Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[dfnj]

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

There are many physicists who believe our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in another previously existing space-time dimension:

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

 

[shunyadragon]

You know, we use Darwinian selection in computers. I understand that the Rolls Royce jet engines
on Airbus planes were designed using Darwin's principles, ie model numerous iterations of a turbine
blade. Then select the best ones and iterate these further with variations of the design.
With as few as 50 switches we can create a computer chip that can voice activate a switch - the
chip figured out a way to do this all by itself - something no human could do with 50 switches.

No I do not use Darwinian in these contexts for various reasons. I do not believe those who design and engineer computers and jet engines use this terminology. IT is not accurate to describe the above in terms of natural selection in response to changing environments.

I have seen this terminology used in the design of computers that mimic biological physiology for artificial intelligence, and increase the computer speeds, but it is a stretch. If used I prefer to describe this as the principles of evolution used in the development of AI intelligence.

Humans have used genetic selection to improve crops, and animals for human benefit long before Charles Darwin.

I am wary of this terminology to describe human design and engineering, because it is often used by Christian Creationists to justify their view of Intelligent Design to demonstrate the necessity that life need be designed by a higher power. It is also often used in a derogatory manner to criticise the natural science of evolution.

The science of evolution has moved far beyond the proposals by Charles Darwin for the hypothesis (theory) of evolution.

 

[PruePhillip]

No I do not use Darwinian in these contexts for various reasons. I do not believe those who design and engineer computers and jet engines use this terminology. IT is not accurate to describe the above in terms of natural selection in response to changing environments.

I have seen this terminology used in the design of computers that mimic biological physiology for artificial intelligence, and increase the computer speeds, but it is a stretch. If used I prefer to describe this as the principles of evolution used in the development of AI intelligence.

Humans have used genetic selection to improve crops, and animals for human benefit long before Charles Darwin.

I am wary of this terminology to describe human design and engineering, because it is often used by Christian Creationists to justify their view of Intelligent Design to demonstrate the necessity that life need be designed by a higher power. It is also often used in a derogatory manner to criticise the natural science of evolution.

The science of evolution has moved far beyond the proposals by Charles Darwin for the hypothesis (theory) of evolution.

I would not say that natural selection has moved FAR beyond Darwin. It explains the bulk of what
goes on, in a similar vein to Newton's laws.
Look up Neo-Darwinism.
Of interest is that Darwin's views don't yet explain how life came to be in the first place. I have
no doubt this will be figured in a generation or two (hopefully) but we are still a long ways away
from understanding this. Hope there's no "irreducible complexity" at work here!

 

[ChristineM]

I would not say that natural selection has moved FAR beyond Darwin. It explains the bulk of what
goes on, in a similar vein to Newton's laws.
Look up Neo-Darwinism.
Of interest is that Darwin's views don't yet explain how life came to be in the first place. I have
no doubt this will be figured in a generation or two (hopefully) but we are still a long ways away
from understanding this. Hope there's no "irreducible complexity" at work here!

No evolutionary theory tells of how life came to be, thats an entirely different subject.

And Newton's law of gravity has just currently on its way out of the window
Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next | Science | News | Express.co.uk

Edited to resolve @shunyadragon s concern

 

[shunyadragon]

I would not say that natural selection has moved FAR beyond Darwin. It explains the bulk of what goes on, in a similar vein to Newton's laws.

Darwin only proposed his hypothesis (theory) of evolution with the knowledge he had at the time, and he did get a lot of things wrong, but realized that his proposal for evolution needed further discoveries and research. He did make a number of,predictions concerning the needed research and discoveries need to confirm the science of evolution,

Look up Neo-Darwinism.

I know the term, and do not use it. In part, because of the derogatory misuse of the term, and the vagueness of what it actually means. I simply refer to the 'science of evolution.'

Of interest is that Darwin's views don't yet explain how life came to be in the first place. natural magnificent and wonderful patterns[

Charles Darwin made no effort to propose a hypothesis for abiogenesis, and only made a brief statement on the possibility of the origins of life.

I have no doubt this will be figured in a generation or two (hopefully) but we are still a long ways away
from understanding this. Hope there's no "irreducible complexity" at work here!

"Irreducible complexity" has no basis in legitimate science, because of the 'fallacy' of trying to falsify the negative. The science of abiogenesis is a work in progress and in reality only began with the detailed knowledge of genetics, fundamentals of the chemistry of life, and the knowledge of the geology and chemistry of the early history of the earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

No evolution [does not tell] how life came to be, thats an entirely different subject.

And Newton's law of gravity has just currently on its way out of the window
Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next | Science | News | Express.co.uk

Note correction.

 

[ChristineM]

Note correction.

I think mine was more correct 'No evolution tells...'

Meaning no evolutionary theory

Yours requires a comma 'No, evolution [does not tell]'

 

[ecco]

And God commanded the seas to bring forth life.
Genesis 1.

Well, there ya have it. Undeniable, indisputable proof!

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, there ya have it. Undeniable, indisputable proof!

At the point in history a person could survive upon the earth there was little or no land,
just vast oceans and dark clouds. NASA sees Saturn's moon Titan as an "analogue"
of this early earth. Then the skies cleared, the continents rose and life emerged - from
the earth and seas themselves. Man was the last to appear.
Genesis 1.
Indisputable proof.

 

[ecco]

At the point in history a person could survive upon the earth there was little or no land,
just vast oceans and dark clouds. NASA sees Saturn's moon Titan as an "analogue"
of this early earth. Then the skies cleared, the continents rose and life emerged - from
the earth and seas themselves. Man was the last to appear.
Genesis 1.
Indisputable proof.

So, are you saying that soon we should be seeing men walking around Titan?

 

[Audie]

Thread could better have been,
"Does anyone really stll believe
that trotting out these stupid moldy
ignorant pratts yet again is somehow
clever?"

 

[Sand Dancer]

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

Where did you get the idea that fewer people believe in evolution?

 

[reddogs]

The scientists cannot find a single line of species with a evolutionary pattern, they just appear. Here is a good site to check out. Species Variation | Breed Selection | Hybridization

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

A series on it..

 

[Willamena]

No evolutionary theory tells of how life came to be, thats an entirely different subject.

Right. It does not. It's a theory of biology.

 

[Willamena]

Where did you get the idea that fewer people believe in evolution?

I suspect it's just standard trolling technique.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I suspect it's just standard trolling technique.

I took the bait. Dang.

 

[PruePhillip]

So, are you saying that soon we should be seeing men walking around Titan?

One day when the sun expands and engulfs the earth the moon Titan
might be just a nice tropical place to live. Don't hold your breath though,
that will be in about four billion years.

 

[Howard Is]

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

A series on it..

Nothing to do with science nor the science of evolution. Not even a good D scifi movie plot

 

[Polymath257]

There are many physicists who believe our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in another previously existing space-time dimension:

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

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.