Challenging Evolution

[Arikay]

Um, have you taken any biology classes at school? If not, I would recomend them. If so, get a better teacher.

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

 

[Puddleglum]

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..

Ahahahahaha.

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..

Should be. But it isnt.



Never heard of such a statement coming from a mouth of a scientist.



Yes, Science is based on observation - and your observation is wrong. Simple is that.[/QUOTE]And theory. Your theory is wrong.

 

[Mistermystery]

Your theory is wrong.

Do you got any evidence to back up this claim that the theory of evolution is wrong?

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

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?

 

[Puddleglum]

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......

Rapid evolution generally equals microevolution.What observed instances of speciation.I know didnt put them in the right order the right order The fossil record seems to agree with intelligent design. What are ERV's and ALU's.

do you now. do you actually know anything about the evidence for evolution, or is your claim just a blind one? I suspect that to be the case.
this would be the intelligent design responsible for, amongst many other things, the laryngeal nerve, manatee toenails, eyes in the Itjaritjari which are embedded in the skin, Bothriomyrmex regicidus and B. decapitans, Scurvy, the male Urethra, greenland shark eyes,. need I go on? why doesn't your intelligent designer design intelligently?Isnt Itjaritjari the "eared " amphasebanian. If it is they could them as a pineal organ.It isnt very scientific but couldnt be scurvy used to limit humans. Manatee toenails could protect their fins when they drag them.I dont know much about the rest,could you explains.

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

How?

(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

This whole post was exellent. If I knew how I would give you a reputation

 

[Tomk80]

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?

What is proven by ring species is that species can gradually change, till they are so far apart that the species at the beginning/end of the ring cannot reproduce anymore. From this you can infer that new species can develop through gradual changes. This is evolution as fact.

There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way. If you have a good reason, I'll be very interested to hear it.

Ring species is talking about genetics in the same way everything in evolution is talking about genetics, namely that genetic differences give rise to phenotypic differences, which ultimately make the differences between different groups of animals from the same species so large that they won't be able to reproduce anymore. I don't understand how this is a problem. I also don't understand what you mean with 'pure genetics'?

 

[Tomk80]

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.

 

[Arikay]

And its important to note that modern abiogenesis is Different than spontaneous generation (what Pastuer disproved).

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.

 

[Wolly]

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!

 

[Ishmael Borg]

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!

Give us the math behind gravity, please. Then give us a definition. What is the mechanism by which gravity exerts its influence? Demonstrate to us how Gravity Theory is superior to Evolutionary Theory as a description for observed phenomena.

 

[Megaman]

Very interesting stuff. I need more posts.

 

[Logic]

Give us the math behind gravity, please. Then give us a definition. What is the mechanism by which gravity exerts its influence? Demonstrate to us how Gravity Theory is superior to Evolutionary Theory as a description for observed phenomena.

F is the force of attraction between M, object 1 and m, object 2 with a distance of r from each other's center of gravity. Where G is the universal gravitational constant and ~=6.67e-11 Kgm^2/s^2

F=GMm/r^2 - I think you can derive almost every other equation that involves gravity with this little guy.

1.)The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
2.)The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Gravity exerts its influence on all matter in our universe, every single bit of matter has some (usually so close to zero that it doesnt matter) force acting on it from every other bit of matter.

Gravity is easier to accept than evolution because we can test and observe it first hand, furthermore it's a universal LAW, not a theory. I think Newton derived his gravity laws from his laws of motion, but I might be mistaken. Now.. you get into the quantum theory of gravity and some of the theory of relativity and it's not so cut and dry .


By the way, as time passes, I think we will find more and more evidence to support evolution, and probably a naturalistic explaination of how life originated that can be proven to the extent that the Earth's age and such are, but I think people will still ignore the evidence for at least a few more generations. (can anyone find the run-on sentence?)

 

[Tomk80]

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!

Actually, last time I checked evolution was better understood then gravity, despite (or because?) of the math.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Ohh but the theory of gravity and evolution are not the same type of theory Bellman!

Sure they are. They are both scientific theories.

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that our understanding of how gravity works has not significantly changed?

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.

If anything, it is arguable that our understanding of how evolution works is much better than our understanding of how gravity works.

The problem is that much of modern science objects to evolution, and not gravity.

This is just creationist posturing. You can't back up this statement at all. If what you claim is true, then why is the theory of evolution accepted by the community of biological scientists and considered the unifying theory of biology?

To prove evolution, one has to use observation and reason, not math formulas!

Science is not in the business of positive proof. Both theories can involve mathematics, as they have quantitative aspects to them, both involve observation and reason as well. However I don't see what the problem is here considering we have observations that substantiate evolution.

 

[Logic]

The problem is that much of modern science objects to evolution, and not gravity.

Wrong!

 

[pureone]

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!

I thought evolution is a constant process that is part of modern science. Please tell me what part of modern science objects to evolution.

 

[gluadys]

(can anyone find the run-on sentence?)

"the" run-on sentence? I found two. To wit:


"Gravity exerts its influence on all matter in our universe, every single bit of matter has some (usually so close to zero that it doesnt matter) force acting on it from every other bit of matter."

and

"Gravity is easier to accept than evolution because we can test and observe it first hand, furthermore it's a universal LAW, not a theory."

 

[Ishmael Borg]

F is the force of attraction between M, object 1 and m, object 2 with a distance of r from each other's center of gravity. Where G is the universal gravitational constant and ~=6.67e-11 Kgm^2/s^2

F=GMm/r^2 - I think you can derive almost every other equation that involves gravity with this little guy.

1.)The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
2.)The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Gravity exerts its influence on all matter in our universe, every single bit of matter has some (usually so close to zero that it doesnt matter) force acting on it from every other bit of matter.

Gravity is easier to accept than evolution because we can test and observe it first hand, furthermore it's a universal LAW, not a theory. I think Newton derived his gravity laws from his laws of motion, but I might be mistaken. Now.. you get into the quantum theory of gravity and some of the theory of relativity and it's not so cut and dry .


By the way, as time passes, I think we will find more and more evidence to support evolution, and probably a naturalistic explaination of how life originated that can be proven to the extent that the Earth's age and such are, but I think people will still ignore the evidence for at least a few more generations. (can anyone find the run-on sentence?)

Thanks.

But we know that the mechanism by which life diversified is evolution/natural selection.

We do not know the mechanism by which two bodies are attracted to each other, even if we label the attraction. But who doubts the exisence of the labeled phenomenon?

 

[Logic]

Thanks.

But we know that the mechanism by which life diversified is evolution/natural selection.

We do not know the mechanism by which two bodies are attracted to each other, even if we label the attraction. But who doubts the exisence of the labeled phenomenon?

Can anyone say God?

 

[gluadys]

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!

The point of a theory is to explain an observed phenomenon, such as gravity. Mathematics doesn't explain gravity; it only describes it. Math tells us how to measure the force of gravity between two objects, but it does not tell us what the force of gravity is or how it works.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, gives us an explanation for many biological phenomena by proposing several mechanisms that yield the results we see. We have also been able to verify that these mechanisms actually function in the way the theory describes.

Can you give that kind of a description of gravity?