One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

ok then I saw one Canine evolve into another Canine. Again, Micro-Evolution. I have no problem believing that every canine had the same ancester. Or that all Bacteria comes from the same source. What I have a problem with is that Canines come from bacteria.

That is what I ask for evidence of.

You’re going to be waiting a long time, then, because evolution doesn’t say that dogs came from bacteria.

And this is still moving the goal posts. You guys wanted proof of one species changing into another species. You were given such proof. Now you have claimed it is not what you asked for and are now demanding for proof that on domain changed into another domain.

True, But if everything started from a primordial soup and then over time evolved into everything on earth, then that evolution should still be happening.

And it is still happening and we can observe it today. You guys are simply feigning dissatisfaction with the proof given.

We should be able to see living transitional creatures, forget the fossil record. Yet everything is fully formed. If birds came from reptiles, we should see some reptiles with half formed wings. But we don’t
We should be seeing “life” crawling out of the mud today. If it happened once then under the same conditions it should happen again.

Sorry, but this is not how it should happen. There is no reason that the transitional forms should still be around. We DO have dinos with half-formed wings. Tons of them, actually. But there is no scientific or logical reason that they would have to still be around instead of extinct. You guys keep demanding evidence for things that evolution doesn’t even teach is real. Its like an anti-Catholic asking me for proof that I worship Mary. Uh…I don’t worship Mary, so how would I give evidence that I do?

 

[Steveabrous]

Um. If you are going to criticize something, you should know what you talking about. It almost sounds like you are saying we are taking advantage of the fact that we know more about this subject than you do… but if that’s the case, then you should be coming with questions instead of arguments.

Here is my original post:

ok so here I am on the fence.

On one hand What some call Micro-evolution is undeniable (again, look at dogs) and it’s not that big of a leap to go to Macro-evolution when you add billions of years.

And the hubble telescope has proven the universe is billions of years old. Sorry, but if something is 10 billion light years away, we are seeing what happened 10 billion years ago in the telescope. Case closed

If you look at Genesis with an open mind there is room for evolution. So my faith is not threatened by it.

I have heard (on discovery channel) that science says humans sky rocketed in advancement about 50,000 years ago, just all at once. So I can see God using the process and then infusing a soul.

scientists almost unanomously say EVOLUTION.

And they are a lot smarter then me.

O.K., sounds good. But this is science, and I am from the show-me-state so show me the evidence.

But they always give me an example of micro-evolution. I don’t have a problem with mico-evolution. What I want is evidence of MACO-evolution. And, quite frankly, at that point there is a lot of dodging and insults.

If you really press them the say museums. But the museums are more artist rendition then actual bone. The amount of actual fossilized bone that we have is very small. In fact all the actual fossilized evidence in the world can fit in the back of a pick-up. And it looks like a bunch of rocks. So I say how do they know this is what they think it is. Especially since over the decades what said rock supposedly is has changed. Several times

So in the end we are left with “We are the scientists, we are smarter then you, just accept it”

Sorry but I have a problem with that.

Especially when you have instances such as piltdown man and Nebraska man which were heralded for decades as real missing links, but then turned out to be frauds.

And the best evidence for a missing link today, Lucy, is highly suspect.

I’m sorry but unless someone can show me real evidence for MACO-evolution, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a nice theory and thats it.

I am not anti-evolution. But if I am to believe it I need to see the evidence that MACO evolution exists

When I said :

prove to me that Cats and dogs have the same ancestor. Give me an example of one KIND of animal evolving into another KIND of animal. Say a mammal evolving into a reptile.

That is my question

 

[vz71]

No, I did what I said, you’re essential point was “So What.”

More headway could be gained if you responded to what is actually written.

The Fact is, Science uses evidence, Creationism makes up evidence.
I presented evidence, as a rational person would, and you didn’t refute
it, you just denied it, without any real reason, except you want to pre-
serve your literal interpretation of the Bible.

Again, more headway could be gained in responding to what is actually written.
I have never specified how exactly I interpret the bible.

No matter what proof I offer, so it seems, you’re default train of thought would be “That’s not proof at all!”

I knew a very wise statistics teacher that taught me that one does not equal a trend.
Perhaps if I reacted in the fashion you describe to multiple explanations, you may have a point.
But as it sits, you have a blind accusation that benefits no one.

Are you not a Creationist? You had led me to assume that by
denying evolution and being reluctant even towards that video
I provided. What is your position for real?

No, your own preconceived notions of what I am led you to believe that.

