Evolution is a Fact

[Split Rock]

The Theory of Evolution has undergone some heavy-duty changes since they began losing debates with creationists.

The fantasizing on your part never ends... does it? A fantasy where creationists have won soooooooo many "debates" with evolutionists that they are responsible for changes you imagine were made to the theory of evolution.

Three major changes come to mind:

1. They stopped including abiogenesis in with their theory, and washed their hands of it.

1. 
   Show us a reference which demonstrates that abiogenesis was included within the theory of evolution before creationists (ha,ha) won all these debates.
   
   

   [*]They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "genera".

   Where did that come from? Give us an example of this.
   
   

   [*]They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "macroevolution".

There continues to be some debate among scientists (real ones, not creation scientists) as to the mechanisms of macro-evolution vs. microevolution. There is more emphasis on mass extinctions affecting macroevolution, but the basic mechanims are the same. One problem is that creationists have bastardized micro and macro evolution (as they have done with the 2nd law of thermodynamics) which explains why some of us don't like to use the terms here.

I disagree.That's probably why they jettisoned abiogenesis from evolution; creationists made this point against it.

Creationists have never made a legitimate point against either abiogenesis or evolution. At least, not one I have ever witnessed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please show where they did use abiogenesis, ever.

You can Google the book, Evolution and the Spontaneous Generation Debate at Amazon and read it, yourself.

Are you telling me that higher academia today doesn't require a course in Abiogenesis for someone learning Evolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can Google the book, Evolution and the Spontaneous Generation Debate at Amazon and read it, yourself.

I'm sure it's a facinating read -- albeit inaccurate.

Are you telling me that higher academia today doesn't require a course in Abiogenesis for someone learning Evolution?

Nope, they don't. Try again.

 

[BananaSlug]

I was unaware observed science included observation of a single cell mutating into us humans. Is there a You Tube video on that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgT5rUQ9EmQ

Here you go. It only takes ~9 months for an egg to develop into a human. I'm sure 3.5 billion years was a piece of pie...

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists have never made a legitimate point against either abiogenesis or evolution. At least, not one I have ever witnessed.

QV please: The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate

 

[Loudmouth]

You can Google the book, Evolution and the Spontaneous Generation Debate at Amazon and read it, yourself.

Are you telling me that higher academia today doesn't require a course in Abiogenesis for someone learning Evolution?

I never took a course in abiogenesis, nor did any of my classes ever touch on it. However, I did study quite a bit of evolution. So no, they don't require it. We don't need to know where the first life came from in order to understand how species change.

 

[Loudmouth]

QV please: The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate

We tell you that it is the creationists who incorrectly lump separate subjects into one. What do you do to counter this? Link to a creationist website that does just that. You have proven our point.

 

[TheReasoner]

You can Google the book, Evolution and the Spontaneous Generation Debate at Amazon and read it, yourself.

Are you telling me that higher academia today doesn't require a course in Abiogenesis for someone learning Evolution?

Okay AV. If it is wrong, prove it. Go to university, get a doctorate in biology and falsify the theory. God does not lie, God created the universe, so if your understanding is correct you should be able to easily falsify any theory which is contrary to what actually happened in creation.
Now, whether what you falsify end up being evolution or creationism as you advocate it is another matter entirely...

 

[AV1611VET]

Go to university, get a doctorate in biology and falsify the theory.

Why do I need a doctorate in biology to falsify evolution, when the Great Physician already pwned it?

 

[CoderHead]

I don't think the Great Physician actually addressed evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think the Great Physician actually addressed evolution.

For lack of a better term, let's call it: Falsification by Antithesis.

 

[CoderHead]

What does that mean? He never said anything about evolution, so it must not be true?

 

[AV1611VET]

For lack of a better term, let's call it: Falsification by Antithesis.

What does that mean? He never said anything about evolution, so it must not be true?

That means if I say a car is white, that means it is not black.

I have falsified that car being black, green, tan, blue, etc. by stating the car is white.

 

[CoderHead]

In other words, since the Bible says God breathed life into mud, it rules out evolution, alien transplantation, or a Matrixesque fictional reality? I suppose we do have a lot in common with mud...

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do I need a doctorate in biology to falsify evolution,

In order to falsify a theory you need to learn what it predicts and how to test it.

when the Great Physician already pwned it?

One does not falsify theories with books. If you had a doctorate in biology you would know this.

 

[BananaSlug]

Why do I need a doctorate in biology to falsify evolution, when the Great Physician already pwned it?

If the "Great Physician" has "pwned" evolution, how would you explain the genetic relatedness of birds and crocodiles in relation to other reptiles? I don't want to hear you attempt to skirt the question or ignore it. If you really believe what you say you should have no problem answering it.

 

[TheReasoner]

Why do I need a doctorate in biology to falsify evolution, when the Great Physician already pwned it?

What 'great physician' would that be?

 

[Sanguis]

If the "Great Physician" has "pwned" evolution, how would you explain the genetic relatedness of birds and crocodiles in relation to other reptiles? I don't want to hear you attempt to skirt the question or ignore it. If you really believe what you say you should have no problem answering it.

Why leave it at just that?

Surely, if he genuinely believed this nonsense, he'd be able to refure all evidence of evolution, and explain how it all means the exact opposite of everything it's told us so far.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

If the "Great Physician" has "pwned" evolution, how would you explain the genetic relatedness of birds and crocodiles in relation to other reptiles? I don't want to hear you attempt to skirt the question or ignore it. If you really believe what you say you should have no problem answering it.

I bet you he'll say "Common designer" or something of the like.

 

[BananaSlug]

I bet you he'll say "Common designer" or something of the like.

Then he would have to explain how birds and crocodiles share a common design. To my eyes, crocodiles look more like lizards yet they share more DNA with birds.
If "common design" were true, that would mean whales are most closely related to fish yet they are related to hippos and other artiodactyls.