Challenging Evolution

In that case evolution was disproven by Louis Pasteur {True}and we can get on with our lives

Evil is a psychological, philosophical and moral issue, and does not present any evolutionary disadvantage to the evolution of humans in any way.



Then you haven't looked hard enough.



Without any real understanding of the subject, obviously.



Science doesn't work that way. We interpret the evidence first, then construct a theory out of it. And it's not "truth", it's just the most scientifically acceptable theory to explain the diversity of life on earth.



Ahaha, laughable argument from fallibility. What he's basically saying is that:
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that Evolution is false.
(4) Therefore, Evolution is false.

R-O-F-L-M-A-O



I am unaware of any aspect of the Theory of Evolution that cannot be supported by scientifically viable evidence.



More argument from fallibility. Aha-ahahahahaha!!!



Not within the scope of Evolution.



We know that one, though.



I smell an argumentum ad populum coming.



Ah, idiocy was epidemic back in those days. Science solved this problem..

Evolution =/= Atheism.



Ladies and gentlemen, there we have it: argumentum ad populum.





I don't see what aspect of evolution can be mathematically demonstrated as highly improbable.



I've never heard of a scientist saying such a thing. "Infallible truth" is a concept of religion, not science. Rules of religion =/= rules of science. Shut up and take your persecution complex somewhere else.v\.



Wrong. That is a folk saying used by common society with no science behind the statement. The mechanics of gravity is much more complex than that. Learn some Physics instead of making strawman simplifications.



If such a solid exist, we would have flying cars by now. And man have not defied gravity at all, they've just produced enough force to counter the effects of gravity. Learn some Physics.



Cease your gibberish and learn some Physics.



Science changes and improve on itself, so if something is shown to be wrong, science corrects itself. That's what science is..

Your theory is wrong.

This is referring to the fact that if you reject evolution as a theory with enough scientific backing, the same holds for germ theory. The theories are arrived at by the same process. So if the process isn't right with evolution theory, why would it be right when germ theory is considered.


One of my favorite observations for evolution are ring species. This shows evolution as fact. When you type in speciation in the search function here, you should get at least two or three threads with observed instances of speciation, which also show evolution as fact.

Evolution remains largely a genetically based theory, not a memetic one.
Evolutionary theory indicates nothing of the sort.
the fact that creationists keep plugging it as evidence counts against them somewhat don't you think? it has no bearing on evolution.
actually yes there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. twin matched hierarchies, the existance of a great number of transitional forms in the fossil record, observed instances of speciation, observed instances of rapid evolution, junk DNA, pseudogenes, ERVs, ALUs, Biodiversity and so on and so on......

false, evolution is both fact and a theory, science doesn't do proof so you might as well argue the same against gravity.
only the flood has been falsified already. you can't call on a falsified theory to try to explain things, because it's false.
please give us some of these strong points.
false. give evidence, please don'T quote Hoyle's calculation of abiogenesis, because (1) abiogeneisis is unrelated to evolution

(2) it is a strawman
the fact that mutation and differential reproductive success have been observed. tell me, given variation in the population and differential reproductive success, how exactly would you stop evolution?
evidence plz rather than claims.
creation has not been disproven, since the fact that we exist proves we were created, the question is how we were created. intelligent design on the other hand is set up as an unfalsifiable theory, how on earth are we meant to determine if something is intelligently designed or not. Yesterday I went down to the river, and there is a shingle beach there. on looking at it, I could see that the shingle beach was intelligently designed, with each stone placed in a specific location by an intelligent shingle beach maker. prove me wrong. Of course one question IDists do have to answer is why their intelligent designer is so incapable of designing intelligently

Instead of looking at threads here, I did a quick word search on the internet and looking a bit at the ring species. A couple of problems exist when assuming this is evidence of evolution. One is that the salamanders are still salamanders. This is consistant with C and ID as put forth by the authority on the issue, the bible. Second problem, this is talking about pure genetics which is also consistant with C and ID. So what has been proven or disproven?

How?

Evolution only concerns itself with the living. Evolution starts where life already exists.
Abiogenesis is tries to describe the origin of life. Since evolution only concerns itself with living things, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but is a theory in itself.

Ohh but the theory of gravity and evolution are not the same type of theory Bellman! The theory of evolution explains how life developed over a long period of time, whereas the theory of gravity is a constant, immutable observation discovered with mathematics. It is ignorant of you to say the theory of evolution is just as established or understood as gravity is, being that they are inherently different types of theories. The problem is that much of modern science objects to evolution, and not gravity. To prove evolution, one has to use observation and reason, not math formulas!