Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[tas8831]

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"

Wow - that is almost exactly the sentiment I received from usfan when he started his thread on common descent - he says he wants serious scientific discussion, I post a group of pertinent abstracts and offer a brief overview/conclusion, and he dismisses it with, in essence 'nice copy paste! I'm not going through all that!'

It is almost as if they have all read a pamphlet on bad debate tactics....

 

[tas8831]

"Started"?

I was trying to play directly off his statement, you see....

 

[Audie]

Wow - that is almost exactly the sentiment I received from usfan when he started his thread on common descent - he says he wants serious scientific discussion, I post a group of pertinent abstracts and offer a brief overview/conclusion, and he dismisses it with, in essence 'nice copy paste! I'm not going through all that!'

It is almost as if they have all read a pamphlet on bad debate tactics....

I guess it is like of like this... suppose a mom has like
a nanny cam and records her kids stealing the cookies.

She can ask "why are the cookies gone?", knowing
all along exactly what the truth is.

The kids may be endlessly imaginative, coming up
with explanations. She might listen, or she might
not, but there will be no convincing her.

That is how the goddies see this. They KNOW
the truth, so anything you say cannot but be wrong.
As so many will say, "I dont care to study lies"
when saying why they wont read something about
science.

 

[Audie]

I was trying to play directly off his statement, you see....

I long since stopped any interaction with same,
it is a bit undignified.

 

[tas8831]

It seems that the more we learn as scientific and archaeological finds come to light, the less people believe in Evolution.

I find the opposite to be so - the more we learn, the more evolution is supported and the less ancient beliefs are.

Scientist and Darwinism

Just one scientist? Which one?

tell us that life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species, their not really sure how, and it made new and diverse species.

Actually, the evidence tells us that.

I have been looking for some time now, and even creation "scientists" seem 100% incompetent to produce even a hint of evidence for miraculous creation.

But yet there are no not one piece of evidence found of a gradual change from a "self-replicating molecule" to all the different species.

Define "gradual."

Any evidence for dust of the ground being poofed into a fully formed adult human male?

There are no evidence of gradualism or that later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones. We don't find a fish changing to land crawler or a lizard changing to bird, there nothing that would show the lineage of any species.

Cool denial.

Evolution along with the 'Big Bang' idea are losing the people as more evidence comes to light.

Not evidence - more social media garbage that panders to the less, um, informed among us.

How could the universe just appear out of nothing, and be spinning in all different tangents rather than one way as they should, or the universe be larger than we can even chart in such a short time.

Golly, it must have been via ancient Hebrew tribal deity magic?

But then, where is the evidence for that?

Scientist scramble to come up with another way or adjustment to the theory. but the more they try, the more convoluted it becomes. Many of these ideas of man are being discovered to be unsupported, or no longer seem to have any validity with people today

I am really unconcerned with the opinions of some anti-science goobers out there. Lots of dumb people in the world - how else do you explain the popularity of "reality TV"?

 

[tas8831]

I long since stopped any interaction with same,
it is a bit undignified.

Indeed, but I seem drawn to such dumpster fires...

 

[tas8831]

Its everywhere, no one believes you get a whale from a bear, what happened to evolving from the ocean to land mammals. It just didn't happen...

"Evolutionist Michael Denton described the problem of such a fantastic transition by saying: ". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.4

It is no wonder that ". . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists."5 "Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/from-bears-to-whales-a-difficult-transition/

No matter what they try they cant find any gradualism to the species, and if the species just show up fully formed and with eyes and mouths and fully formed organs and working fins and tails, how can that happen. Hmm

Let's pretend that I know nothing about science - please EXPLAIN what those essays indicate, and provide your rationale for BELIEVING what the good folks at the ICR and the DI write.

In particular, you can explain why the authors focus on bears, when it is known that good evidence has not indicated bears as a whale ancestor in more than a century... Almost as if they are being purposefully misleading, but I will await your explanation.

thanks!

 

[We Never Know]

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

Look at this picture, the similarities...

Pay attention to the joints(knees, elbow, shoulders, ankles, etc), and the position of them.

Pay attention to the muscles, the position of them, the definition of them.

It's pretty much represents a living early version of man before we evolved to our current state.

picture jambo the hairless chimpanzee - Bing images

 

[We Never Know]

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.

A wise man knows there is more to learn, searches for it and is open to the knowledge. A fool thinks he already knows it all.

In this scenario science represents the wise man.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

So even though the survey data clearly indicates that a majority of the population "believes in evolution", you're here to tell us that the opposite is true. Do you have any actual support for your assertion, or were you expecting everyone to just go by your say-so?

