does evolution exsist

That is completely wrong - almost exactly backwards.

I have yet to meet anyone - forum or anywhere - who comprehends the Darwinian theory of evolution but does not accept it and recognize the evidence for it. Most debates over the theory consist of people trying to correct mistaken assertions about it.

A major piece of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory. If some modern living thing were ever observed to emerge from inanimate matter, evolutionary theory would face a serious challenge and alternative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you can't even explain what evolutionary theory actually teaches then you have no business arguing against it.

It was demonstrated by others that people on that panel either weren't qualified to make any determinations about the validity of the theory of evolution, or were actually evolutionists themselves (Steven Jay Gould).

Incomplete. Where did life come from initially? Grow some balls and tell us your whole theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If your ill defined "macro evolution" refers to the creation of a new species, that has been demonstrated, naturally in only 8000 years. See links given in post 117.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one.

 

Corn.

Second strongest is really the same: Dogs. Silkworms. Domestic cows. Wheat. Rice.

What's the strongest argument for natural selection? That's a different question. For that, I'd say the distribution pattern of species. We don't see a single type of frog living in all similar environments around the world, as we might expect if a being were adding animals to a pre-created world like a painter applies a single kind of paint to all corners of a canvas in disconnected swaths; we instead see different species in geographically distinct areas around the globe, each often with similar (but not identical) methods of thriving in similar environmental conditions. Most importantly, the species living nearby are species structurally similar to their neighbors geographically, and not to species living in similar conditions halfway around the world.

Darwin's version of evolution had no concept of DNA. His concept of mixing of "blood" as the method of heredity is blatantly wrong.

I think the weakest part of modern evolution theory the reliance on the assumption of a single common ancestor. I think it's more likely that life has started multiple times, but usually never succeeds in surviving - either due to competition from existing life or due to inadequate form for survival in the face of a hostile environment. The existence of prions is, IMO, evidence of this, as a quasi-lifeform which would not continue to exist without the availability of existing life forms.


edit: leopold99: please see the following (and it's references) for the current information regarding the Urey-Miller experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Recent_related_studies

 

By the way, I've been meaning to point this out. Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory Of Evolution. It might be taught alongside it in many cases, but it's not the same thing. This means that Biogenesis does not falsify the Theory Of Evolution. So if you want to argue against Abiogenesis, you should start a new thread.

 

The complete theory of evolution was stolen by darwin, all he did was steal his grandfathers ideas fromt he old scripts of zoo-onomy i believe it was called, been so long since i read that little number.

If you found out evolution was 100% real why would that have any sway over your faith?, dont have faith in books have faith in the living creator.

 

The theory of Transmutation of species is not the same as Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.

It would be fair to say that Darwin was influenced by his grandfathers work, and the later more comprehensive work of Jean Baptiste Lamarck, but it's quite outrageous to say that he "stole" anything.

That's a good question. There are plenty of Christians (and people of other faiths) that embrace science as an accurate description of God's impressive work. Many Christian's accept evolution as part of God's plan and even view it as part of the story of creation. This is the only tenable position as far as I am concerned, yet some people insist on creating unnecessary conflict out of ignorance.

 

I would go as far as to say that Darwin would not even be known today if it was not for his grandfathers Blueprints and foundation. I truly believe he would not even have went down that path of study if it were not for his grandfather placing those ideas into his head.


I agree totaly with your second paragraph and point, people treat science as some form of entity in its own right and take religion for a complete waste of time both are not wise stances to take. Science is just the study and observation of creations in existence. Religion is (supposed) to be a spiritual guidence to mankind they are completely different things which dont contradict each other atall. I embrace science as a toold and way to gather more knowledge and information, I conduct my own experiments from time to time, So i guess i am a non proffessional scientist myself of sorts.

They go hand in hand for me i use both religion and science to better myself and understand the universe.


Peace be with you.

 

i will be the first to admit that evolutionary theory makes sense, on the other hand "making sense" isn't necessarily right.

first time i've seen this slant.

it's not my job to explain what you are pushing.

an evolutionist was on the panel? and that consensus on macro evolution was what? that it couldn't happen.

well see, that's the problem. if we take biogenesis at face value then life comes from life. this in turn implies an infinite existence.
this has the added advantange for both sides of the arguement to get rid of "beginnings".

i swear, if i read those references and find "it isn't really . . . " i'll tell duendy where you live.

 

I accused you of misrepresenting what evolutionary theory teaches. You offered to correct any such misrepresentation if I pointed it out. I did. Your correction was still a misrepresentation.

You don't understand what it teaches. This means that any argument you make against it is hopeless from the beginning.

There was no consensus. To suggest that there was shows that you don't know what you are talking about and are just willing to believe whatever creationist propaganda that you come across. The 1980 conference was somewhat dominated by emotional outbursts and personal insults. It was a farce really. And what you obviously don't realize is that it was essentially an attack on evolutionary theory by creationists and other people who were not willing to let go of the possibility that "God did it", not other unbiased scientists. The one evolutionist that we know of who was trying to undermine the accepted theory of the time was actually pushing an alternative evolutionary model that still featured macroevolution.

The consensus bullshit is an outright lie. And it's not surprising really. It is only the creationist movement that has been found guilty of lies and fabrication time and time again.

What absolute nonsense. Now you're saying that Earth has been here forever? That it's infinitely old?

 

I like that one. It means something like: "I don't have to understand your theory to prove it's just wrong. I don't understand it, so it can't be true".

Neat, concise, and self-serving, all in one.

 

'fraid not buddy. not my fault you don't like what evolution says, and evolution says an organism at on time or another was naturally selected to fly and in a couple thousand or so years did.

were you there? if not then the above is nothing more than hearsay
the link is in post 46 for those that wish to research it.

actually the consensus was NO, macro evolution can't happen by the aggregate changes by micro evolution AKA adaptation.

i believe i said the universe.

tell me, how does a single cell organism such as an ameba change into a horse, pig, frog, tree and a man?

you also never explained, nor demonstrated, how a bird got its wings.

 

i have no idea why i would want to read this.
have they performed yet another experiment with different parameters?
i believe the original experiment was performed in 1953.

 

if you don't have anything to say then don't say it.

i couldn't argue against it if i didn't understand it numbnuts.

 

You're not, and you don't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Life, and indeed the universe itself seems to have arisen out of it's own nature in a cascade of cause and effect. It grew, as the Taoists say, rather than was made as if from an assembly of parts that require an assembler.

Also, most of science is building on the work of others, we don't call it stealing.

 

When you follow "The way" Long enough you will come to god and you can't evade it.

That's not what my Ban Threat Warning Say's from James R, Borrowing work is apparently "Illegal" here on sci-forums even when you source it.


I believe Darwin did not even as much as source or credit his grandfather in any of his works as far as I can remember.


Peace.

 

who's way?

 

I'm sorry you came to a God, because it's still a form of dependency. Now you will be a slave to the idea and go around the world finding support and justification for filling up your head with belief. This doesn't sound like liberation.