Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. The idea of evolution suggests that adaption plays the major role in extinction. It says that eventually a certain type of "ape" will become extinct. Like the "ape" who gradually began to walk upright no longer exists.

I am sorry, but this is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. That ape still exists in you.

It is time for you to learn. You clearly do not know enough to argue. If you still oppose the idea of evolution then you might at least have some facts and evidence that you can use to debate the topic.

To use an analogy you would probably laugh at someone that claimed: "Christianity is the belief that you will live forever if you nail a guy to a couple of boards". and then tried to refute Christianity based upon that claim. That is how truly bad your arguments have been so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the answers that I’ve seen here to my question about where that’s coming from lead to some opinion polls: a Pew poll, an AAAS poll, and some unspecified polls of biologists. I’ll be studying the Pew poll and the AAAS poll, and then I might have more questions.

The sort of question that you asked could only be answered by polls. You were asked how else that it would have been answered and you did not seem to have anything to contribute.

 

[Audie]

Yes, seriously.

That is depressing.

Did you realize that by leaning
so far over backwatds as you
love to do, you fall flat on your face?

 

[Polymath257]

Recognize that what, precisely, has been demonstrated?

How does anyone measure whether or not a scientist recognizes that something has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt? Did some ask each scientist that question, in those words?

Well, that is what a poll does. That's is sort of the point.

Now, if you want to know *why* they believe what they believe, we can go deeper into the biological literature, but that would require a bit of sophistication and willingness to learn some science.

 

[Audie]

Do you demand to know the opinion of every single doctor in the world before accepting what your doctor tells you?

And why dont he ask about how them scientists
got together on Boyle's law?????

 

[Audie]

Well, that is what a poll does. That's is sort of the point.

Now, if you want to know *why* they believe what they believe, we can go deeper into the biological literature, but that would require a bit of sophistication and willingness to learn some science.

So demanding!!! So unfair!

 

[Jim]

These well-researched, evidence-based, rational, objective responses to my questions have also been useful for my purposes.

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!"

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

Right now you are only looking like a troll.

Do you demand to know the opinion of every single doctor in the world before accepting what your doctor tells you?

Would you make a comment like...

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 heliocentricty” defined and measured? That’s why I’m asking for a source.​

 

[Polymath257]

In response to a request for definitions:



I’m trying to find out what this means, and where it came from. These are the answers that I’ve received so far:
- Meaning of “scientific community”: Following one of the links above, I found link to a discussion of that on Wikipedia.
- Meaning of “support for evolution”: Recognize that it has been demonstrated to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or better that biological species change over time due to changes in their genetics via mutation and natural selection.
- Meaning of “universal”: Above 95% acceptance.
- Where is this coming from: A link to a Pew poll, a link to a blog post about the same poll, a link to a Web page that says nothing about how many scientists support evolution, a link to a Wikipedia page, and a statement that polls have also been done by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and by some biological groups.

I’ll have some more questions after I do some more research.

it strikes me that you are focused on the sociology of the science as opposed to the *content* of the science. You seem to want to define things like 'the scientific community' which have vague, but fairly standard definitions.

But you don't seem to want to learn the evidence that backs the beliefs of those scientists. This is missing, it seems to me, the essence of their beliefs.

All you really have to do is look through the university textbooks, graduate textbooks, research journals, etc to know that the vast majority of biologists use evolution as a central part of their understanding of biology.

There are pretty standard ways to find accepted experts: nationally recognized scientific research organizations, professors at top universities, etc. You can also look at published papers in the subject and survey articles.

Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of working researchers in biology. Of that there is no question. This has been the case for well over 100 years. While there have been changes to the theory over time, this is common in the sciences and shows *health* of the subject.

 

[Audie]

You really need to learn the basics of science. You make such poor strawman arguments that you only make your side look even worse.

Now now, if he understood evolution, he would find he had
no arguments.

Anyway, it works for the good guys to have the dark
side sbow themselves for the shallow folks they are.

 

[osgart]

Do you accept plate tectonics? Do you accept it because you believe that the scientists who developed the concept had proper education and training? Do you accept it because you understand that, when it was first proposed, there was opposition to it? Do you accept it because you accept that opposing views were researched and, over time, discarded?