It is funny that those that advocate evolution claim to be following science.
But when that theory is challenged, All of the scientific principles go out the window.
They suddenly ‘know’ all about other people.
They never actually read the replies and learn who it is they are accusing of whatever.
They simply run on with whatever canned response there is to bible literalists…creationists…whatever.
It does not matter if those they are debating are in fact any of these.
They KNOW. And science didn’t have anything to say about it.

There is a word for those that claim one thing but do another.
I pray it is not the case but is more a case of people simply being too close to the argument.

 

[Farsight001]

Ok yes, speciation happens among Moths, bacteria, etc.

forgive me if I don’t get the terms right. What I’m saying is prove to me that Cats and dogs have the same ancestor. Give me an example of one KIND of animal evolving into another KIND of animal. Say a mammal evolving into a reptile. (Yes, I know that’s not how it happened but you guys are doding the real subject by taking advantage of the fact that us lay people do not know the correct terms. Which is typical)

One kind of bacteria evolving into another kind of bacteria IS EXACTLY what you’re asking for. You seem to be throwing it out just because its microscopic, though I don’t know why that would make a difference.

As for not knowing the correct terms - I want you to mull that over. You know SO LITTLE about evolution that you don’t even know which terminology to use. Then what makes you think you know enough to know it isn’t true, or that scientists are just politicizing it (or any number of other accusations thrown at evolution here)?

 

[Gricken]

Here is my original post:

I am not anti-evolution. But if I am to believe it I need to see the evidence that MACO evolution exists

When I said :

That is my question

My mistake then. I saw that post earlier but mostly glossed over it. I will say that the whole thing about “missing links” doesn’t really make much sense. After all, if we do discover a missing link, there’s nothing stopping people from asking what the missing link is between this new species and current humans.

 

[Farsight001]

Here is my original post:

I am not anti-evolution. But if I am to believe it I need to see the evidence that MACO evolution exists

When I said :

That is my question

Ok. But if you don’t know, as you admitted, the terminology, meaning you don’t know the definitions of micro and macro and where the distinction between them really is, then how could you possible recognize macro-evolution when you see it?

 

[estesbob]

Which is an assumption we MUST make for it to be science, just as historians MUST make the assumption that time travelers from the future did not go back into history and visit and effect events.

Agreed.I am actually agnostic on evolution.The “who” matters much more to me than the"how" Evolution plays no part in my profession although some of the tax returns I do are heavy on creationism!

 

[vz71]

Didn’t you know that an Amoeba and E-coli have LESS in common genetically than humans have with dogs?

Do we have an example of either E-coli or Amoebas evolving into the other?

If not, this statement really does not say much.

 

[Gricken]

Do we have an example of either E-coli or Amoebas evolving into the other?

If not, this statement really does not say much.

The point he was making is that Bactria have very little in common with each other, and we DO have evidence of one type of Bactria evolving into another one. So his point stands.

 

[vz71]

Evolution IS the truth. I’ve even told you where to look for proof of it in this very thread.

Actually, evolution is only the popular theory until something better comes along.

Real science is like that.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Necessity is the mother of invention. For most of human history, we were hunter gatherers. Without an advanced civilization we had no need of writing. But as we began to settle, it was found that having records for things like tribute at temples, (which is thought by some to be the origin of writing) was useful. You aren’t seriously saying that we have only existed for as long as or writing are you? And even if you are, I fail to see what that has to do with evolution.

First off your explanation is speculation with zero objective evidence. Writing things down is objective evidence of existence. That is the difference. There are some cave paintings dated later with highly questionable dating methods. [Not an exact science] and old earth evolutionary assumptions built in.

You have zero ancient precedent for any of the moderns assumptions man was around for hundreds of thousands of years. I know the moderns were wrong about a host of things regarding Biblical history so there is plenty valid reasons to be skeptical. Also their tactics. Seems they vilify anyone who entertains different theories about age of man or earth. If their case was so strong they would not have to resort to those type of tactics.

 

[Gricken]

Actually, evolution is only the popular theory until something better comes along.

Real science is like that.

Real science also does not refuse something on the assumption that something better will come along in the future.

 

[vz71]

Which is an assumption we MUST make for it to be science, just as historians MUST make the assumption that time travelers from the future did not go back into history and visit and effect events.

It is poor science to ignore reality.

God is reality.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t have a problem with the idea of evolution generally, though it often seems to me that some of the claims that “this came from that” are excessive.

But if 1/3 or 1/2 or whatever fraction of the population doesn’t believe in it, it’s nothing at all to me. Besides, those who don’t believe in it come up with some funny sayings. My favorite is:

“If monkeys evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys?”

