Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[etong]

Superbugs are 100% proof that Evolution is happening

 

[ChristineM]

The word 'many' is probably going too far. The *type* of singularity in a BH or WH is quite different than that for the BB.

Good point ;-)

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems that the more we learn as scientific and archaeological finds come to light,

Ask again . . . please cite scientific references.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It is quite the opposite. The theory of evolution is supported by each new piece of related evidence that is discovered.

Scientist and Darwinism 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.

Scientific investigation has revealed a number of mechanisms that drive the evolution of living things. Chief among these is natural selection.

The theory of evolution has progressed over the last 150 years since Darwin formulated his version. There is no Darwinism to speak of anymore. The theory has been updated to include knowledge of genetics, molecular biology and population biology that were unavailable to Darwin when he first formulated his original version. His theory of natural selection has held up over time too.

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.

You are conflating the origin of life in chemistry with the evolution of life. These are not the same thing and represent two different fields of study.

There are no evidence of gradualism or that later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.

There is plenty of evidence. Masses of it really. The fossil record, the genetic record in the genome, ERV's, highly conserved genes all point to common descent and biological evolution.

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.

You talk about gradualism, demand some instantaneous change that is not gradualism and when that instantaneous change is not seen, you say gradual evolution has failed. That is a straw man argument.

The fossil record shows the relationships. Related living organisms show relationships. Genes show relationships. Morphology shows relationships. Molecular biology shows relationships. The evidence is there and in many fields of science.

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

Now you are conflating biological evolution with cosmological origins of the universe. These are not dependent concepts.

How could the universe just appear out of nothing,

Who, besides, creationists say it did?

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.

No idea what you are talking about here.

Scientist scramble to come up with another way or adjustment to the theory. but the more they try, the more convoluted it becomes.[/QUOTE]Which theory are you talking about? So far, you have conflated hypotheses of the origin of life, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang. There are at least two different theories so far and they are independent and cover different domains of existence.

No scientists are scrambling to shore up the theory of evolution. It is the most well-supported theory in science and has held up for 150 years and counting.

Many of these ideas of man are being discovered to be unsupported, or no longer seem to have any validity with people today

They are supported, continue to be supported and remain valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

Wow! You got that backwards. The more people know the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.

Also if you study these ideas there is no "belief" there is knowledge. The myths of Genesis were refuted over 100 years ago and the evidence has only become stronger and stronger over the years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a even better site.
Gradualism: The Darwinist Article of Faith

A series on it..

Sorry, faith is not needed to accept gradualism. The concepts of science can be tested. Gradualism has been tested. It is more than well supported. Creationist sites tend to be very dishonest. They know that the burden of proof is upon them since they cannot support their claims with any scientific evidence. Right now if you want to make a claim against the findings of scientists the burden of proof lies very heavily upon the creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Superbugs are 100% proof that Evolution is happening

Super Bugs. Is that a rabbit? Note the Earth. It is not flat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, faith is not needed to accept gradualism. The concepts of science can be tested. Gradualism has been tested. It is more than well supported. Creationist sites tend to be very dishonest. They know that the burden of proof is upon them since they cannot support their claims with any scientific evidence. Right now if you want to make a claim against the findings of scientists the burden of proof lies very heavily upon the creationists.

It is another example of a person that has found information that fits a personal belief, but has not bothered to vet that information or find out what is known and reported in science. I wonder if any of the responses will be examined or if they will be dismisses outright without further review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is another example of a person that has found information that fits a personal belief, but has not bothered to vet that information or find out what is known and reported in science. I wonder if any of the responses will be examined or if they will be dismisses outright without further review.

Probably not. The goal is confirmation bias, not learning.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Got a single specific, citable scientific or archaeological find that casts doubt on Neo Darwinian evolution?

It's OK, I'll wait...

Still waiting...

 

[reddogs]

Still waiting...

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

 

[metis]

Modern-day whales did not come from bears, nor did modern-day bears come from whales, so even such a thought indicates a misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts of the ToE.

 

[reddogs]

Modern-day whales did not come from bears, nor did modern-day bears come from whales, so even such a thought indicates a misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts of the ToE.

So Darwin didn't know what he was talking about then...How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian

 

[ecco]

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

It is a wonder that Jesus' appearance after his death remains controversial among Gospel writers

• Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena, but it’s not clear where (in older endings of Mark, he didn’t appear at all)
• Matthew 28:8-9 - Jesus first appears near his tomb
• Luke 24:13-15 - Jesus first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
• John 20:13-14 - Jesus first appears at his tomb

With so much controversy, it is clear that the Bible must be wrong.

