Gallup poll: "7 in 10 Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution"

[ImmortalFlame]

First let me say that I never said that science is not based on fact but simply that evolution is a theory not a fact.

It's both, in the same way that gravity is both a theory and a fact. Change in allele frequency over time is a fact, and we call that process evolution. The model that we use to explain that process is called the theory of evolution. This is extremely basic scientific terminology.

You can have facts that help the basis of a theory but that theory does not obtain the classification of fact on that alone since a fact has to be directly observed.

Theories never become facts. I don't think you understand how science works at all.

You say I should have a better understanding of science?

Clearly, yes, since you fail to understand the scientific concept of "theory".

I have three years of geological studies at auburn university and Montana tech and I've been studying geology independently since age 16. I could be wrong on things of a biological nature but my knowledge of geology and the fossil record is intact.

I'm just going to go right ahead and say that I refuse to believe any of this until you've demonstrated at least a working knowledge of how science works and the correct usage of basic scientific terminology. Not that it matters either way, you're still wrong.

 

[outhouse]

my knowledge of geology and the fossil record is intact

then you may be suited better to debate rocks and dirt

not basic high school biology

 

[Skwim]

First let me say that I never said that science is not based on fact but simply that evolution is a theory not a fact.

Puleeeese. What do you think we are, blind?

"You seem to want to ignore that and continue to use the word fact even though even science refuses to use that term. Hmm maybe you don't understand the concept of scientific study."
-Gseeker:
​

But go ahead with your tap dance. If nothing else it's amusing.

I have three years of geological studies at auburn university and Montana tech and I've been studying geology independently since age 16. I could be wrong on things of a biological nature but my knowledge of geology and the fossil record is intact. I will not debate on this thread anymore out of respect to the thread creators but you are welcome to argue your point on my threads.

Your thread? why certainly. I'll be right there. C'mon guys. Lets go over to Gseeker's place. Which one is it?

 

[painted wolf]

I'm just curious how someone can say that they studied geology and paleontology and not notice a single transitional form in the fossil record... he must have a very singular definition of transitional. :thud:

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

I'm just curious how someone can say that they studied geology and paleontology and not notice a single transitional form in the fossil record... he must have a very singular definition of transitional. :thud:

wa:do

It is really no great mystery. Obviously they are lying.

 

[s2a]

First let me say that I never said that science is not based on fact but simply that evolution is a theory not a fact. You can have facts that help the basis of a theory but that theory does not obtain the classification of fact on that alone since a fact has to be directly observed. You say I should have a better understanding of science? I have three years of geological studies at auburn university and Montana tech and I've been studying geology independently since age 16. I could be wrong on things of a biological nature but my knowledge of geology and the fossil record is intact. I will not debate on this thread anymore out of respect to the thread creators but you are welcome to argue your point on my threads.

Mitt?

Mitt Romney?

Is that really you?

You'll never earn my vote, but welcome to REF

[Fox News wants to schedule another interview with you real soon, and they promise not to point out your walk-backs in just your last three posts here...]

 

[johnhanks]

Here is your list Dr john whitmore Dr Gary e Pennington Dr Carlton c Murrumbidgee Dr Harold coffin Dr Louis Agassiz. Dr joachim schevien Marcus r Ross Dr Kurt wise most have doctorates in that list and several were Harvard educated.

Dr. John Whitmore: M.S. in geology from the Institute for Creation Research
Dr Gary Pennington: no palaeontologist came up under that name; did your AiG search confuse the following: 'Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Prof...'?
Dr Carlton c Murrumbidgee: no palaeontologist came up under that name; where does he work? What has he published?
Dr Louis Agassiz: not very active in the field since his death in 1873.
Dr joachim schevien: prefers to be called Joachim Scheven, research restricted to insects preserved in amber, seems to think that because some show little change over time evolution must be false.
Marcus R Ross: Assistant Director of the Center for Creation Studies at a private christian university.
Dr Kurt wise: the only Harvard connection I could come across in your list. Candidly admits that he abandoned evolution only because of his faith in genesis, not for any scientific reason:

if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

As for the term layman, only in modern times has that changed to mean someone without a degree...

Yeah, but gseeker, modern times are where you and I live. Whatever your IQ, in terms of evolutionary biology, you are a layman.

Lol

Indeed.

 

[camanintx]

True but if an organic compound can become life couldn't that same organic compound theoreticaly produce asexually?

Yes, and once it was capable of reproducing, asexually or sexually, it would be able to evolve. But not until then.

And as I've said, it isn't evolution but it is a major facet of evolution even the cornerstone that the theory of evolution is built upon.

It's not much of a cornerstone if a majority of those who believe in evolution also believe life was created, just not in its present form.

