Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Source?

Is there a word or term for this? It's almost like a reverse Gish Gallop, where a question is asked about something with several million possible correct answers, in an apparent attempt to diminish an obvious fact?

"Fire is hot"

"Source?"

"Source? Seriously? You want a source for the claim that fire is hot?"

"Ha ha! You can't give me a source for your claim! Therefor fire isn't hot!"

 

[Polymath257]

Weeeeel... that's a little debatable. Evolution probably existed before what we would recognise as "life"... certainly before cellular life, any way.

Hmm...I typically *define* life as starting when evolution starts kicking in. Genetics with mutation and selection. I guess the issue of a metabolism is there, though.

 

[Polymath257]

Source?

Pick up a random university biology book. Look at it. Anything devoted to actual education as opposed to massaging hurt emotions will be discussing the details of evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

How far does one have to dig to know evolution is true and not accept it on faith?

Well, you should start with some biochemistry, proceed to genetics, comparative anatomy, and a bit of paleontology.

 

[Jim]

Pick up a random university biology book. Look at it. Anything devoted to actual education as opposed to massaging hurt emotions will be discussing the details of evolution.

I’m asking for a source for your statement that “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.”

 

[Jim]

... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.

I want to find out more details about this. What is “the scientific community”? What does “universal” mean? How was it determined that the support is universal? How was “support for evolution” defined and measured? That’s why I’m asking for a source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am actually looking to dig into it.

By Creationists you mean Bible adherents, and Deists?

I am actually willing to accept evolution. There is only one thing about it that i do not accept, that intelligence in nature is not real.

No, by creationists I mean those that read Genesis literally. Specifically the creation myth that involves the Garden of Eden.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m asking for a source for your statement that “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.”

And I am saying that you can pick up any university biology book and determine this. These are the expression of the research community at that level.

This is *basic* knowledge, not advanced stuff. This is like asking whether it is common for history researchers to believe the French Revolution happened in the 18th century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to find out more details about this. What is “the scientific community”? What does “universal” mean? How was it determined that the support is universal? How was “support for evolution” defined and measured? That’s why I’m asking for a source.

How does a 97% acceptance rate make you feel?

Views on evolution among the public and scientists

 

[Jim]

How does a 97% acceptance rate make you feel?

Views on evolution among the public and scientists

A Pew poll? Seriously?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hmm...I typically *define* life as starting when evolution starts kicking in. Genetics with mutation and selection. I guess the issue of a metabolism is there, though.

Evolution takes effect as soon as you have an imperfect self replicator acting under a selection pressure. These can be very simple molecules. Most people wouldn't call them "life" at the early stages, though.

Interesting segue, it is now theorised that imperfect mechanical self replicators (von neumann machines) will progressively alter inline with classical evolution. Whether or not we regard these ase "living" will be a whole other philosophical and scientific debate.

 

[Polymath257]

I want to find out more details about this. What is “the scientific community”? What does “universal” mean? How was it determined that the support is universal? How was “support for evolution” defined and measured? That’s why I’m asking for a source.

Research community: those doing active research in biology. Universal: above 95% acceptance. Support: recognize it has been demonstrated to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or better.

Again, pretty much *any* random search will find this. Notice some don't limit to research scientists, which decreases the acceptance numbers.

Overwhelming Support for Human Evolution Among Scientists.
Evolution on the Front Line
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A Pew poll? Seriously?

How about you tell us what you would accept, rather than goal post shifting after the fact?

 

[Polymath257]

A Pew poll? Seriously?

it is quite far from being unique. Polls have been done of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and more specific biological groups as well. If anything 97% is low.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Pew poll? Seriously?

How would you find out?

And what is wrong with a scientifically taken poll.

Right now you are only looking like a troll. You were given what you asked for. Unless you have something more reliable your question has been answered.

 

[Polymath257]

I want to find out more details about this. What is “the scientific community”? What does “universal” mean? How was it determined that the support is universal? How was “support for evolution” defined and measured? That’s why I’m asking for a source.

Let me give you an example of how university textbooks are selected. Those in the department (those with PhDs, usually), who are going to teach out of these books, are asked to find ones that give accurate treatments of topic discussed int he courses. One big topic is evolution.

So the textbooks selected for biology courses at (research) universities are a pretty good way to determine the views of research scientists at this level of material.

 

[osgart]

No, by creationists I mean those that read Genesis literally. Specifically the creation myth that involves the Garden of Eden.

I know a lot of people that are Creationists. And i find that the ones i do know dont tolerate criticism very well. They got rules for dealing with non believers. One of them approached me in the privacy of my own home to challenge me. I cant speak for all of them. But this guy was trying to convert and influence right from the get go.

 

[Jim]

And I am saying that you can pick up any university biology book and determine this. These are the expression of the research community at that level.

So when you said that “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal,” what you actually meant was that you can pick up any university biology book and see support for evolution? I was hoping for some study with actual numbers, where “scientific community that studies these questions” and “support for evolution” are precisely defined, and with an explanation of how “support for evolution” was measured.

I don’t doubt that evolutionary theories are useful, and widely used. I can easily believe that all university biology textbooks include some evolutionary theory. Are they all using the same one?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is absolutely no doubt that creationists exhibit these behaviors all the time.

As a part of their beliefs, not a coping mechanism. Your entire hypothesis hinges around the idea they do feel some sort of discomfort or cognitive dissonance over their religious views. They don't. They genuinely believe what they say, and they learn how to think and respond to counter arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know a lot of people that are Creationists. And i find that the ones i do know dont tolerate criticism very well. They got rules for dealing with non believers. One of them approached me in the privacy of my own home to challenge me. I cant speak for all of them. But this guy was trying to convert and influence right from the get go.

What is amazing is that pretend to be bold, but when push comes to shove they all appear to be cowards. They continually demonstrate that they do not even understand the very basic concepts of the scientific method or the concept of evidence and refuse to even discuss that. Real scientists put their ideas out there for others to refute. Creationists will not even form a testable hypothesis.

 

[Jim]

Let me give you an example of how university textbooks are selected. Those in the department (those with PhDs, usually), who are going to teach out of these books, are asked to find ones that give accurate treatments of topic discussed int he courses. One big topic is evolution.

So the textbooks selected for biology courses at (research) universities are a pretty good way to determine the views of research scientists at this level of material.

Thank you.

This might be the wrong thread for my questions. I don’t doubt that evolutionary theories are used by all biologists and in all biology textbooks, and will continue to be. What I’m wondering about is how that is relevant to some other issues that I’ve seen people debating about, but that would be off topic in this thread.