This simply is not true. Lots of scientists in ALL displines do not support evolution
Please quantify "lots" and clarify "do not support evolution". Provide citations supporting your numbers.
While it's true that Alacarte overstated things just a bit, he didn't overstate them nearly as much as you have understated them.
According to polls 99+% of biologists accept evolution. That's not "every" one, but it's pretty damned close.
As for scientists in general, chew on these:
11/97 Gallup poll of scientists:Or from Ohio scientists give opinions on intelligent design versus evolution:Q1: God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
5%Q2: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
40%Q3: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
55%
Most all of Ohio's science professors (92 percent) thought "Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." Scientist responded negatively (90percent) to the testing about the knowledge of "intelligent design" as a requirement to graduate.And here are dozens of Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations concerning evolution. For example:[...] the vast majority (93 percent) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternative scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."
[...]
Nine out of 10 scientists (91 percent) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view
Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2 percent were unsure
Some 84 percent felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God"
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity."
[...]
Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of good biology and geology, and the vertebrate fossil record is an excellent set of examples of the patterns and processes of evolution through time. We therefore urge the teaching of evolution as the only possible reflection of our science. Any attempt to compromise the patterns and processes of evolution in science education, to treat them as less than robust explanations, or to admit "alternative" explanations not relying upon sound evolutionary observations and theory, misrepresents the state of our science and does a disservice to the public. Textbooks and other instructional materials should not indulge in such misrepresentation, educators should shun such materials for classroom use, and teachers should not be harassed or impeded from teaching vertebrate evolution as it is understood by its practitioners. The record of vertebrate evolution is exciting, inspirational, instructive, and enjoyable, and it is our view that everyone should have the opportunity and the privilege to understand it as paleontologists do."
-- SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY (1994)
That sounds pretty "supportive" to *me*...
and since the advent of DNA more are doubting.
Please provide specific numbers and citations for your assertion. Be sure that your response explains the explosion in the numbers of journals and papers detailing how DNA analysis confirms evolution, including for example:
The Journal of Molecular Evolution alone results in approximately 36,000 hits on a Google search -- clearly there's a great deal of interest in this subject, even if *you've* never heard of it. It contains a great deal of evolution-supporting DNA analysis as for example:
Comparative Analysis of the Complete Plastid Genome Sequence of the Red Alga Gracilaria tenuistipitata var. liui Provides Insights into the Evolution of Rhodoplasts and Their Relationship to Other PlastidsABSTRACT: We sequenced to completion the circular plastid genome of the red alga Gracilaria tenuistipitata var. liui. This is the first plastid genome sequence from the subclass Florideophycidae (Rhodophyta). The genome is composed of 183,883 bp and contains 238 predicted genes, including a single copy of the ribosomal RNA operon. Comparisons with the plastid genome of Porphyra pupurea reveal strong conservation of gene content and order, but we found major genomic rearrangements and the presence of coding regions that are specific to Gracilaria. Phylogenetic analysis of a data set of 41 concatenated proteins from 23 plastid and two cyanobacterial genomes support red algal plastid monophyly and a specific evolutionary relationship between the Florideophycidae and the Bangiales. Gracilaria maintains a surprisingly ancient gene content in its plastid genome and, together with other Rhodophyta, contains the most complete repertoire of plastid genes known in photosynthetic eukaryotes.
There is no proof for evolution
Gee, really? You're apparently entirely ignorant of these 29+ independent lines of evidence for evolution, then -- each with vast amounts of evidence supportive of evolution.
and lots of proof against it.
Please state some, and provide citations supporting your assertions.
The main evoluionary scientists are liberals and bury their head in the sand,
Please provide support for your amazing claim.
fake evidence
For example? Please provide support for your amazing claim -- or retract it and apologize.
and generally try to hide any evidence that doesn't support evolution.
For example? Please provide support for your amazing claim -- or retract it and apologize.
The reason evolutionists are afraid of ID is because the fakes, the phony evidence the evidence against evolution will be taugth, they are not taught now.
Which "fakes" and "phony evidence" and "evidence against evolution" would that be, please? Provide citations for any you might provide.
Evolution isn't taught, it is indoctrinated into our children.
Please provide support for your amazing claim.
If ID isn't anything to worry about then why not let it be taught?
Because it's not formulated as a scientific theory, and there's little or no evidence for it.
If it is taught side by side with evoluion THEORY and this theory is correct then most children will see the truth, right?
Wrong, since most children do not have the background or analytical skills to properly judge such an issue. Nor is there enough time available in school to present a proper overview of the necessary evidence in enough detail to allow an informed decision on the issue, without pushing aside many other critical school subjects.
so what is wrong with teaching it?
See above. Furthermore, science is not multiple-choice. In science classrooms, the predominant theories (i.e., those which have been accepted by consensus as best explaining the evidence) are taught. ID is *not* a predominant theory -- in fact it's not even a theory at all, it's a hypothesis.
Nothing except it exposes a lot of the lies about evolution.
Please provide examples of these alleged "lies", and provide citations for them.
Now I know you think I am a creationists, this is not so.
Actually, that's not the noun I had in mind.
I am not religious, although I went to church when I was a child I haven't been since I was 12. I don't pray and I am not sure I believe in God,
I don't care whether you do or not -- but when you start spouting nonsense about established science, expect me to call you on it, lest someone out there mistakenly believe that you might have an idea what you're talking about.
but I do know this.
Careful now, many people "know" things which just ain't true.
When you look at the evidence, and keep an open mind, evolution doesn't stand up.
Odd, when *I* looked at the evidence and kept an open mind, evolution stood up fantastically. Are you sure *you've* actually looked at the evidence? If so, where, exactly? Be specific.
Cambrian layer for one,
What exactly do you think is allegedly wrong with the Cambrian layer? Be specific.
eyes, wings, not just bird wings but insect wings as well.
Ooookay -- what about them, exactly?
Feathers, no explaination.
You don't say...
Roger H. Sawyer, Loren W. Knapp Avian skin development and the evolutionary origin of feathers J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 298B:57-72, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.That looks a lot like an "explanation" to me, son.ABSTRACT: The discovery of several dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary appendages of different morphologies has stimulated models for the evolutionary origin of feathers. In order to understand these models, knowledge of the development of the avian integument must be put into an evolutionary context. Thus, we present a review of avian scale and feather development, which summarizes the morphogenetic events involved, as well as the expression of the beta () keratin multigene family that characterizes the epidermal appendages of reptiles and birds. First we review information on the evolution of the ectodermal epidermis and its beta (
four-winged
dinosaurs, we review earlier studies of a chicken strain, Silkie, that expresses ptilopody (pti),
No transitional species in the fosil record.
I see... Here are several hundred for you. Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
No proof at all that life started here with spontaneous generation,
Science does not deal in "proofs" (2). But your epistemological confusion aside, you seem top be ignorant of these:
The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey UniversityAnd:Abstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. RussellAnd:Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of GlasgowAnd so on.Abstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.
no experiment has ever produced even a single cell using the so called primordial soup.
Nor would one expect it to.
It has been proven a mathmatical impossibility for life to have started out of non life.
Please provide the actual calculations. Be sure to describe in detail the model of abiogenesis which is being used, and how you have determined that that exact model is the only way in which life could have originated. Show your work, and use extra paper if necessary.
No proof and not all scientists agree with evolution.
Just because you say so? I am... unimpressed.
enough said.
Would that it were.