 

[gseeker]

Dr. John Whitmore: M.S. in geology from the Institute for Creation Research
Dr Gary Pennington: no palaeontologist came up under that name; did your AiG search confuse the following: 'Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Prof...'?
Dr Carlton c Murrumbidgee: no palaeontologist came up under that name; where does he work? What has he published?
Dr Louis Agassiz: not very active in the field since his death in 1873.
Dr joachim schevien: prefers to be called Joachim Scheven, research restricted to insects preserved in amber, seems to think that because some show little change over time evolution must be false.
Marcus R Ross: Assistant Director of the Center for Creation Studies at a private christian university.
Dr Kurt wise: the only Harvard connection I could come across in your list. Candidly admits that he abandoned evolution only because of his faith in genesis, not for any scientific reason:

Yeah, but gseeker, modern times are where you and I live. Whatever your IQ, in terms of evolutionary biology, you are a layman.
Indeed.

Yep shocking just shocking that those paleontologists who believe against evolution would end up working for organizations who also don't believe in evolution, wow you really proved your point on that one, hurry someone call the media! As for the term layman you obviously don't mind someone changing the meaning of a definition to make what the are trying to say more plausible, after all, you believe in evolution and many terms have changed meaning to fit what they say within the context that they say that. Such as what makes a species a species. LOL

 

[gseeker]

I'm just curious how someone can say that they studied geology and paleontology and not notice a single transitional form in the fossil record... he must have a very singular definition of transitional. :thud:

wa:do

Uh likely because the definition of what makes a transitional fossil a transitional fossil has changed over time to incorporate genetic variations whit in a species. That is still micro evolution and does in no way give credence to the theory of macro evolution. A fish remained a fish a fruit fly remained a fruit fly and a sheep remained a sheep. Again I repeat a sheep remained a sheep. And people remained sheeple.

 

[gseeker]

Mitt?

Mitt Romney?

Is that really you?

You'll never earn my vote, but welcome to REF

[Fox News wants to schedule another interview with you real soon, and they promise not to point out your walk-backs in just your last three posts here...]

Hey look at the bright side, your post just got much more attention than it actually deserves because now everyone can try and mock the 'ignorant' creationist. Even your getting into the act. The fact that you think politics has anything to do with the belief in evolution means nothing.

 

[idea]

I'm just curious how someone can say that they studied geology and paleontology and not notice a single transitional form in the fossil record... he must have a very singular definition of transitional. :thud:

wa:do

Yes, the poll is bunk - there are so many different varieties of evolution, that you cannot say a simple yes or no to it... I personally think the fossil record supports punctuated equilib over gradualism, and am a fan of panspermia... Here are some quotes from people who have studied paleontology:

[FONT=&quot]"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors. "
Eldredge, N., Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa. "
Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. "A Comparative Study of Diversification Events" Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt and without transition." Goldschmidt, Richard B.
"Evolution, As Viewed By One Geneticist" American Scientist, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 84-94


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
Gould, S.J. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, vol. 86

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." Kemp, Tom "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Vol. 108, No. 1485, p. 66
(Dr. Tom Kemp is Curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum.)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"... the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. ...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"
Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that palaeontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.
Paul, C. R. C.,
"Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates"
Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors),
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., p. 105 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][G]aps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large.
Raff, R. A. and Kaufman, T. C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change
Indiana University Press, p. 35

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The known fossil record is not, and has never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.
Stanley, S. M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 71

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.
Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Taxa recognized as orders during the (Precambrian-Cambrian) transition chiefly appear without connection to an ancestral clade via a fossil intermediate. This situation is in fact true of most invertebrate orders during the remaining Phanerozoic as well. There are no chains of taxa leading gradually from an ancestral condition to the new ordinal body type. Orders thus appear as rather distinctive subdivisions of classes rather than as being segments in some sort of morphological continuum.
Valentine, J.W., Awramik, S.M., Signor, P.W., and Sadler, P.M.
"The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary"
Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 25, Max K. Hecht, editor, Plenum Press, New York and London, p.284

[/FONT]


etc. etc. etc. I have a lot more quotes if anyone is interested...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[mycorrhiza]

As for the term layman you obviously don't mind someone changing the meaning of a definition to make what the are trying to say more plausible, after all, you believe in evolution and many terms have changed meaning to fit what they say within the context that they say that. Such as what makes a species a species. LOL

The simplest definition of species is animals that can, under natural cirumstances, produce (fertile) offspring with eachother. We have directly observed evolution beyond this, and it is "macroevolution". We have even done it ourselves with several plants.

Could you provide evidence for the genetic barrier that allows for evolution within a species, but not beyond a species? Because, as far as I'm aware, scientists have found no such genetic indications.

 

[idea]

The simplest definition of species is animals that can, under natural cirumstances, produce (fertile) offspring with eachother. We have directly observed evolution beyond this, and it is "macroevolution". We have even done it ourselves with several plants.

Could you provide evidence for the genetic barrier that allows for evolution within a species, but not beyond a species? Because, as far as I'm aware, scientists have found no such genetic indications.

The barrier is contained within your first statement - reproduction.

Why Sexual Reproduction? by Brig Klyce

 

[mycorrhiza]

The barrier is contained within your first statement - reproduction.

Why Sexual Reproduction? by Brig Klyce

It's not a barrier for evolution. In fact, it's a need for evolution. If we separate two populations of a single species, then these two populations can change independently and end up not being able to reproduce with the other population. If evolution worked differently (I.e. a crocodile suddenly becomes a duck, pokemon style) then reproduction would be a problem, though.