 

[Jose Fly]

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

It's very odd behavior, which I find fascinating. It's hubris wrapped around extreme insecurity.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you should take it up with them. But its very clear you cannot just say that whales evolved from bears etc..., and then when you find no evidence in the fossil record, just ignore it and keep teaching what everyone recognizes is flawed.

Find one modern book that makes that claim. Whales *did* evolve from land animals, but those land animals were NOT bears. We have the fossils to show the progression.

 

[reddogs]

Find one modern book that makes that claim. Whales *did* evolve from land animals, but those land animals were NOT bears. We have the fossils to show the progression.

I think you know very well its a problem, and you just want to go on and keep jumping hoops.... Lets just agree that gradualism is a issue, that even evolutionist see.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you know very well its a problem, and you just want to go on and keep jumping hoops.... Lets just agree that gradualism is a issue, that even evolutionist agree.

I agree that larger scale changes can often happen in 'only' a few thousand generations.

On the other hand, that in no way negates the overall idea that biological species change over time, in other words, evolution.

Furthermore, we have very good information about the changes that happened leading up to modern humans. Human evolution is, in fact, a very good example of how evolution happens.

 

[reddogs]

Well, at least that's a start. Now lets look at the issues with the Big Bang theory. To start, it violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. So it has a flaw, 0 plus 0 will always be zero, as I said at the beginning you cannot created something out of nothing. It also violates the second law of thermodynamics or law of entropy, as galaxies and systems should be getting more disorganized, rather then forming into planets and other heavenly bodies. It also has problems with the speeds and distances that it should have traveled according to the theory. Scientist recognized these issues and yet it seems they just keep switching and trying various views as they go along so they can continue teaching it, when it also has basic flaws that they cannot explain.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, at least that's a start. Now lets look at the issues with the Big Bang theory. To start, it violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. So it has a flaw, 0 plus 0 will always be zero, as I said at the beginning you cannot created something out of nothing. It also violates the second law of thermodynamics or law of entropy, as galaxies and systems should be getting more disorganized, rather then forming into planets and other heavenly bodies. It also has problems with the speeds and distances that it should have traveled according to the theory. Scientist recognized these issues and yet it seems they just keep switching and trying various views as they go along so they can continue teaching it, when it also has basic flaws that they cannot explain.

Hmmm...this seems to show more your lack of understanding of what the BB theory actually says than anything else.

For example, the modern BB description is *based* on thermodynamics and as both the first and second laws as integral parts of it.

So, for example, the *actual* first law relates the amount of energy at two different times and says they have to be the same. In no way does the BB violate this. Instead, it simply notes that time itself may have a beginning (and does in the BB model).

As for the second law, the expansion of the universe is, for the most part, preserving of entropy. The organization of galaxies, stars, and planets all come about via a release of energy that keep the second law operative. The action of gravity here is crucial (and is usually ignored in lower level treatments of thermodynamics).

Once again, I strongly suspect that you know nothing about these matter except what you have copied and pasted. But, when it comes to the BB description, I *do* know the details. I have done the graduate level classes that cover this material and can answer any specific questions you want to ask.

 

[Polymath257]

Also, you do realize that the Big Bang theory has NOTHING to do with evolution, right?

 

[reddogs]

Hmmm...this seems to show more your lack of understanding of what the BB theory actually says than anything else.

For example, the modern BB description is *based* on thermodynamics and as both the first and second laws as integral parts of it.

So, for example, the *actual* first law relates the amount of energy at two different times and says they have to be the same. In no way does the BB violate this. Instead, it simply notes that time itself may have a beginning (and does in the BB model).

As for the second law, the expansion of the universe is, for the most part, preserving of entropy. The organization of galaxies, stars, and planets all come about via a release of energy that keep the second law operative. The action of gravity here is crucial (and is usually ignored in lower level treatments of thermodynamics).

Once again, I strongly suspect that you know nothing about these matter except what you have copied and pasted. But, when it comes to the BB description, I *do* know the details. I have done the graduate level classes that cover this material and can answer any specific questions you want to ask.

Well as I wrote, you cannot create something out of nothing, and it certainly does violate that, or do you know of a new rewrite.

 

[reddogs]

Also, you do realize that the Big Bang theory has NOTHING to do with evolution, right?

In order for evolution, you have to create the underlying basis for it, so it does have something to do with evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

Well as I wrote, you cannot create something out of nothing, and it certainly does violate that, or do you know of a new rewrite.

No, it does not. The actual equation is closer to 0=1+(-1), not 0=0+0.

In more detail, the BB description generally stays within the times actually testable: so after the first fraction of a second into the current expansion. Prior to that, we don't have any data to distinguish between our theories.

But, after that is when most of the interesting stuff happens anyway: the formation of stars and galaxies, atomic nuclei, and, ultimately, life (although that took about 9 billion years)