Yes, yes, I know; the common ancestor thing and all that. I still like the joke.

 

[Farsight001]

Do we have an example of either E-coli or Amoebas evolving into the other?

If not, this statement really does not say much.

No we don’t because evolution doesn’t say that they did. And the statement points out the silliness of suggesting one bacteria changing into another bacteria is not enough while claiming that one canine becoming another canine (a much, MUCH smaller group and less genetically diverse group) is enough.

 

[freeRadical]

If you keep acting like there is a functional difference between micro and macro evolution, no one who knows their stuff is going to take you seriously. Every tidbit of evidence for micro evolution IS evidence for macroevolution because there is NO DISTINCTION between the two. They are the same darn thing - a term of measurement - with the only difference being on of scale.

And Berlinski? He knows about as much about evolution as a five year old knows about quantum mechanics. Try an actual expert, please. Read one of the thousands upon thousands of books chock full of evidence for evolution or some of the literally millions of scientific studies on the subject, and then try and tell people the evidence is scant. Berlinski TOLD you the evidence was scant. He was wrong.

As for peer review - how does it keep dissenting views out? Dissenting views, provided the study was performed well, are published all the time. Even ID advocates have gotten a couple things published in scientific literature. They tend to act incredulous because they think people are keeping them out, but what’s really happening here is that they have barely tried to submit any papers. Only every 1 in 50 or so papers submitted to scientific journals get published. This is a clear cut case of people complaining about unfair treatment only because they don’t know how the system works.

And btw, people who doubt climate change get published all the time. Berlinski really has no idea what he’s talking about. Notice how his PhD is actually in philosophy, not a science? There’s a reason for that.

Why is Berlinski not an expert? Because he’s not a biologist he cannot comment on evolution? Are you telling me that only so-called experts in their fields can comment on their fields? Just cause you say he’s not an expert doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So what if his PhD is an philosophy and not “science”. Does that make him any less intelligent? Any less able to do research?

I don’t care what you have to say on evolution. Do you have a PhD? Are you an expert in the field? The science is unconvincing to me as it is to a lot of people and your response is always we’re ignorant or we don’t know what we’re talking about. How dare we question current scientific consensus, these guys are scientists and stuff, they know what they are talking about!

 

[Farsight001]

Actually, evolution is only the popular theory until something better comes along.

Real science is like that.

Only sometimes. Atomic theory isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. And why is that? Because with technology, we can now see individual atoms. Likewise, we can see evolution. The how and why it happens might change over time. But THAT it happens isn’t going away in the next 5 billion years.

 

[Gricken]

First off your explanation is speculation with zero objective evidence. Writing things down is objective evidence of existence. That is the difference. There are some cave paintings dated later with highly questionable dating methods. [Not an exact science] and old earth evolutionary assumptions built in.

You have zero ancient precedent for any of the moderns assumptions man was around for hundreds of thousands of years. I know the moderns were wrong about a host of things regarding Biblical history so there is plenty valid reasons to be skeptical. Also their tactics. Seems they vilify anyone who entertains different theories about age of man or earth. If their case was so strong they would not have to resort to those type of tactics.

It is not “speculation” It is deductive reasoning based on the evidence we have from so long ago. When dealing with things that old, historians must use a lot of deductive reasoning. I haven’t seen any vilification done on their part (though I have seen quite a bit of it done by people here who think evolution is false). Just how how inaccurate do you think dating is to assume that we’re wrong about man being hundreds of thousands of years old?

 

[Farsight001]

It is poor science to ignore reality.

God is reality.

It is poor science to try to study or factor in the supernatural. God is supernatural.

 

[Gricken]

Why is Berlinski not an expert? Because he’s not a biologist he cannot comment on evolution? Are you telling me that only so-called experts in their fields can comment on their fields? Just cause you say he’s not an expert doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So what if his PhD is an philosophy and not “science”. Does that make him any less intelligent? Any less able to do research?

I don’t care what you have to say on evolution. Do you have a PhD? Are you an expert in the field? The science is unconvincing to me as it is to a lot of people and your response is always we’re ignorant or we don’t know what we’re talking about. How dare we question current scientific consensus, these guys are scientists and stuff, they know what they are talking about!

Actually we’ve given quite a few arguments, if you think we’ve done nothing but call people ignorant, you either are in fact being willfully ignorant, lying, or haven’t read this thread very much. Also, you go from saying you won’t listen to us because we don’t have a PhD to saying that you don’t believe what people who have PhD’s say anyways