There is no evidence againts the Theory of Evolution.

[Moreso]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

Any theory which has its problems will be retained until a better one comes along. "Science abhors a vacuum," as somebody said, and an imperfect theory is better than no theory at all.

It is not, of course, the job of religion to come up with scientific theories.

 

[Moreso]

Any theory which has its problems will be retained until a better one comes along. "Science abhors a vacuum," as somebody said, and an imperfect theory is better than no theory at all.

The theory itself will not change just be refined.

It is not, of course, the job of religion to come up with scientific theories.

Don't tell creationists that.

 

[Oafman]

There are mountains of evidence supporting it.

It would require just one piece of convincing evidence against it to undermine the whole theory.

Yet every time we find more evidence, it is always in support of the ToE. For example, discovering genetics could have completely disproven evolution. But as it turned out, it completely supported it.

Eventually, as the evidence continues to mount, we all just have to accept that it's accurate.

 

[Loudmouth]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

No scientific theory is considered to be complete or 100% accurate. That's why scientists keep doing research, to refine those theories.

The ToE is no different. The theory has been refined over the years, especially during the time when genetics first started to emerge.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are mountains of evidence supporting it.

How much of that mountain is force-fitted data?

It would require just one piece of convincing evidence against it to undermine the whole theory.

I seriously doubt that.

Yet every time we find more evidence, it is always in support of the ToE.

After how much tweaking and number crunching?

For example, discovering genetics could have completely disproven evolution. But as it turned out, it completely supported it.

After how many tries?

Eventually, as the evidence continues to mount, we all just have to accept that it's accurate.

Or what? become unemployed?

 

[SteveB28]

How much of that mountain is force-fitted data?I seriously doubt that.After how much tweaking and number crunching?After how many tries?Or what? become unemployed?

Yes, I suppose it's been like all the "crunching" and "tweaking" and "force-fitting" that has enabled us to grow enough food to feed the planet, to permit you to fly around the globe, to eradicate smallpox, to protect your children from a variety of diseases, to provide you with a comfortable domicile, to allow you to drive that horseless wagon in your garage, to enable us to stand on the moon and to land on Mars.

Oh..........and to provide you with a computer, on which you can now compose a smart aleck reply.

Amazing how all that trickery and conspiring just happened to achieve all that isn't it?

 

[Moreso]

How much of that mountain is force-fitted data? I seriously doubt that. After how much tweaking and number crunching? After how many tries? Or what? become unemployed?

Evolution only seems to be a problem for the people who want to believe something else, they can not live with the fact that our closest ancestors were Apes and we are all primates, if we damage our brains we do not even make very good Apes because in the world of Apes our brains are all that sets us apart.

 

[SkyWriting]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

That's not how evidence works.
You may be referring to the
falsification of a theory where
a theory can be tested with
a repeatable experiment and
getting a result that falsifies
the idea.

There is a theory that life
cannot come from non-living
sources. That's pretty well
supported with the exception
of one data point against
billions of others showing
life cannot develop without
intelligent help.

 

[Moreso]

That's not how evidence works.
You may be referring to the falsification of a theory where a theory can be tested with
a repeatable experiment and getting a result that falsifies the idea.

Evolution stands firm throughout all the tests, evolution is as close to being a fact as it is possible to get.

There is a theory that life cannot come from non-living sources. That's pretty well supported with the exception of one data point against billions of others showing life cannot develop without intelligent help.

It's at this point your ignorance about evolution lets you down, when you talk about life coming from nonlife you have stopped talking about evolution and changed the subject to abiogenesis, you then do it again and make a special plea for an intelligent life that did not require an intelligent life to make it exist, surely you can see how ridiculous this claim is?
it's positively childish.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's at this point your ignorance about evolution lets you down, when you talk about life coming from nonlife you have stopped talking about evolution and changed the subject to abiogenesis,

That's not a problem unless you keep a religious separation between the two issues.

Life's Origins in a Prebiotic Fuel Cell | News | Astrobiology

Hydrothermal Vents Could Explain Chemical Precursors

https://www.crcpress.com/Astrobiology-An-Evolutionary-Approach/Kolb/9781466584617

 

[SkyWriting]

intelligent life that did not require an intelligent life to make it exist, surely you can see how ridiculous this claim is?
it's positively childish.

I'm willing to change that claim to
"Only life can produce life."
and find it scientifically supportable.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's not a problem unless you keep a religious separation between the two issues.

It isn't a religious separation. Evolution is a fully worked out, and evidenced, theory. Abiogenesis is scarcely off the starting blocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a theory that life
cannot come from non-living
sources.

That has nothing to do with evolution, which is the topic of the thread.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

ToE is a conglomerate of theories. Some of them right, some of them are wrong.
Most of what Darwin and his cronies speculated about has been proven to be wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

ToE is a conglomerate of theories. Some of them right, some of them are wrong. Most of what Darwin and his cronies speculated about has been proven to be wrong.

Which parts are wrong, and what is the evidence that demonstrates those parts to be wrong?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Any theory which has its problems will be retained until a better one comes along. "Science abhors a vacuum," as somebody said, and an imperfect theory is better than no theory at all.

That is pretty much the whole game in a nut shell. Of course they know that the mutation theory is now defunct and it has been proven to be wrong. But they have to continue to try to promote it until something better comes along. As you say: "Science abhors a vacuum". There is a lot they do not know yet they deceive themselves into thinking that most everything is known. Perhaps that gives them a false sense of security.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is pretty much the whole game in a nut shell. Of course they know that the mutation theory is now defunct and it has been proven to be wrong.

Based on what evidence?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Which parts are wrong, and what is the evidence that demonstrates those parts to be wrong?

You know I have answered billions of your questions.
So why don't you start off by answering one for me.
What did Darwin get right?

 

[Loudmouth]

You know I have answered billions of your questions. So why don't you start off by answering one for me. What did Darwin get right?

Darwin got natural selection right.

Now, answer my question.

What is "mutation theory", why is it wrong, and what evidence demonstrates that it is wrong?