I could ask the same about the structure of the atom.
I could ask the same about germ theory.
I could ask the same about heliocentricity.
I could ask the same about gravity.


Did you personally do enough research to dig deeply or did you come to accept the consensus of the scientists involved?

I did not do enough research, and have come to accept the consensus of the scientists involved. It just wasnt on my radar of things to actively pursue. And i never had any schooling on it. I do watch documentaries on these topics. I have not even attempted to debate evolution.

I simply wanted to know the volume of material one has to cover in order to know evolution is true. How succinctly the information is put together for the laymen. And why do so many people expect everyone to know and understand evolution is solid fact?

Oddly enough in my years of high school, and college it was not something that was taught in my particular catholic schooling.

 

[Jim]

it strikes me that you are focused on the sociology of the science as opposed to the *content* of the science. You seem to want to define things like 'the scientific community' which have vague, but fairly standard definitions.

But you don't seem to want to learn the evidence that backs the beliefs of those scientists. This is missing, it seems to me, the essence of their beliefs.

All you really have to do is look through the university textbooks, graduate textbooks, research journals, etc to know that the vast majority of biologists use evolution as a central part of their understanding of biology.

There are pretty standard ways to find accepted experts: nationally recognized scientific research organizations, professors at top universities, etc. You can also look at published papers in the subject and survey articles.

Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of working researchers in biology. Of that there is no question. This has been the case for well over 100 years. While there have been changes to the theory over time, this is common in the sciences and shows

What I’m focused on is this statement that you made: “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.” I wanted to know what you meant by it, and what is your substantiation for saying that? My question is not about evolution theory. I’m not questioning that. It looks to me like some kind of evolution model is very useful, and widely used in biology, and as such should be included in teaching biology. My question was about a statement that you made about “the scientific community,”

I’ve made some progress in finding out what your substation is for that statement. It’s the Pew opinion poll, and possibly some others. If you have some other substantiation for your statement that “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal,” I hope you’ll tell me. If I can find out what your sources are for that statement, it might help me understand what you mean by it.

Are you revising your statement now to “... the vast majority of biologists use evolution as a central part of their understanding of biology”? If so, what is your definition of “vast majority,” and what is your substantiation for saying that? And can you describe in some detail what you mean by “evolution”?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

These well-researched, evidence-based, rational, objective responses to my questions have also been useful for my purposes.

Ask ridiculously nonsensical questions, don't complain about the quality of the answers.

 

[Jose Fly]

What I’m focused on is this statement that you made: “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.” I wanted to know what you meant by it, and what is your substantiation for saying that?

Then your responses to what's been provided are rather odd. Let's look at the statement in question, "among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal."

"Among the scientific community..."

That clearly refers to the "community" of professional scientists.

"...that studies these questions in detail..."

That clearly specifies the above to refer to the community of professional scientists who work in the biological sciences.

"...the support for evolution..."

That clearly refers to their professional views/opinions/positions on whether evolution is valid science.

"...is universal."

That clearly refers to the number/percentage of said scientists who view evolution as valid science.

So in sum, we have @Polymath257 stating that among the community of professional scientists who work in the biological sciences, the viewpoint that evolution is valid science is at, or very close to, 100%. Seems like a pretty clear, straightforward statement. And how do we determine whether that statement is accurate? The obvious answer is that we conduct a survey/poll of professional scientists working in the biological sciences and ask them whether they view evolution as valid science. Again, seems pretty straightforward.

That's exactly what you've been given, i.e., professional surveys/polls of professional scientists who work in the biological sciences, asking them whether they view evolution as scientifically valid. And from the results we see that the claim is accurate; virtually all professional scientists who work in the biological sciences view evolution as scientifically valid. Thus, it would seem that Polymath has supported his assertion quite well.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then your responses to what's been provided are rather odd. Let's look at the statement in question, "among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal."

"Among the scientific community..."

That clearly refers to the "community" of professional scientists.

"...that studies these questions in detail..."

That clearly specifies the above to refer to the community of professional scientists who work in the biological sciences.

