If Evolution were true...

[rjc34]

Be nice, Inan. (bites lip) Be nice, Inan. (bites lip)

Go ahead, respond to my post and let 'er loose.

 

[mandyangel]

Heres a pretty cool article - 15 facts that disprove evolution

www.choice-s.com/evolution/disprovingfacts.htm

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Heres a pretty cool article - 15 facts that disprove evolution

www.choice-s.com/evolution/disprovingfacts.htm

Thank you for that. The laughs have made my day.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Heres a pretty cool article - 15 facts that disprove evolution

www.choice-s.com/evolution/disprovingfacts.htm

That's a pretty lame article - 15 PRATTS claiming to disprove evolution.

 

[VehementiDominus]

I'm so glad its funny to you. Maybe you can laugh all the way to Hell.

Except there's no evidence to suggest Hell exists.

He is right, though; your comments are laughable - all you're doing is showing us how little you understand evolution.

Why don't you brush the religious bias aside and actually learn what evolution is?

 

[mandyangel]

Except there's no evidence to suggest Hell exists.?

Oh thats right, I forgot. It can't be measured, darn

 

[mandyangel]

I really doubt that you even read the article BTW.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I really doubt that you even read the article BTW.

Feel free, doubt away.

Funny.

 

[VehementiDominus]

Oh thats right, I forgot. It can't be measured, darn

If you're going to believe in Hell, why not believe in Hades, or Asgard, or anything else that's been thought up that's got no evidence supporting it?

I really doubt that you even read the article BTW.

I didn't read it in full, I skimmed it, though. I didn't read it in full because I've heared each of those arguments thousands of times, and seen them refuted thousands of times.

Whoever wrote them doesn't understand evolution, and neither do you. I think you're just claiming it doesn't happen because your priest or pastor or other Creationist buddies have told you it doesn't happen - without looking into it yourself.

 

[Nabobalis]

Thank you for that. The laughs have made my day.

Agreed, those were laughable. Even those 12 Fallacies of evolution were pretty bad too.

 

[Greg1234]

Heres a pretty cool article - 15 facts that disprove evolution

www.choice-s.com/evolution/disprovingfacts.htm

The degeneration point is the best. While they're busy crying out natural selection we're trying to show them what gets selected. While they extrapolated from the data available in Darwin's day some kind if accumulation, we're trying to show them the extrapolation to be made today based on 21st century discoveries. For example,

CREV

For mutations under epistasis to produce innovation, there must be a way for them to work together (synergistic epistasis).[bless and do not curse] This is often assumed but has not been observed.[bless and do not curse] Most experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other (antagonistic epistasis; see 12/14/2006), or causing even less fitness than if they acted alone (decompensatory epistasis; see 10/19/2004).[bless and do not curse] In a new paper in Science,3 Khan et al, working with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, found a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis.[bless and do not curse] The abstract said:​

Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.​

 

[OllieFranz]

The degeneration point is the best. While they're busy crying out natural selection we're trying to show them what gets selected. While they extrapolated from the data available in Darwin's day some kind if accumulation, we're trying to show them the extrapolation to be made today based on 21st century discoveries. For example,

CREV

For mutations under epistasis to produce innovation, there must be a way for them to work together (synergistic epistasis).[bless and do not curse] This is often assumed but has not been observed.[bless and do not curse] Most experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other (antagonistic epistasis; see 12/14/2006), or causing even less fitness than if they acted alone (decompensatory epistasis; see 10/19/2004).[bless and do not curse] In a new paper in Science,3 Khan et al, working with Richard Lenski [Michigan State], leader of the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, found a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis.[bless and do not curse] The abstract said:​

Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.​

When I tried to learn touch typing (It never took, alas), back when there were only typewriters and monospaced type, I was taught to put one space between words and after commas, colons, semicolons and periods denoting abreviations, but to put two spaces between sentences. I did not realize that whenever I doubled the spacing, I was [blessing and not cursing] up a blue streak! Profanity filter hiccup?

As to the actual merits of your post, I'll come back to that after I have time to examine the entire article, and the paper it quotes to see if you are accurately reflecting the author's point and he is accurately reflecting the researcher's point. As it stands now, I am only recieving third-hand hearsay.

