove it was with Micro evolution, with finches. He saw that on an island, the finches had adapted, some had beaks longer and skinnier than the others, they lived healthier and longer, they had adapted. But you want to know something that didn't happen? A new species. If there were new species coming from others we'd see transition fossils, which we don't. "Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000, which is impossibly small." That source is from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html. Okay, so that number above is if one half of one mutation (out of the needed 200) works properly. Now thats if R is actually 400 times smaller than it is. The real number is 400 times bigger than the above (1 with 60 zeros after it). Thats if everything went perfect to. The possibilty is more than miniscule, it almost seems beyond possible for there to be one evidence of macro evolution at all. Think about this, the chances of winning th lottery is 13,983,816:1, now imagine that compared to the number with the sixty zeros behind it. Thats still 400 times to small! So... Thats my case.
-The Other Side

[Theotherside]

OKay, I just spent an hour writing a response, and X10 messed up when I was posting it Anyway, here's what it ruffly was. I am a christian too, and when you said "accepted" that implies that implied there is substancial evidence for evolutions validity. Now, I believe in Micro evolution, the small adaptations in a species, look at humans, we have different features depending on our origins of climate and things similar. The differance is with Macro evolution, which I do not believe in. Macro evolution is a new species coming from a completely different species, thus inters Darwin, and the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for Macro evolution, if there were we'd see transitional fossils, which we don't. Okay, so Darwin did prove Micro evolution, when he went to some islands he observered how some Finches there had loner, skinnier beaks, while others had smaller, thicker beaks. The ones with the longer and Skinnier beaks could get food easier, thus lived longer and healthier lives, and didn't die out. That was an adaptation, but not a new species, and it never became a new species. Also it takes a long time, tons of generations to mutate something, a worm without an eye is not going to give birth to a worm with one, maybe at most one function to begin the eye, but it still won't function for tons of generations later, therefore not being an advantage.
"Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0, which is impossibly small."(source:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html), now that number is actually 400 times smaller than the one with 60 zeros behind it (it's if one half of one mutation works out of the 200 needed, and everyone has to be beneficial). Still the number above is if all the mutations work, until all of them work it's not mutated fully, so the chances are so far beyond small it's hard to imagine! To put the number (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00x400) in perspective, the chances of winning the lottery is 13,983,816:1, thats a lot smaller than the number for ONE case of macro evolution to be true. Even if it worked once, it doesn't prove evolution in the sense they are talking about (the theory of evolution) this happening countless times, not just once. I just don't have enough faith for that! So, are you willing to call that a sure thing, that we should just accept, It's less probable for one case of macro evolution to be true than winning the lottery 10 times in a row! Thank you for posting this though, I've enjoyed discussing it.
-The Other Side

[jvp856]

:eek4: I've read the first one, but the second one... :nuts:

[Theotherside]

Hey! I'm soooo sorry, my comp froze after I posted the first one, and I had to exit, I didn't think it had posted it, so I re-wrote it, I'm terrible sorry. My intention was not to double post. Is there a way someone can delete that first one? I'll give back the points if possible for the post, if you guys want me to.
-The other side

[Chris Z]

you can do this yourself...details follow

click edit then click the delete button, then give a good reason and select the radio button that says "Delete Message", then press "Delete this Message" and you're good

[Theotherside]

I looked for edit (to the far right of "quote") and it wasn't there. I've looked, and it just won't let me, I checked when I was signed in too.
-The Other Side