"...the support for evolution..."

That clearly refers to their professional views/opinions/positions on whether evolution is valid science.

"...is universal."

That clearly refers to the number/percentage of said scientists who view evolution as valid science.

So in sum, we have @Polymath257 stating that among the community of professional scientists who work in the biological sciences, the viewpoint that evolution is valid science is at, or very close to, 100%. Seems like a pretty clear, straightforward statement. And how do we determine whether that statement is accurate? The obvious answer is that we conduct a survey/poll of professional scientists working in the biological sciences and ask them whether they view evolution as valid science. Again, seems pretty straightforward.

That's exactly what you've been given, i.e., professional surveys/polls of professional scientists who work in the biological sciences, asking them whether they view evolution as scientifically valid. And from the results we see that the claim is accurate; virtually all professional scientists who work in the biological sciences view evolution as scientifically valid. Thus, it would seem that Polymath has supported his assertion quite well.

It's like watching someone demand to know how we know all soccer players agree what the rules of the game are.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's like watching someone demand to know how we know all soccer players agree what the rules of the game are.

That's a great analogy. What really stood out to me was when @Jim objected to being provided a Pew survey by saying "A Pew poll? Seriously?"

Um....yeah. When we want to find out what a group of people think about a specific issue, we conduct a statistical sampling of that group.....which is precisely what Pew does. But then, Jim never explained the basis for his objection. Does he not like Pew? If so, why? Does he have objections to the sampling methods of this specific study? If so, what are they? Does have have general objections to the concept of statistical sampling as a whole? If so, what are they?

But Jim didn't do anything like that. He merely waved it away without giving a single reason for doing so, which ironically, was quite creationist of him.

 

[ecco]

I simply wanted to know the volume of material one has to cover in order to know evolution is true. How succinctly the information is put together for the laymen. And why do so many people expect everyone to know and understand evolution is solid fact?

Given what you said, I would recommend (Amazon) link

Book Shark
VINE VOICE
5.0 out of 5 starsNever Underestimate a Dummies Series Book
August 13, 2011
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Evolution for Dummies by Greg Krukonis and Tracy Barr

"Evolution for Dummies" is the surprisingly very thorough and accessible book about evolution. This 362-page book is broken out in four major parts: Part I: What Evolution Is; Part II. How Evolution Works, Part III. What Evolution Does, and Part IV. The Part of Tens.

Positives:
1. A well written, accessible yet thorough account of what evolution is and how it works.
2. A very informative, educational book that concentrates on the science and not on the "so-called" controversy and even with a touch of humor.
3. An ambitious book that covers so much territory and does so very well.
4. Having read a number of books on evolution (see my reviews) I was pleasantly surprised to learn so much from this one.
5. The Dummies series is known for its great and familiar format. A number of very good illustrations and comprehensive charts that add value.
<snip>

In summary, I will never underestimate a book from the Dummies series ever again. This book is a pleasant surprise and does a wonderful job of educating the reader on the topic of evolution. I'm most impressed at how thorough this book is with regards to the number of topics of evolution it covers. Furthermore, the book's format is conducive for future reference. Finally, it handles evolution in its proper perspective that is with regards to science. I highly recommend this book for all evolution lovers and seekers of knowledge of all levels.​

 

[Polymath257]

What I’m focused on is this statement that you made: “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.” I wanted to know what you meant by it, and what is your substantiation for saying that? My question is not about evolution theory. I’m not questioning that. It looks to me like some kind of evolution model is very useful, and widely used in biology, and as such should be included in teaching biology. My question was about a statement that you made about “the scientific community,”

I’ve made some progress in finding out what your substation is for that statement. It’s the Pew opinion poll, and possibly some others. If you have some other substantiation for your statement that “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal,” I hope you’ll tell me. If I can find out what your sources are for that statement, it might help me understand what you mean by it.

Well, I am a university professor that has been interested in the creation/evolution debate for over 3 decades. During that time, I have talked to a number of biologists, read a number of research articles, seen polls done about the beliefs of those biologists, and had numerous other sources of information about the beliefs of professional biologists when it comes to evolution.

