Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly, so why don't you like people contradicting your fantasies and criticizing you for being so ridiculous and resistant to having your beliefs challenged?

Why do you constantly ignore what 99% of the universe is then claim it is science, when in reality it is religion? Why can't you accept the scientific fact that kind has always reproduced after kind and no other way has ever been observed? Ever!

All genetic tests have only proven kind after kind. No animal has ever been observed to evolve into another animal, ever. So why do you constantly promote your religion of evolution when none of science or observational evidence agrees?

You can't argue against evolution if you don't understand it.

Evolution also says everything reproduces after its kind.

It is not our fault if you use the wrong definition of "kind".

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Then why don't you scientists worry about your own problems, instead of trying to make problems for us by challenging what we hold sacred?

(Or is challenging, venting and ridiculing a popular pastime when scientists don't have anything better to do?)

Well firstly I'm not a scientist, my degree was in the humanities. Secondly how do we keep the demarcation line firm when there's a large well funded political movement to have religious beliefs taught as science and well demonstrated science kicked out?

 

[bhsmte]

Well firstly I'm not a scientist, my degree was in the humanities. Secondly how do we keep the demarcation line firm when there's a large well funded political movement to have religious beliefs taught as science and well demonstrated science kicked out?

If it was up to AV, the president should immediately sign an executive order, declaring all scientific discoveries that call into question what the bible says, as illegal and have all books that discuss them, burned.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well firstly I'm not a scientist, my degree was in the humanities. Secondly how do we keep the demarcation line firm when there's a large well funded political movement to have religious beliefs taught as science and well demonstrated science kicked out?

What well demonstrated science? Kind after kind which is all that has ever been observed? I fail to see any factual claims in anything any of you have said. Show me genetic evidence where a rat has become anything other than a rat? Show me genetic evidence where a dog has become anything other than a dog. Where a cat has become anything other than a cat.

Oh that's right, you got not one shred of evidence do you, just flights of fantasy of how you want it to be. Fairie Dust from your religious cosmology to your religion of evolution. It is all Fabricated Ad-hoc inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory. Fairie Dust, from your Big Bang to your religious evolutionary beliefs.

You can call it science if you want, but we both know better. It is a religion.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't expect not to be challenged.

In fact, I welcome it.

But challenging is one thing.

Embedding venting, ridicule and downright blasphemy in a challenge is another.

Hiding behind question marks, I call it.

Earlier...

Like Thalidomide?

Right there's a little venting and ridicule hidden behind a question mark. No blasphemy, of course, since one cannot blaspheme science. I won't even get started on the frequency with which you refer to atheists as fools...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Earlier...



Right there's a little venting and ridicule hidden behind a question mark. No blasphemy, of course, since one cannot blaspheme science. I won't even get started on the frequency with which you refer to atheists as fools...

What does Thalidomide prove? That deformed human babies are still human and that genetic mutations are always harmful and never beneficial?

 

[Skaloop]

What does Thalidomide prove? That deformed human babies are still human and that genetic mutations are always harmful and never beneficial?

No, it proves neither of those things.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it proves neither of those things.

Seems that's the only data you got on it, that it caused genetic mutations that were harmful in every single case and not beneficial in a single solitary instance. Funny how that works.

 

[Skaloop]

Seems that's the only data you got on it, that it caused genetic mutations that were harmful in every single case and not beneficial in a single solitary instance. Funny how that works.

It may possibly be evidence that mutations due to thalidomide are always harmful and never beneficial, but it doesn't prove that genetic mutations are always harmful and never beneficial, which is what you asserted.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

What well demonstrated science?

That populations change with respect to heritable characteristics over generational time for one.

Kind after kind which is all that has ever been observed?

That statement would have more weight if anyone had the cojones to define "kind", in any case, taken in broad terms, this observation is just what evolution predicts. Tetrapods after tetrapods, eukaryotes after eukaryotes....

I fail to see any factual claims in anything any of you have said.

Don't blame me for your failures.

Show me genetic evidence where a rat has become anything other than a rat?

Wouldn't that violate the nested heirarchical pattern of life and falsify evolution?

Show me genetic evidence where a dog has become anything other than a dog. Where a cat has become anything other than a cat.

"Show me bricks floating in the air or I won't believe in gravity." Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Oh that's right, you got not one shred of evidence do you, just flights of fantasy of how you want it to be. Fairie Dust from your religious cosmology to your religion of evolution. It is all Fabricated Ad-hoc inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory. Fairie Dust, from your Big Bang to your religious evolutionary beliefs.

You can call it science if you want, but we both know better. It is a religion.

That populations change with respect to heritable characteristics over generational time is as well demonstrated as any other scientific theory. That this theory explains a large suite of facts like the multiple matching nested hierarchies and biogeography and fossil succession and morphological and genetic homology and how speciation occurs and why species are adapted to environments is how we know it's useful we'll demonstrated science.

 

[kellhus]

Exactly, so why don't you like people contradicting your fantasies and criticizing you for being so ridiculous and resistant to having your beliefs challenged?

