I was told that scientists may be doubting the theory of human evolution. Is this true?

Question

Just curious.

Answer 1

No. Not biologists and they're the only ones that matter in this regard. An explanation is cited.

The nuts and bolts: "...less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent."

"One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on."

Edit: Edge...and what is your discipline?

Odd. And you think that the global flood actually accounts for the fossil record being the way it is? And where are you working on this "degree?" Oh, and while we are at it, name ONE thing that calls the theory into question. I'm honestly intrigued in hearing what you have to say here.

Edit 2: Gotta be is also making one tremendously flawed assumption: she assumes that evolution is random. This is what people have trouble wrapping their minds around: Evolution is not directional, but it is not random, either.

Edit 3: To edge: "It still has a lot of things that need to be worked out." Seriously, name one thing. Historical Geology (That would be the name, any self respecting science major would know that) isn't my field either, but I know that there are a lot of reasons that the flood is a crap explanation for the fossil record. First, obviously, where did all the water go? Second, are you to tell me that all the bones of all the animals sifted down in the water column (which was only at peak for 40 days) not by weight, but by AGE? That's an absurd claim. And third, what state university? I'm not going to harass you, and I doubt anyone else will. I'm not asking YOUR name, just the schools. I'm at the University of Minnesota. And I have yet to meet any biologists who would disagree with evolution on scientific terms, and not just their own dogma. Way to prove the stereotype, chief. Seriously, I'd love to see the answers to these questions. We can keep it going on here, or you can email me, whichever.

Edit 4: I'll agree with you that morphological changes are all that we have to go on in the fossil record. But we aren't talking about minute changes (like color) that the bulk of the studies you speak of refer to. I would also advise you to stay away from the subject of R. pomonella. It's actually something I have a bit of background in. I say this because R. pomonella is the only known instance of sympatric speciation (google it) in the western hemisphere. It actually backs evolution in a huge way. No, but really, what are all these problems that you see with it? And what university do you attend? The scientific debate on evolution was settled in the late 19th century. The only things that are still questioned are mechanisms, not if it happens. Guess you missed that year in biology. Whatever.

Bottom line Edge, if you had any evidence to present, you would have done so. When you didn't skate around my questions, you provided answers that can only be categorized as grasping at straws. I may be close minded to a degree (in the same way I'm close minded to the flat earth hypothesis), but if you could provide anything of real concern, I would look at it earnestly and objectively. You've failed to do that. You want to talk mechanisms, that we could probably debate, but you've had as much success as showing sincere doubt in evolution as you would have in proving the world is flat. You can believe what ever will let you sleep at night, but don't think that it has any real merit simply because of that.

Answer 2

If you ask the question here, you'll get answers from many people that hope the claim is true, and let wishful thinking make them certain the answer is true.

If you ask the question in the science forum, you'll get a more accurate answer.

There have been some news articles recently that were sensationalized by reporters, claiming that recent discoveries have cast doubt on evolution. If you will take the time to read research what scientists say about those articles, you'll find that the recent discoveries only change the timeline of branchings in the ancestral tree for all primates, and in no way changes anything about the Theory of Evolution.

Answer 3

The theory of human evolution is always under question and scrutiny by the scientific community... To date, there is no proof either way on how man came to be on this planet... Until such proof is found (if ever), then there will always be a number of valid theories on how it came to be that humans are on earth today... Evolution is one theory that has many variations.. the bible is an other theory... Many people believe in one the other, or both... to me, right now, there is NO clear answer...

Answer 4

not really. there is almost zero doubt among informed scientists and rational people generally that humans have evolved and that chimpanzees are our closest living relative. there is ample evidence for this in the characteristics of these two species alone, and it's growing all the time as genome studies continue.

on the other hand, there are a variety of extinct species known only from fossils that could plausibly be on the line of descent from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees. sorting out which of those fossils actually represent human ancestors and which are offshoots with no living descendants is quite tricky, and is still being researched.

it is the dishonest habit of creationists to pretend that the legitimate uncertainty about the pattern of ancestry among scientists is the same as their religiously motivated skepticism about the fact of ancestry. to my mind it is like denying that the planets orbit the sun because we can't observe them all the time. maybe they jump around when we're not looking! this idea only seems ridiculous because there is no longer any religious prejudice against the idea of planetary orbits.

Answer 5

There are some scientists out there trying to disprove everything and anything.

I'm sure you can find yourself a group of scientists still trying to prove that the earth is flat.

The consensus of the scientific community is that evolution is an accepted scientific theory.

Answer 6

No, it's just a Creationist lie. There are scientists who debate details of evolution (the same can be said of gravitation), but only a few formally trained scientists doubt the process has occurred.

Answer 7

The thinking open-minded ones are doubting.

There are many "intelligent design" scientists who look scientifically at the complexity of our world, especially the human body, and can't buy that it all happened by chance. Even some statisticians have stepped forward to say that the chances of all of this happening by chance, in the proper order, in the proper sequence is statistically impossible. There was some important work done in the field of microbiology about 10-15 years ago that started a lot of the open debate on ID.

Answer 8

It's a lie told by pastors to their gullible flock so that they don't stray and ask too many questions.
Curiosity may or may not have killed the cat but it sure did breed lots of atheists.

Answer 9

Overall most scientists accept evolution. There are some who do not agree with it. Myself being one.

To the poster above me. I am a biologist working on a PhD in biology and I do not agree with evolution. It still has a lot of things that need to be worked out. I am working on my degree at a state university. Not a religious one if that is what you are thinking. However I will not give you the name as I prefer not to be contacted in real life by anyone on here. As to fossils. Not my field. But why not the flood? Believe it or not my research is technically in molecular evolution. I understand evolution and the evidence that points to it. I also believe that a mind that accepts the possibility of God can see how it points to Him as well.

Part of the problems I see with the evidence of evolution is the usage of micro evolution to infer macro evolution. For instance the hawthorne and and apple maggot flies. Another problem is the usage of morphological characteristics in the fossil records to infer relatedness. Genetic studies have shown morphology is not an accurate indicator of relatedness. It can be used but it must be used with caution and care.

Wow so sorry I referred to them as fossils. Forgive me. Why on God's, yes God's, green Earth would I want to e-mail you? So I can deal with more of the ridicule I get on here when I mention I am a creationist and a scientist both? The simple fact is anything that might disprove or weaken evolution is not even considered. I have attended seminars where the subject is how to indoctrinate students so that when evolution is taught they will not question it. They will accept it without and doubt. Is this what we want in science? I am done with this thread.

Answer 10

You will get two different answers here, but most will not be derived from factual evidence. The short answer is no, however do your own research. Don't trust mine or any of these other answers.