Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Polymath257]

Thank you.

The reason I’m addressing my questions to you is because of all the posts I saw in this thread, yours looked the most reasonable to me. You have not disappointed me.

Your statement looked possibly misleading to me, in a way that might do harm and injustice to some people, and possibly needing to be clarified and corrected. Before responding, I wanted to clarify it for myself, and find out where it was coming from. As I understand it now, you’re saying that a vast majority of professional biologists, in their work and in their teaching of biology, think of of biological species as changing over time. Is that all that you meant to say, when you said that “... among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal”? What would be the point of saying that? Have you ever seen or heard of anyone denying that biological species change over time?

Yes, that is *precisely* what the creationists deny. It is precisely this science-denial that is part of the point of this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

This is where I see a possible misunderstanding. In response to a post where “evolution” is equated with “life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species,” you say that “among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal.” That might appear to some people to be saying that all the scientists in some fields of study believe that all life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species. As I understand it now, by “universal,” you meant 95% or more, so that would be revised to say that 95% or more of the scientists in some fields of study believe that all life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species. Is that what you meant to say, in that post? If so, would you still say that now? If so, where are you getting that percentage from?

Well, there is debate about whether there was only one species originally. But whatever the species were, they were types of bacteria.

But yes, after that, the rest of the variety of life on Earth evolved. And that is understood to be true by the professionals that study this.

I'll turn it around. The people who *claim* to be scientists that deny this are either 1) not in biology, 2) not researchers, or 3) otherwise not qualified to make a judgment on this. And this is way above 99%.

In fact, I have yet to see *one* that doesn't fall into one of those three categories.

 

[Audie]

Well, there is debate about whether there was only one species originally. But whatever the species were, they were types of bacteria.

But yes, after that, the rest of the variety of life on Earth evolved. And that is understood to be true by the professionals that study this.

I'll turn it around. The people who *claim* to be scientists that deny this are either 1) not in biology, 2) not researchers, or 3) otherwise not qualified to make a judgment on this. And this is way above 99%.

In fact, I have yet to see *one* that doesn't fall into one of those three categories.

See Dr. K Wise.

 

[Jim]

I'll turn it around. The people who *claim* to be scientists that deny this are either 1) not in biology, 2) not researchers, or 3) otherwise not qualified to make a judgment on this.

Now you have disappointed me. I thought better of you than that.

Do you have any more substantiation for what you’re saying, besides what you’ve already told told me?

 

[Jim]

I'll turn it around. The people who *claim* to be scientists that deny this are either 1) not in biology, 2) not researchers, or 3) otherwise not qualified to make a judgment on this. And this is way above 99%.

As I understand it now, you’re saying that more than 99% of people who do research in biology, and who are qualified to make a judgment on whether or not all life on earth evolved from one primitive species, agree that it did. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, where did you get that number come from?

 

[Audie]

As I understand it now, you’re saying that more than 99% of people who do research in biology, and who are qualified to make a judgment on whether or not all life on earth evolved from one primitive species, agree that it did. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, where did you get that number come from?

Do you ever question the misleading / false /
unsourced / unsubstantiated clams made
by creationists?


As for the 99% it is not going to be easy to
get numbers, but, try looking at it this way:

Not a one who chooses to dispute ToE
can provide datum point one for their belief.
Zero, none.

The noted scientist, a Dr. K Wise (paleontologist)
that I mentioned to poly there is a yec?

How does he deal with the data problem?
Quote-"even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec, I would still be a yec as
that is what the bible seems to indicate".

AS that is the very definition of anti science,
and intellectual dishonesty, the unreasonable
claim is not from poly, but from you, suggesting as
you do that some substantial portion of the
scientific community are in fact anti science
and being intellectually dishonest, pay no
attention to data that does not suit them.

 

[Jim]

Scientist and Darwinism tell us that life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species ...

