Is it merely a fringe group of Christians who don't accept evolution as a fact?

The majority of Christians, even those asserting creation accept that the US National Academy of Sciences definition of evolution "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms." is well validated by the evidence..

What some challenge are the additional claims not encompassed in that definition that lack empirical support. Common Descent as one prime example.

BQ1. As noted above most don't!

BQ2. With respect to Common Descent, they see no reason to prove it false, because it is a claim that has not been validated by empirical evidence in the first place. Put simply, people reject Common Descent because of a lack of probative evidence.

NDMA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o%E2%80%A6

http://humanorigins.si.edu/

3 minutes ago

You apparently missed the word probative! The evidence you present would be classed as inference at best - circular reasoning at worst. In addition to not being empirical, it is not probative. Why is it not probative? Because it can be explained without the need for common descent and there is no secondary line of evidence that establishes common descent is a better explanation than the alternate explanation(s).. Moreover several of the alternate explanations do have a secondary line of evidence that establishes it as a better explanation than common descent. If one were to apply Ockham's razor Common Descent would be cut in every case.

In real science quality of evidence is actually more important than quantity of evidence, and a single observation or empirical experimental invalidates a mountain of lower quality evidence every time!

Another way to put it is, a mountain of crap is just a mountain of crap which is what you have presented.

NDMA, can you prove that the moon isn't made of three different types of cheese? Probative.

12 seconds ago

I have not asserted the moon is made of three different types of cheese, and so I have no burden to provide any evidence related to the assertion...

Then disprove Common Descent. If demonstrating is so important to you. At least I provided links. It's not like the evidence you isn't visible and accepted.

1 second ago

Once again Shifting the burden fallacy, It is incumbent upon those claiming common descent to prove their claim, not those challenging it. '

Genetics & DNA Sequencing-- Value way overstated only about 180 species have had their complete genome mapped let alone compared. Most commonly what is compared is the genes (the 1 or 2% of the genome that codes for proteins and have nothing to do with Common Descent which if it happened was due to the 98-99% of the genome that controls development and how those proteins are used. While it is true that humans share about 96% of their genes with Chimps it is also true that humans share about 99% of their genes with mice... When one compares the whole genome rather than just the 1 or 2 % that code for proteins humans and chimps are only about 65 to 70% similar. BIG FAIL

Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns & Proteins: Meaningless, it only proves that genetics works and works well not how things got to be that way. The same pattern is observable in computer code, novels, paintings, all kinds of manufactured goods - One can literally identify the author based such patterns in their work. The fact that authors/painters/artists/maufactures can be accurately identified by patterns in what they produce results in a secondary line of evidence supporting the common designer assertion over common descent.

Endogenous retroviruses: Current evidence indicates separate infections not common descent.

Pseudogenes: Old data, 99% has dropped to less than 20% and continues to drop because 80% has been shown to be functional and not Junk.

If space provided I could literally go through your entire list and demonstrate that the information is outdated and refuted, better explained by other phenomena, or not really related to Common Descent. Don't talk to me about crap you were the one who introduced nonsense about the moon being made of three cheese not me! The Structure of the moon has nothing to do with evolution, common descent, or even biology - what we like to call a red herring!

The point is, I have studied these lists of evidence in great detail, against the literature and current information, much more than your cutting and pasting without really understanding the material. It simply does not hold up against honest scrutiny!

BTW In scientific circles crap is a very technical term meaning poor quality of evidence.

Asserting a lack of empirical evidence for common descent does not shift the burden that is a negative assertion. The burden falls upon the one making the affirmative assertion - that there is empirical evidence.

The group that generally rejects evolution are largely the "fundies" who are more accurately defined and evangelical fundamentalists who fall into the YEC (Young Earth Creationist) camp. YECs, though, also include others all over the spectrum, including those who are atheists (an atheist, simply put, is a person who rejects the notion (idea or concept) of deity and nothing else). But certainly not all of them or even a majority of them.

Even among the religious people, the majority accept evolution as a fact with no problem between their faith (religious path) and evolution.

The belief in education is largely tied to belief that the earth is "young" (hence, the YEC label). For those in religious groups, a lot of it was based upon the estimated "time" of the creation. For most protestants (the fundies), that belief is somewhat centered around the work of James Ussher who, using (alleged) Bible chronology figured that the creation happened about 4004 BC.

There is nothing to support this allegation (that the earth was created some six thousand (+) years ago and any information that evolution is false is largely based upon the idea that it is a theory and that there is no evidence of evolution. Basically, a willful blindness toward the facts and actual examples of evolution in action (Ligers and the Liligers are good examples). Speciation is a form of evolution and selective breeding and pollination can produce it in the laboratory. We see the results in our grocery stores, especially among the fruits and veggies.

But the real kicker is that despite this solid evidence concerning changes in biological entities over multiple generations of time, there is a firm belief that evolution is only about Darwin's hypothesis and isn't about anything else. Therefore, it is largely just a willful denial of what can actually be demonstrated in relatively short order.

And no amount of TDs will change the facts that evolution is not about the creation and is not about the origin of life. It is about the change that happens to life that already exists.

Yes, the majority of Christians understand and accept evolution. It is a rather rabid minority that doesn't; unfortunately, they manage to outshout anyone else.

BQ1: They know that evolution and the accompanying physical sciences cannot be compatible with a literal interpretation of their religious scriptures. Their minds are made up, don't confuse them with facts!

BQ2: There are a lot of people (Discovery Institute, Liberty University, etc. etc.) who have made their fortunes pandering to these people and producing books and websites full of "information" to attempt to prove their point of view. The fact that they can't do this without lying through their teeth says quite a lot. But that's where their money comes from, so ....

