Evolution has been Debunked

What, again? That's the fifth time this week, and it's only Tuesday.
Of course, the people who do the debunking are usually free of even the most rudimentary scientific knowledge, which makes it easy. Let's see somebody who was actually present and conscious through high school do it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That and whether they're all just Creationists . . . including those who appeared to be the closeted variety, if only to give readers the idea that there is some kind of atheist grassroots anti-science movement. Not that that's their excuse for sleeping through high school . . . but the dull mind is a fertile field for indoctrination. And as I recall the polls have shown that such traits correlate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolution is a fact in that people and disonsaurs did not live together. 65 million years ago dinosaurs lived on earth, there were no people or dogs or elephants or armadillos. This is fact. Animals changed over time, the species that lived 65 million years ago no longer exist and species that did not exist then exist now. Again this is fact.

Then there was a progression of different types of near human to human animals that from few million years ago to the present.

The theory of evolution is a theory that explains the process of these observational facts.

Your theory may be that god made species and then wiped them out and created new species. For people he created Australopithecus then after a while wiped them out, then he created Homo rudolfensis and after a while wiped them out, then he created Homo habilis and after a while wiped them out, then he created Homo erectus and after a while wiped them out; well you get the drift.

Seems kinda weird to me, the idea of change due primarily to natural selection seems much more believable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with you 100%. I personally would not use the word believable since we are surrounded by the pestilence that is the religionists, and they would say that belief in the theory is the same kind of thing as belief in one of their imaginary gods. I would say that you should understand the theory, review the evidence and then make a value judgement as to whether the two are compatible or not. If they are then it is safe to come to the conclusion that the theory is correct.

 

Yup.

How about:

Seems kinda weird to me, the idea of change due primarily to natural selection seems much more logical.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, change is not primarily due to natural selection.

 

In most cases it is pure intellectual laziness, nothing more. God said it, I believe it, relieves one of ever having to do the hard work of understanding the universe in which they live.

 

All right, I've had enough.

Evolution has not been "debunked". It is not "debunkable", any more than gravity is debunkable, or organic chemistry. It is not a theory; it is a fact. In fact, if there were to be biological law, this would be that law. In it's most basic sense, evolution as the change in allele/genotype frequencies cannot be debated; it occurs. Period.

The real thing that Creationists wish to debate is descent with modification. They presume that only an intelligent agency can accomplish such a thing, in the face of experimental and natural evidence. They propose their god, a being for which far less evidence exists, has made such a thing.

Well, I have had enough of it. Evolution is a law, period: utterly and incontrovertibly in the case of allele frequencies, and rationally to all points in the case of descent with modification. The fact of it has been demonstrated in the lab and out of it, and that is sufficient: where it operates not to create change, there are legitimate and naturalistic reasons for not doing so. It is not necessary to waste time demonstrating its prevalence and operation in every half-studied, asinine example that half-studied, asinine people may misreport, ill-comprehend or misdirect. No astronomer or physicist is required to illustrate the operation of gravity at every point and between every body in the fucking universe in order for the 'theory' of gravity to be debated, nor a chemist observe every redox reaction to be sure that a mystical hand does not appear between the atoms, guiding them to conclusion. The fact of evolution remains, throughout. Until I see evidence of God's hand in naturalistic evolutionary modification, that aspect of the debate is over. We are now only interested in the processes that have made it so.

Those dissenters may write me back or PM me when such evidence is - finally - made available.

 

Oh for crying out loud!

Seems kinda weird to me, the idea of changes that survive in the population are due primarily to natural selection seems much more logical.

Happy now you bunch of dirty back stabbing sons o bitches with your nit-picking........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By the way if you don't like that modified sentence, big gol darn heck, it's close enough for me!

 

Lots of changes, in fact the majority of them, are not affected by natural selection. That's how we can use the rate of change to determine how long it's been since a species diverged from another.

 

In Gamespot (a gaming website) some of the posters still do not believe in evolution. I don't know what their problem with evolution is though.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offt...gonna-start-supporting-evolution-31185106/#51

 

Why is it that we always hear about how Evolution has been debunked by nameless, faceless people online and never by real, actual, credible scientists doing -- get this! -- sciencey stuff in the real world? Hey, did someone forget to update N. Degrasse Tyson? He's all rambling on about Natural Selection for the past (and next) few weeks on major network TV. And not that this should be some kind of an appeal to authority (which, isn't categorically wrong: experience and education do count), it's just that . . . wow, one is left to wonder why all of these PhD level scientists keep demonstrating how Evolution is true even though -- apparently -- it ain't.

~String

 

Here we go again......Such 100% faitre complei certainty!
At least this one is in the right section.

 

Please explain what the true cause for change is and why it it is not natural.

btw. My use of the term Natural Selection has nothing to do with choice or decision making. It is a Default position, that anything which is able to survive its environment (by any means) and is able to have offspring has been passively "selected" by Nature to survive and evolve. IMO. This is why there are so many species, there are a lot of ways to survive and we have the living proof all around us.

There are no species on earth that were selected for survival. On the contrary, having been selected is the condition for a living organism that manages to be around after all other competing organisms have died before procreating. That's how you get "selected". Sometimes you get selected "by accident", ain't that a crock?

 

spidergoa

You are correct in that change is caused by mutation in the sexual gametes of individuals, but Natural Selection tests all those changes in the next generation to determine which actually causes change within the gene pool of the whole species by survival to reproduce. And that is the major cause of changes in the species.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Grumpy, you 're only saying that natural selection prevents change(when it's not beneficial) but not that it causes change.

 

What does that mean?
DNA is our blueprint. We are being reincarnated every time an animal is born. What else can be reincarnated? Our psyche ? Prove it.