It looks to me like some kind of evolution model is very useful, and widely used, in biology, and I don’t see any reason to think that will ever change. Imagining that all life on earth evolved from one primitive species might just be a popular view in some scientific circles, if it actually is widespread, and not necessary or even useful for research.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I understand it now, you’re saying that more than 99% of people who do research in biology, and who are qualified to make a judgment on whether or not all life on earth evolved from one primitive species, agree that it did. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, where did you get that number come from?

I wonder - if somebody pointed out that pretty much all scientists qualified to know think the earth is roughly spherical, rather than flat, would you want to know how they knew?

See also: Project Steve

 

[Audie]

It looks to me like some kind of evolution model is very useful, and widely used, in biology, and I don’t see any reason to think that will ever change. Imagining that all life on earth evolved from one primitive species might just be a popular view in some scientific circles, if it actually is widespread, and not necessary or even useful for research.

The way you make things up and post them
as if they were true just might qualify you as
at least an honourary creationist.

 

[Polymath257]

As I understand it now, you’re saying that more than 99% of people who do research in biology, and who are qualified to make a judgment on whether or not all life on earth evolved from one primitive species, agree that it did. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, where did you get that number come from?

No, I am saying that 99% of those who deny evolution are unqualified (not biologists), or are not researchers (do no actual research in biology).

 

[Audie]

No, I am saying that 99% of those who deny evolution are unqualified (not biologists), or are not researchers (do no actual research in biology).

The one percent would be the Dr. K Wise sorts, who
are hardly qualified as scientists of any sort, once
they have chosen intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Jim]

No, I am saying that 99% of those who deny evolution are unqualified (not biologists), or are not researchers (do no actual research in biology).

Okay. Thank you.

 

[tas8831]

BTW, for those interested, @reddogs a.k.a. "Hobie" has been starting this same thread in multiple Christian internet forums.

Does anyone truly believe in Evolution anymore?

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

So many of them do this... Isn't it precious how they are so darn confident in their naivete?

 

[Audie]

So many of them do this... Isn't it precious how they are so darn confident in their naivete?

I wish that regressive anti intellectualism were
merely precious or funny.

 

[tas8831]

The one percent would be the Dr. K Wise sorts, who
are hardly qualified as scientists of any sort, once
they have chosen intellectual dishonesty.

It is amazing how many creation 'scientists' earned doctorates and then ran straight to YEC outfits. Wells, Sarfati, Austin, Jeanson...

Then there are those who has real science careers, at least for a time, and then decided to abandon legitimate science and churn out creationist pap, using their time as real scientists as an appeal to authority (Tomkins, etc.).

Sad.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution is great but there are many questions in biology that simply go unanswered with the current thinking:

There's more going on in the way life forms that just genes.

So much woo.

He is just re-branding mostly already-understood stuff, none of which requires woo.

Concentration gradients that affect gene expression during development, for example, is a decades=old concept with good, real-life evidence in its favor.

 

[Audie]

It is amazing how many creation 'scientists' earned doctorates and then ran straight to YEC outfits. Wells, Sarfati, Austin, Jeanson...

Then there are those who has real science careers, at least for a time, and then decided to abandon legitimate science and churn out creationist pap, using their time as real scientists as an appeal to authority (Tomkins, etc.).

Sad.

Then too are the doctors who sold out to
the tobacco lobby, or the asbestos frauds,
or endorse quack medicine, or or or.

Accountants whose notion of being a fiduciary
is to cook the books, crooked lawyers,
pedophile priests, etc.

Intellectually weak, morally bankrupt.

 

[tas8831]

A fool thinks he knows it all while a wise man knows he has much to learn.

Or as Shakespeare said "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool".

Yeah.. those sorts of sentiments are often brought out by someone that has been shown the error of their intellectual ways. Makes them feel better about themselves.

A more appropriate slogan is “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

That is what I see on creationism forums and in creationist writings - cocksure stupid people.

 

[tas8831]

The question is valid as people have started to see the fallacy of it.

Yes, people have started to see the fallacy of your question, that is true.

 

[Audie]

Yes, people have started to see the fallacy of your question, that is true.

"Started"?