Among other things, the textbooks used to teach the university classes and the reviews of such textbooks concerning their treatment of evolution are relevant.

Here's what I have found. Those that have more than a passing understanding of modern biology overwhelmingly agree that evolution (changes of biological species over geological time) has occurred. There is *some* debate about the different mechanisms for those changes and the relative importance of those mechanisms, but the basic fact that biological species change over time is solid.

Are you revising your statement now to “... the vast majority of biologists use evolution as a central part of their understanding of biology”? If so, what is your definition of “vast majority,” and what is your substantiation for saying that? And can you describe in some detail what you mean by “evolution”?

Well, a view that is close to universal will be held by the vast majority. Do you really need all this spelled out?

If you want to know what 'evolution' means, go and read a biology book. As far as I can see, you aren't being serious.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Given what you said, I would recommend (Amazon) link

Book Shark
VINE VOICE
5.0 out of 5 starsNever Underestimate a Dummies Series Book
August 13, 2011
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Evolution for Dummies by Greg Krukonis and Tracy Barr

"Evolution for Dummies" is the surprisingly very thorough and accessible book about evolution. This 362-page book is broken out in four major parts: Part I: What Evolution Is; Part II. How Evolution Works, Part III. What Evolution Does, and Part IV. The Part of Tens.

Positives:
1. A well written, accessible yet thorough account of what evolution is and how it works.
2. A very informative, educational book that concentrates on the science and not on the "so-called" controversy and even with a touch of humor.
3. An ambitious book that covers so much territory and does so very well.
4. Having read a number of books on evolution (see my reviews) I was pleasantly surprised to learn so much from this one.
5. The Dummies series is known for its great and familiar format. A number of very good illustrations and comprehensive charts that add value.
<snip>

In summary, I will never underestimate a book from the Dummies series ever again. This book is a pleasant surprise and does a wonderful job of educating the reader on the topic of evolution. I'm most impressed at how thorough this book is with regards to the number of topics of evolution it covers. Furthermore, the book's format is conducive for future reference. Finally, it handles evolution in its proper perspective that is with regards to science. I highly recommend this book for all evolution lovers and seekers of knowledge of all levels.​

Inb4 "you expect me to read a book? If you can't explain the entire field in a single sentence, I get to hand wave it"

 

[ecco]

That's a great analogy. What really stood out to me was when @Jim objected to being provided a Pew survey by saying "A Pew poll? Seriously?"

Um....yeah. When we want to find out what a group of people think about a specific issue, we conduct a statistical sampling of that group.....which is precisely what Pew does. But then, Jim never explained the basis for his objection. Does he not like Pew? If so, why? Does he have objections to the sampling methods of this specific study? If so, what are they? Does have have general objections to the concept of statistical sampling as a whole? If so, what are they?

But Jim didn't do anything like that. He merely waved it away without giving a single reason for doing so, which ironically, was quite creationist of him.

Maybe he's just confused. Maybe he thought the source was this Pew...

Pepé Le Pew

 

[We Never Know]

Well, I am a university professor that has been interested in the creation/evolution debate for over 3 decades. During that time, I have talked to a number of biologists, read a number of research articles, seen polls done about the beliefs of those biologists, and had numerous other sources of information about the beliefs of professional biologists when it comes to evolution.

Among other things, the textbooks used to teach the university classes and the reviews of such textbooks concerning their treatment of evolution are relevant.

Here's what I have found. Those that have more than a passing understanding of modern biology overwhelmingly agree that evolution (changes of biological species over geological time) has occurred. There is *some* debate about the different mechanisms for those changes and the relative importance of those mechanisms, but the basic fact that biological species change over time is solid.



Well, a view that is close to universal will be held by the vast majority. Do you really need all this spelled out?

If you want to know what 'evolution' means, go and read a biology book. As far as I can see, you aren't being serious.

While I agree with species evolving from ancestor species, you say "but the basic fact that biological species change over time is solid".

How solid is it with everyone? Does everyone accept what we are today evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ansector or do they simply believe and accept species change over time?

The reason I ask is because accepting species change over time is very different than accepting evolution of we evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ancestor.