Once more - the full quote of what I have said:
Contrary to you other claim, vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming. This is demonstrably true if you do search for peer reviewed papers on evolution. This is not a proof that macroevolution is true of course, but it will show that you claim that
"many scientists are very aware of the capabilities of NS and are instead looking for an alternative explanation."
is unsupported.
You must have a problem in conveying what you are thinking to the written word. Let's break down your statement.
"Contrary to your other claim," - though it is not really clear which claim of mine you are referring to, I would assume it is my claim that 'there is not evidence of M+NS to produce macroevolutionary changes'.
"vast majority of research biologists and related scientists consider evidence for macroevolution overwhelming." - this is
your central claim. You are here making a point about numbers, a ratio (vast majority), or the numbers of scientists that believe your side. I never made any claim on a ratio, or who has more believers. I merely said "many" to refer to some scientists that oppose the view that is held by the "vast majority". With regards to the actual evidence of macroevolution, I was asking for an example of what such evidence was that was so convincing.
"This is demonstrably true if you do search for peer reviewed papers on evolution." - "This is" points back to your central claim about the "majority". And as I said before, this is nothing more than a citation bluff. Such a search would bring back a lot of results, but if you look into those papers, any reference to evolution is merely the obligatory assumption that 'X evolved' without anything in the paper showing the evidence for it. It is not my job to sift through them all to find the few that may actually be attempting to show macroevolution. I'm willing to look at them, but it is your claim, so you find them.
"This is not a proof that macroevolution is true of course," - again referring to your central claim on the "majority". Also I should point out I never claimed a proof that macroevolution was false, just that there was no evidence for it. Can you understand the difference?
".., but it will show that you claim that - "many scientists are very aware of the capabilities of NS and are instead looking for an alternative explanation." - is unsupported." - So my claim here is that there are "many" = more than 1, and significant in number (but not a majority) and type (leaders in their field), that doubt the power of M+NS to produce macroevolutionary changes and are looking for another method. This does not mean even that these scientists doubt something like common descent (which is probably best supported by the fossil record that Despotic Ocelet has been somewhat pushing), just that the mechanism for such changes between species is NOT ONLY Neo-Darwinism (mutation + natural selection). And neither these scientists (nor I) are trying to state that M+NS does not exist, or that is does not contribute in any way to some changes. It is just that Neo-Darwinism is not capable enough to explain major transitions.
The claim of mine is not disputed by your claim of a majority believing otherwise. I never claimed a majority. I just claimed a significant number, significant individuals, and a presentation at a significant scientific body (Royal Society) are questioning a long-held, supposedly rock-solid view.
This is not the 'there are more scientists on my side than yours' card. This is clearly the 'you are talking nonsense' card.
Nonsense?!? It's right there in what you wrote. Your whole central points are around the concept of numbers: who has the most scientists on their side, who has more papers.
My only claim to numbers is the word "many", which could be interpreted as '2 or more'. Of course there are more than 2, but I don't care what the supposed percentage ratio is. That is irrelavant.
Now, since you are still asking for evidence:
99% of working scientists (this includes astronomers and computer scientists) in US believe in human evolution. In Europe, it's likely more.
An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views | Pew Research Center
*SIGH* You do know that this is not "evidence", don't you? This is an Appeal from Authority, and it is a fallacious argument.
A group's claim of belief is not evidence. The evidence is what you need to to support a claim of belief. You should understand the difference.
Besides, the linked report is a red herring. But I am curious as to how closely you looked at your own reference. The relevant information is on page 3. First, I wonder what definition they are using for "evolution". It is often a very fluid term, which could mean 1) change over time, 2) change due to common descent, and/or 3) Neo-Darwininan processes. The breakdown of the question makes me think that the first part is merely referencing definition #1.
"Humans and other living things have evolved over time" - is indeed agreed upon by 99% of working PhD scientists. But frankly, I would also agree with that statement if you are defining evolution as 'change over time'. That is no big deal.
The rest of the
options are more strict in interpretation:
1)"...due to natural processes such as natural selection" - 91%
2)"...guided by a supreme being" - 7%
3)"evolved, no answer on process" - 1%
4)"Have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" - 1%
Now it looks like the survey allowed for some overlap on those answers. The Neo-Darwinian view is definitely option 1, but it could allow for other materialistic properties other than M+NS. Option 2 would be in the camp of most theists, possibly panspermia advocates, or anyone that thinks highly advanced aliens could be involved. You almost might get some theistic evolutionists in here, but most of them would probably side with option 1. Option 3 is the rest of the pack if any changing process is allowed. Option 4 sounds like more a a special creation that is very static.
The problem with surveys like this is that they often are not sufficient to cover nuanced views. I hold to an intelligent design stance for how life developed, but that in itself does not scientifically point to it being God (which I also believe). If I was choosing the survey, I would probably choose option 2, but maybe 3. Not 1, not 4 (because that is not a scientifically or Biblically supported view). The scientists that I was speaking of that question M+NS would probably still choose option 1, though they think there is some other natural process other than or in addition to M+NS.
So the results of the survey are not as clear cut as you seem to imply. That 99% of scientists that believe in evolution is no big deal, since the term has a broad meaning in that context. That 9% do not necessarily believe in Neo-Darwinism as the method is significant. And the survey does not distinguish between scientists that perhaps do hold to a naturalistic method but not necessarily M+NS. It's basically irrelevant to our subject.
For the rest, I'll comment later, which should be interesting because finally you bring up some detail for evidence.