And this of course reinforces the people from BQ1, which makes more money for the people in BQ1, and around and around it goes. Hopefully they will not drag the rest of the country back into the Dark Ages with them.

1. One it is not substantiated as true - it is /assumed/ to be true because it is the only naturalistic means of producing the biological diversity we see.

2.

a. From how Evolution is presented. Very often as "just so" explanations. Very often as "we can imagine" the steps from A to Z.

b. Because genetic trees do not match morphological trees at many levels.

(Parsimony means to take the data that supports Evolution and discard the balance. One study I reviewed "dumped" 58% of the data because it did not support the Evolutionary paradigm.)

c. Because the mechanism - unguided mutations acted on by natural selection - does not produce new biological information and thus new organs or phylogeny.

d. Because instead of accepting the "headlines" of evolutionary papers and proofs, I try to look into those papers to see what they really say.

e. Because the "proofs" of Evolution based on common descent are equally (if not more) applicable to common design.

f. Because the fossil record indicates that life forms and complete ecosystems come into existence quickly; exist for a period of time with adaptations; then die out; then repeat. This is the observation that led Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge to propose "punctuated equilibrium" to explain why changes were not continually gradual over long periods of time. It is also a mark of punctuated creation.

g. Because /everyone/ in the field of biology knows that to produce a paper that questions Evolution leads to marginalization. Science is supposed to question /everything/. General Relativity is questioned and reexamined continually. Evolution is not allowed to be questioned.

'Nuf for now.

(Also, I hold an "old earth" view.)

Just being born onto a genuine starship with radiation and meteor shields that are not Hollywood imagination, with its own completely safe, self-maintaining, free and non-polluting nuclear fusion-powered power source, perfectly recycling oxygen and water supplies, plenty of good food and space to move around and completely transparent walls so as to be able to view space from anywhere, is enough to convince many that it was designed and "built" by Somebody who knew and cared what they were doing.

And, while not defending fundamentalist "Creationism" with it's unscientific and unscriptural "7,000-year-old universe", you should know that there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent Creator in the world of living things.

For instance, ever tried to swat a fly? Not necessarily easy, right? Know why? It has to do with the fly's navigational system. It has a single vibrating rod in its abdomen, and as it changes direction in flight, it senses the changes in the vibrations of that rod and is able to dodge you, fly and land upside down and backwards. What would the Air Force pay to have flying and navigational systems that good?

How did the fly manage to evolve such a system? Even if it evolved a flopping rod, what good would it be without the muscles to vibrate it? And the unusual vibrating motion? And the nerves to send the signals from the rod to the brain? And the section of the brain to interpret the signals? And the correct instructions to interpret them? And the correct instructions to the part of the brain that controlled the wings as to what to DO about those signals? All AT THE SAME TIME. ALL USELESS UNTIL COMPLETE, giving natural selection no advantage to select during all the early "developmental stages". Wouldn't that be a remarkable coincidence? I ask people, "Could YOU sit down, right now, and write the code for such a set of instructions? And if your ten billion well trained and coordinated neurons put together can't do it with an education and a computer, is it really sensible to think that flies did it in their heads?"

The fly has a complete navigational system that is self-constructing (in its egg), self-reproducing, self-programming, self-correcting, that can fly upside down and backwards, avoiding dangers and locating and recognizing fuel (food), that requires even MORE entire, completely developed systems that even large groups of highly educated humans cannot or are only now beginning to be able to copy (and only by intelligent design), all microminiaturized into a space smaller than the head of a pin, with the code for it in characters that are the size of molecules (I wonder how many characters per inch that works out to? Pretty hi-tech data storage). No scientist can do anything like that.

So I ask people, "In your experience, how many complete flying and navigational systems do you know of that have happened completely by accident, with no intelligent thought or design?" "Did you ever read the story of all the thought and work needed to design and build a flying machine, as told by the Wright brothers themselves? So how scientific is it to say that it just happened by blind accidents in the case of the lowly, incredibly complex fly?"

All of the animal and plant world is full of examples like these. Your body is, too. Johns Hopkins University made the newspapers by making one enzyme. It must have been pretty hard to do. It was no accident. But your liver manufactures over nine hundred enzymes, all necessary for you to live, and no one thinks about putting THAT in the paper. "Could have happened completely by accident" (which is what evolution equates to, isn't it?) But if 900+ enzymes could happen so easily, simply by accidents of evolution, then why did the university make the news when it was finally able to produce ONE?

This isn't defending the indefensible things done and taught supposedly in God's name...

Best regards,

Mike

Globally speaking, yes (but its a fringe group that regards the large sects that do believe in evolution such as Anglicans and Catholics as not being Christian, so they don't realise how "fringe" they actually are.)

BQ1. Because they believe that accepting evolution would set them on the slippery slope to atheism.

BQ2. They invent it.

It's mostly a fad among American fundamentalists.

They deny common descent because it doesn't make them feel special enough.

They get their information from a fairly large creationist propaganda machine that puts out reams and reams of BS. Whenever one creationist writes an article filled with bad science that supposedly "disproves" evolution it soon appears on twenty other creationist sites.

Just the actual Bible believing ones. And, it's the Theory of Evoultion (man has a common ape ancestor) we reject. Evolution happens. It just doesn't go back as far as you say it does and does not explain how man or beast came to be.

About half of the USA is in that fringe group.

Preachers need an enemy, real or imagined, to stir the flock and get them to rally to the collection plate to fight the enemy.

They get their information from charlatans like Kent Hovind and Kirk Cameron, who make huge money fabricating falsehoods to put in their $60 VHS tapes and coffee table books.

Answer 1: Well, I think it might be because most christians and other religious people are conservatists.

Answer 2: Most likely their religious texts. :p