To paraphrase your OP:
Does anyone believe in the Bible anymore?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Let’s get the point...

Science is Fake News !

We just had invisible help from Jesus and His Pals to get medicine, electronics, atomic power and space travel working.

Those scientists should have taken the easy way out instead of all of that education and silly stuff like that.

 

[corynski]

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

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

Evolution is both a theory and a fact, and is well documented scientifically. It is accepted as the only reasonable explanation for what we see around us. But have you ever looked seriously at the idea of a 'god' creating this world?
Have you noticed that in our world every living creature is required to eat some other living creature, plant or animal, usually alive until recently, in order to survive? And have you watched 'god's' creation, the cat, play with butterflies and birds until they are dead and destroyed? But not eat them? 'God' allows killing for pleasure?
Why? Why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent 'god' violently kill so many of his own creations? Does 'god' have no control over the weather storms that kill many infants and old people? And 'god' admits at least 3 times in the bible that he creates both good and evil. Why? And why would 'god' not simply 'show up'.
The evidence instead suggests an anthropological answer. Humans create gods, not the opposite. Humans write 'bibles' and holy books. It's an anachronistic cultural artifact, yet still part of each member's indoctrination into his group, to learn of and accept a deity that was created and encouraged by the group itself.

 

[reddogs]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact, and is well documented scientifically. It is accepted as the only reasonable explanation for what we see around us. But have you ever looked seriously at the idea of a 'god' creating this world?
Have you noticed that in our world every living creature is required to eat some other living creature, plant or animal, usually alive until recently, in order to survive? And have you watched 'god's' creation, the cat, play with butterflies and birds until they are dead and destroyed? But not eat them? 'God' allows killing for pleasure?
Why? Why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent 'god' violently kill so many of his own creations? Does 'god' have no control over the weather storms that kill many infants and old people? And 'god' admits at least 3 times in the bible that he creates both good and evil. Why? And why would 'god' not simply 'show up'.
The evidence instead suggests an anthropological answer. Humans create gods, not the opposite. Humans write 'bibles' and holy books. It's an anachronistic cultural artifact, yet still part of each member's indoctrination into his group, to learn of and accept a deity that was created and encouraged by the group itself.

So is that why you reject anything that is of God, and come up with unsupportable theories, that something came out of nothing and spread out and created life. Here is a statement that gets to the heart of the matter:
“The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true....

Scientist have tried but cannot to this day, find the start of lineage of the species, it just doesn't have the gradualism that evolution claims happen. They are stumped how sea life as well as those on land suddenly appear in the fossil record, all fully formed and having what is needed to eat, hear, and move, to say nothing of their DNA and other internal functions that they had.

 

[metis]

So Darwin didn't know what he was talking about then...How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian

There's a difference between direct relationships with one form evolving into another, versus an indirect relationship whereas two animals may be related through a "web" of forms. Your wording implied the former, whereas the real relationship based on the fossil evidence with whales and bears is with the latter.

 

[ecco]

So is that why you reject anything that is of God,

I know you didn't address this to me. Nevertheless...

Science in general and evolution in particular, are not why I rejected God realized the concept of gods was silly. I did that by comparing your Genesis stories to the stories that I was reading in my comic books (~age 10). The comic book stories were just as believable (unbelievable) as the Genesis stories. The difference was that no one was trying to convince me that Superman could really fly.

and come up with unsupportable theories, that something came out of nothing and spread into out and created life.

That's wrong on several levels and really hypocritical. You believe, and don't understand why we don't believe, that an Omni-all entity has always existed, did nothing for 99.999999999999999999999999999999+% of its existence, created a vast universe for just a few people on a small planet on the outskirts of just one of billions of galaxies.

Here is a statement that gets to the heart of the matter:
“The dominant life form <snip> Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

This Francis Hitching?

Francis Hitching - RationalWiki.
Francis Hitching (born 1933) is a British television journalist and author. He is notable not least because creationists have extensively quotemined his 1983 book The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong and some other works. His other books are on dowsing, ley lines, and pseudohistory.

“”His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.
—Richard Dawkins[1]
​

You are just proving that your intensive religious indoctrination makes you incapable of critical thinking. You are taking the word of a television journalist and author over the word of scientists who have extensive education and research in various fields.

Do you, like Hitching, believe in ley lines and dowsing?

Scientist have tried but cannot to this day, find the start of lineage of the species, it just doesn't have the gradualism that evolution claims happen. They are stumped how sea life as well as those on land suddenly appear in the fossil record, all fully formed and having what is needed to eat, hear, and move, to say nothing of their DNA and other internal functions that they had.

What a silly, uninformed comment.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

Still waiting for you to answer the actual question...