Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Armoured]

He works for an organisation called the Discovery Institute. Despite the misleading name, they appear to be nothing more than a front for an extreme fundamentalist creationist organisation.

Incidentally, why is it that groups like these use words like "freedom" and "discovery", when they really represent "control" and "dogma"? Mr Orwell would be impressed.

Ah, DI have found themselves a tame atheist, have they? I bet their eyes lit up when that happened.

 

[Poster0]

Nope, tonnes of evidence. In pretty much every single field of scientific inquiry.

No not really. They have managed to make it appear that way, but not really.

 

[Armoured]

No not really. They have managed to make it appear that way, but not really.

Genetic biology, molecular chemistry, physics, palaeontology, biology, medicine, geology, geography, statistics, mathematics, engineering...

look, maybe it would be faster if you just listed the fields you think HAVEN'T found supporting evidence of evolution?

 

[Poster0]

Correct.

So?

ToE is not observable, and has not actually been tested with any credibility. THey are asking us to believe that they can prove man evolved from a primitive ape beast millions of years ago, but they cant. They are really just using their faith to interpret evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

No not really. They have managed to make it appear that way, but not really.

Yes really. Theory is not only supported with biological evidence, but also through geology, anthropology, palaeontology, zoology, chemistry, physics, microbiology, genetic research and geography.

And has been for more than 150 years.

And there are literally dozens of single opportunities for the theory to be disproven. For example, of the thousands of different fossils we have uncovered, find just one in the wrong geological layer.

Hasn't happened. In 150 years, it hasn't happened once.

Why would that be I wonder?

 

[Poster0]

Genetic biology, molecular chemistry, physics, palaeontology, biology, medicine, geology, geography, statistics, mathematics, engineering...

look, maybe it would be faster if you just listed the fields you think HAVEN'T found supporting evidence of evolution?

That's what they would have you believe.

 

[Armoured]

ToE is not observable, and has not actually been tested with any credibility. THey are asking us to believe that they can prove man evolved from a primitive ape beast millions of years ago, but they cant. They are really just using their faith to interpret evidence.

Of course it's observable.

First year biology students evolve themselves antibiotic resistant bacteria in a term.

 

[Poster0]

Yes really. Theory is not only supported with biological evidence, but also through geology, anthropology, palaeontology, zoology, chemistry, physics, microbiology, genetic research and geography.

And has been for more than 150 years.

And there are literally dozens of single opportunities for the theory to be disproven. For example, of the thousands of different fossils we have uncovered, find just one in the wrong geological layer.

Hasn't happened. In 150 years, it hasn't happened once.

Why would that be I wonder?

Sure, they don't even know what most human DNA is used for, they have speculated that most DNA is junk but they cant actually prove that, or even test is with any scientific method. THey are just speculating without reason, which is bad science

 

[Armoured]

That's what they would have you believe.

Care to actually provide any evidence they are wrong?

Also, why do you think so many people would spend so much time and effort promulgating falsehood?

 

[SteveB28]

ToE is not observable, and has not actually been tested with any credibility. THey are asking us to believe that they can prove man evolved from a primitive ape beast millions of years ago, but they cant. They are really just using their faith to interpret evidence.

You see, these are the silly kinds of statements you make when you don't have a clue what you are talking about!

Speciation has been OBSERVED on multiple occasions, both in the laboratory and in the field.

Educate yourself!

 

[Armoured]

Sure, they don't even know what most human DNA is used for, they have speculated that most DNA is junk but they cant actually prove that, or even test is with any scientific method. THey are just speculating without reason, which is bad science

I'm confused, what exactly about "junk DNA" do yo take such issue with?

 

[Poster0]

Of course it's observable.

First year biology students evolve themselves antibiotic resistant bacteria in a term.

That's not evolution, that's just the way bacteria are designed in the first place. Its like trying to suggest that creating a new breed of dog is evolution, when in fact such breeding is simply written into the dogs DNA. That doesn't prove that humans can evolve in such a way however

 

[Poster0]

I'm confused, what exactly about "junk DNA" do yo take such issue with?

The fact that its mere speculation which has not rational basis. Its also being disproven.

 

[Strathos]

That's not evolution, that's just the way bacteria are designed in the first place. Its like trying to suggest that creating a new breed of dog is evolution, when in fact such breeding is simply written into the dogs DNA. That doesn't prove that humans can evolve in such a way however

How about this: Life was designed with the capability to evolve

 

[Armoured]

That's not evolution, that's just the way bacteria are designed in the first place. Its like trying to suggest that creating a new breed of dog is evolution, when in fact such breeding is simply written into the dogs DNA.

It is evolution. There will be bacteria at the end of the experiment with completely new genetic information that did not exist in the original parent strain.

What do you think evolution is?

That doesn't prove that humans can evolve in such a way however

a. there's that word again b. Stop shifting the goal posts. first you said "ToE is not observable" but when provided a simple refutation, it becomes "That doesn't prove that humans can evolve in such a way however"

Human evolution is observed through less direct means, of course. But it's still observable.

 

[SteveB28]

The fact that its mere speculation which has not rational basis. Its also being disproven.

Again you display your total ignorance of the subject.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-genome-mostly-junk-dna-only-82-functional-294786

 

[Armoured]

The fact that its mere speculation which has not rational basis. Its also being disproven.

What the heck? a. what's junk DNA got to do with "speciation"? b. what part of it do you think is being "disproven"?

edit: I misread "speculation", but my general question stands. What about it do you think is speculation? How do you think this affects evolutionary theory in the slightest?

 

[Poster0]

You see, these are the silly kinds of statements you make when you don't have a clue what you are talking about!

Speciation has been OBSERVED on multiple occasions, both in the laboratory and in the field.

Educate yourself!

Like what, bacteria? Please, God designed bacteria to adapt. That's not evidence, its just snake oil science. Show me a dog that has grown wings and can fly, or a fish turn into a bird, and that will be proof.

 

[Armoured]

Like what, bacteria? Please, God designed bacteria to adapt. That's not evidence, its just snake oil science. Show me a dog that has grown wings and can fly, or a fish turn into a bird, and that will be proof.

But that isn't what evolutionary theory predicts. So, as evidence for evolution, you demand evidence of something that isn't evolution!

 

[Poster0]

These scientists are like snake oil salesmen. Its comparable to deceiving primitive natives into thinking you are a God using nothing more than magic tricks