There's also a more direct version of speciation that comes with polyploidy in plants. Since many plants are able to reproduce asexually, it's not a problem.

 

[johnhanks]

Yep shocking just shocking that those paleontologists who believe against evolution would end up working for organizations who also don't believe in evolution...

What would be more impressive from your point of view would be to list some palaeontologists who had abandoned the theory of evolution for scientific rather than religious reasons. What you are currently showing us is a bunch of people who let their prior religious convictions dictate what science they can and cannot accept. Now show us someone who is neutral on the matter of religion, but still rejects the evidence for evolution.

.. wow you really proved your point on that one, hurry someone call the media!

My, you are excitable, aren't you?

As for the term layman you obviously don't mind someone changing the meaning of a definition to make what the are trying to say more plausible...

The original meaning of layman was a person who is not a cleric; this was later extended to mean any non-member of a specified profession or discipline. I don't believe it was ever in general use as a signifier of general stupidity or ignorance. For all the bluster, gseeker, your lay status in the context of evolutionary biology is unchanged.

... after all, you believe in evolution and many terms have changed meaning to fit what they say within the context that they say that. Such as what makes a species a species.

What do you think makes a species a species? What's your thinking on ring species?

 

[camanintx]

The barrier is contained within your first statement - reproduction.

Why Sexual Reproduction? by Brig Klyce

Have you ever heard the phrase "populations evolve, not individuals"? As mycorrhiza points out, there is no barrier to reproduction within the population that evolves together. Once two groups of the same species are geographically isolated from each other, what prevents them from evolving in different directions?

 

[s2a]

Hey look at the bright side, your post just got much more attention than it actually deserves because now everyone can try and mock the 'ignorant' creationist. Even your getting into the act. The fact that you think politics has anything to do with the belief in evolution means nothing.

Well, I mock "creationists" at every opportunity when it suits me to do so, though I concede it's not fair sport nor especially gratifying in the long run.

Your comments remind me of a favored bumper sticker recently sighted...

"If Evolution is 'just a theory', then religion is just an opinion'"

In addition, if you so not think that politics and the rigid ideologies they espouse provide neither influence nor effect upon people's perceptions or "beliefs", then you just aren't paying much attention of late.

 

[s2a]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
etc. etc. etc. I have a lot more quotes if anyone is interested...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

And I could provide rebuttal quotes at probably 1000:1 in counterpoint...

...but that's not the point of this thread

Maybe you're missing the point and title of this thread, which I'll just cut and paste here once more, in case you are unable to scroll to the top of the page...

"Gallup poll: 7 in 10 Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution"

You don't like the polling method employed? Demonstrate in what manner it is fatally flawed.

Don't like (or contest) the reported (biased/flawed) results? Offer up polling data of similar rigorous inquiry that offers contradictory results to the ones that Gallup found. Perhaps there is a similar poll that suggest that 85% of Republicans support evolution theory as estimable fact..as best available explanation of the totality of evidence as tested by scientific methods of inquiry today?

Honestly, I'd like the opportunity to question any poll that even comes close to mirroring that outcome alluded above..really I would.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes, the poll is bunk - there are so many different varieties of evolution, that you cannot say a simple yes or no to it... I personally think the fossil record supports punctuated equilib over gradualism, and am a fan of panspermia... Here are some quotes from people who have studied paleontology:

[FONT=&quot]"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors. "
Eldredge, N., Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa. "
Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. "A Comparative Study of Diversification Events" Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt and without transition." Goldschmidt, Richard B.
"Evolution, As Viewed By One Geneticist" American Scientist, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 84-94


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
Gould, S.J. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, vol. 86

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." Kemp, Tom "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Vol. 108, No. 1485, p. 66
(Dr. Tom Kemp is Curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum.)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"... the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. ...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"
Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that palaeontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.
Paul, C. R. C.,
"Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates"
Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors),
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., p. 105 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][G]aps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large.
Raff, R. A. and Kaufman, T. C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change
Indiana University Press, p. 35

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The known fossil record is not, and has never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.
Stanley, S. M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 71

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.
Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Taxa recognized as orders during the (Precambrian-Cambrian) transition chiefly appear without connection to an ancestral clade via a fossil intermediate. This situation is in fact true of most invertebrate orders during the remaining Phanerozoic as well. There are no chains of taxa leading gradually from an ancestral condition to the new ordinal body type. Orders thus appear as rather distinctive subdivisions of classes rather than as being segments in some sort of morphological continuum.
Valentine, J.W., Awramik, S.M., Signor, P.W., and Sadler, P.M.
"The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary"
Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 25, Max K. Hecht, editor, Plenum Press, New York and London, p.284
[/FONT]
etc. etc. etc. I have a lot more quotes if anyone is interested...

That's an impressive list of quote mines.... too bad they stop in the 1980's, we've learned a lot in the last 30 years. But your list is fun, like a mini history lesson, but without any context.

I'm curious... have you actually read any of the works you just cited?

The truth is that evolution works both gradually and in punctuated bursts. It's not an either or situation. Though, even punctuated bursts are not spontaneous appearances in anything but the geological sense.

wa:do