 

[VehementiDominus]

3. There can be no evolution without the power of reproduction in living things. Since reproduction is a prior condition to evolution, it cannot be a product of it. Hence, we face the logical necessity for the creation of life and its power of continued reproduction. The power of reproduction is not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. An egg cannot produce an egg. It is also true that the egg is not improvable by itself. Improvement can come only in and through the mature form. Therefore, the parent-form of life must have been created in the beginning to have produced an egg from which offspring alone can come. See also answers.

This is a perfect example of how stupid this article is.

It shows how little it understands evolution by claiming that evolution says things started to evolve when sexual reproduction existed - this is about as incorrect as it's possible to be. The first cells would've reproduced asexually, copying their own genetic code and splitting in half with a nucleus in each part.

All that's required is a self-replicating molecule that copies itself imperfectly. Sexual reproduction is not required in the slightest - it just speeds the whole mutation process up.

But of course, that would sound convincing to someone with a lack of understanding themselves and a deep-rooted confirmation bias.

 

[plindboe]

As I don't think this 3 month old post was properly addressed, I'll just make some points about it.

Even if evolution were true (for the sake of argument), does that mean there is no God?

Of course not. The theory doesn't address that question at all, just as any other scientific theory doesn't address the question of God/gods. The theory of gravity likewise doesn't use God to explain why and how matter attracts matter, but that doesn't make it an atheist theory.

How do you know God didn't use it to get us here?

I don't. But I also see no good reason to think this being exists, or created the Universe. If there is a creator God he obviously used evolution.

If you believe in evolution, does that mean you aren't a sinner?

Of course not. You seem to have the habit of making evolution the anti-thesis of Christianity, when in fact it doesn't address Christianity as a whole, other than contradict an interpretation of Genesis held by a minority of christians. There are countless christians who are a-ok with evolution, and it's dishonest to portray evolution as a form of atheism.

New theories are being raised all the time to account for why there aren't any undisputed transitional forms found between any species of any kind, anywhere, anytime in all the fossil record.

"all the time"? "any kind, anywhere, anytime in all"? Talk about hyberbole. Punctuated equillibrium was suggested as a counter to gradualism >30 years ago and has been debated ever since. Countless studies have since been carried out, and the natural world are abundant with examples of both punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, i.e. sometimes evolution is static, sometimes it's gradual, and sometimes it's very rapid. So in a way they are both right and both wrong.

That said, there are plenty of transitional fossils if you bother to look. It's a common mantra among creationists to claim that there are no transitional fossils, but it's nothing but a mantra. Go to a museum, read some books, there is plenty of fascinating information out there that creationists seem to deliberately ignore.

Peter

 

[rjc34]

I really doubt that you even read the article BTW.

Oh I read the page. It was hilarious, and sad. If you really think any of those 'arguments' are even remotely valid, then it's clearly your misunderstanding of evolution that keeps you from accepting it. Seriously, when I read pages like that I laugh at how poorly the represent the science, but then I cry at the fact that the average american receives very little if any actual instruction on evolution in school. It may be in the curriculum, but teachers are actually afraid to teach it for fear of creationist parents throwing the mighty fist of God in their face.

So yes, I read the article, I laughed, then I wept. But while it's a sad fact many Americans go their whole life without even an hour of instruction about evolution, that doesn't mean if you're willing to open your ears and listen we can't help you understand all the facts and evidence there is to see.

So the question is... would you like us to teach you about evolution? Or would you rather remain willfully misinformed about it to keep your other views?

 

[mandyangel]

I'll believe what God wants to me believe about the birth of man and thank God in heaven I do.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I'm so glad its funny to you. Maybe you can laugh all the way to Hell.

Is this the way Christians should react to criticism? If Jesus exists, I'm sure he's face-palming right now.

 

[rjc34]

I'll believe what God wants to me believe about the birth of man and thank God in heaven I do.

Then why even bother popping in to the science forum? Just so a bunch of Christians and atheists who accept science can laugh at the gloriously bad web-page you posted? Then you counter everyone who doesn't agree with you with 'well have fun burning in hell'? Sounds like a very Christian thing to do.

 

[VehementiDominus]

I'll believe what God wants to me believe about the birth of man and thank God in heaven I do.

What God wants you to believe?

You mean what your church wants you to believe, no?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this the way Christians should react to criticism? If Jesus exists, I'm sure he's face-palming right now.

Or maybe you should read the second Psalm?