Why do you constantly ignore what 99% of the universe is then claim it is science, when in reality it is religion? Why can't you accept the scientific fact that kind has always reproduced after kind and no other way has ever been observed? Ever!

All genetic tests have only proven kind after kind. No animal has ever been observed to evolve into another animal, ever. So why do you constantly promote your religion of evolution when none of science or observational evidence agrees?

Because I'm not delusional, and read scientific research journals and realize you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That populations change with respect to heritable characteristics over generational time for one.

You mean that populations of kinds diverge into different appearances, yet still remain the same kind. That cats diverge into a variety of appearences, but are still felines. I agree, kind after kind.

That statement would have more weight if anyone had the cojones to define "kind", in any case, taken in broad terms, this observation is just what evolution predicts. Tetrapods after tetrapods, eukaryotes after eukaryotes....

Your argument might be worthwhile if you stopped refusing to accept the definition of kind I have given close to 28 times already.

All felines are one kind, what is your problem with understanding that?

Don't blame me for your failures.

I am not, I am blaming you for your failures of being unable to define what a species is.

That populations change with respect to heritable characteristics over generational time is as well demonstrated as any other scientific theory.

Agreed, kind after kind with appearance changes, exactly as we have observed. You have never observed a feline become anything but another feline. You have never observed anything become anything else.

That this theory explains a large suite of facts like the multiple matching nested hierarchies and biogeography and fossil succession and morphological and genetic homology and how speciation occurs and why species are adapted to environments is how we know it's useful we'll demonstrated science.

That it has shown kind after kind is undisputed, I agree. So why are you arguing against your very own science which has proved beyond doubt that cats never become anything but cats?

Almost every single mutation is harmful, and the gene itself has safeguards to protect itself from mutations. Not my fault you need a proven harmful state to change an animal into another kind because you can't accept the truth.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences, Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct (revert the mutated sequence back to its original state) mutations.

The truth that you at no time have ever observed a single creature evolve into something other than what it originally was. Ever! You have not a single genetic test to show that any creature has ever become another creature. It has always been kind after kind, will always be kind after kind.

This is a scientifically proven fact that I accept, why can you not accept what your very own science is telling you? Not someone's interpretation and twisting of the data, but the cold hard facts that every single cat, no matter its appearance, is a cat and has always been a cat. That every single mutation science has caused in an animal or human has been harmful. That mutations in nature die, and do not pass their genes on to the next generation. That adaptation of form, not genetic structure is all that you have ever observed.

This is how we know we are humans, cats are cats, dogs are dogs, whales are whales, and fish are fish. Just as birds are birds, and apes are apes. Kind after kind, always has been, always will be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well firstly I'm not a scientist, my degree was in the humanities.

Close enough.

Secondly how do we keep the demarcation line firm when there's a large well funded political movement to have religious beliefs taught as science and well demonstrated science kicked out?

Oh, I don't think that's gonna happen until the Tribulation period.

God is still in control.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it was up to AV, the president should immediately sign an executive order, declaring all scientific discoveries that call into question what the bible says, as illegal and have all books that discuss them, burned.

Dear me!

You forgot to include having those who have a theory named after them getting their name removed from their tombstones!

 

[AV1611VET]

Earlier...



Right there's a little venting and ridicule hidden behind a question mark. No blasphemy, of course, since one cannot blaspheme science. I won't even get started on the frequency with which you refer to atheists as fools...

Just quid your own pro quo first.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because I'm not delusional, and read scientific research journals and realize you don't know what you're talking about.

And yet all those journals agree that cats are cats, and none have ever observed something else evolve into a cat, nor a cat evolve into something else.

If you have genetic evidence to the contrary that a cat has become something other than a cat? Or was something other than a cat before it evolved into a cat?

No? None at all? Why, I might be tempted to call faith without evidence a religion. A mere belief in the existence of something never observed.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Close enough.

Thanks, I wonder if I can use your endirsement as course credit toward a second degree.

Oh, I don't think that's gonna happen until the Tribulation period.

God is still in control.

I know you're not part of the movement but it does exist. In any case I'm mainly just interested in correcting errors that folk pick up from people they should have been able to trust but who lied to them instead.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Close enough.

Oh, I don't think that's gonna happen until the Tribulation period.

God is still in control.

They stopped using well demonstrated science 100 years ago. We just got to wait until they start using it again. For those claiming to follow science I notice a tendency to ignore the facts. Have you ever observed a cat evolve into something other than a cat? Yah, me either, but hey, it happened in the past where none can prove it but that's science. Just make sure you don't claim something happened in the past where you can't prove it, it might be called a religion.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

They stopped using well demonstrated science 100 years ago. We just got to wait until they start using it again. For those claiming to follow science I notice a tendency to ignore the facts. Have you ever observed a cat evolve into something other than a cat? Yah, me either, but hey, it happened in the past where none can prove it but that's science. Just make sure you don't claim something happened in the past where you can't prove it, it might be called a religion.

What cat evolved into something other than a cat in the past? You wouldn't be just making up stories now would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

They stopped using well demonstrated science 100 years ago.

Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.

From there, it started going downhill morally.