CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It has been proven, better than almost any theory in any subject. It is backed up by evidence in embryology, archeology, geology, and numerous different fields of biology, including genetics.
I am going to assume that you are referring to the fact that evolution is a scientific theory. In science, theories aren't proven. Theories are akin to explanations, not guesses. For example, the theory of gravitation is the explanation of how gravity works. We can see gravity, measure gravity, and we explain this through the theory. Evolution is the same way: we see evolution occurring today, we have tons of evidence for evolution that happened in the past through fossils, and we explain this through the theory.
If there was a way to prove a theory, evolution would have met that burden of proof, however, in science there is no way to "prove" a theory.
I am going to assume that you are referring to the fact that evolution is a scientific theory. In science, theories aren't proven. Theories are akin to explanations, not guesses. For example, the theory of gravitation is the explanation of how gravity works.
I came across your internet site and read concerning your BLOG TITLE while I was browsing for concepts on Feli85rra2. Awesome, I am truly amazed with the content.
This is my first to experience difficulty in obtaining details about hybrid annuity but I get compensated when I found this fascinating Why has evolution not been proven yet? This is definitely gorgeous! The person regarding this has a great mind. Click here to find out more details!
Supporting Evidence:
Click here
(annuityratesinstantly.com)
Evolution isn't a theory. It's a verified fact. Evolution can and has been demonstrated in the lab repeatedly. All evolution is change in any given system (biological or not) over time in direct response to external forces. Speciation is a theory. We have yet to to find a verifiable and credible example of speciation (one species becoming another). Every time a researcher thought they found one after careful examination they found it to be misidentification or errors in their process. So far we have yet to see one species become another in the lab.
I think that this is very important for everyone to comment on as their opinions should not be disregarded and should be known throughout the community. I plan on visiting often to see the responses.
As I finished looking through published articles on life insurance quotes and then I noticed your web page. I could actually say that the createdebate is extremely outstanding.
I love writing articles such as concerning UK life insurance quotes and I also like checking extraordinary posts online. That's the reason I am extremely fascinated with the createdebate I found on your web site. You can go to http://www.easylifeinsurancequotes.co.uk/ if you're interested.
A theory means it hasn't been proven - that's why it's called a theory. I'm not disputing the theory just your answer that a theory is proof becuase it's not. Can't prove it like a math proof.
BTW the gravity example is kinda funny since we don't even have a Theory of Everything - The unification of the electroweak, strong nuclear and gravitational forces in two generic forces.
Well when speaking about evolution you have both the fact and the theory.
The theory (which as you said cannot be proven in the same way mathematical proofs can't be proven) is about how life changes over long periods of time.
Individual instances of observed evolution though, are facts. In this sense evolution is both fact and theory.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn't really contradict the general theory of evolution, it just explains some of the details in various circumstances. You are correct though that under certain environmental pressures evolution can proceed more rapidly, and when there is very little environmental pressure to evolve organisms may undergo almost no evolution.
I'm not sure, however, what point you are trying to make with this.
Take a look at bacteria, as they are put in an antibiotic environment, they slowly evolve and get resistant to that certain antibiotic. And thus become superbugs. These bacteria mutate and adapt to the environment. Mutation is synonymous to evolution, as the organism has been changed. This occurs more slowly and gradually with other organisms, but it happens.
You do not understand the theory word, here is a definition:
In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment
"BTW the gravity example is kinda funny since we don't even have a Theory of Everything"
If there was a theory of everything, I'm sure there would still be people complaining about it, since it's a "Theory of Everything," rather than a "Proof of Everything."
Evolution has been proven to the extent anything can be proven.
If you try hard enough you can disprove anything - the pen in front of you, isn't really a pen, but just your senses being trick. You're not actually in the place you think you are, you are actually on the moon - the government drugged you and flew you in a rocket and has now placed you in a fake version of your room. You didn't feel woozy waking up? New high-tech drug. You actually went outside your house 5 minutes ago? Stimulation.
What creationists do is they fight logic with faith. Basically, they cover their ears with their hands and shouted "la, la, la, not listening. The Bible is right". They either ignore evidence, and say there is no real proof, or they say that they should just trust in God and stop questioning him.
Evolution has been proven. Undoubtably so. The Genome Project, where they mapped out the human DNA, only provided more evidence.
Actually, you are incorrect. No matter how solid a believer any scientist is in evolution, not reputable scientist would say it is proven, because it is not provable (short of using a time machine), it is a theory.
One major argument against Darwin's THEORY, is the adamant refusal of some scientists to consider any other possible explanation. There is absolutely no other area of scientific discussion where discussion is closed. It reminds me of the stories we heard in school of scientists who were hanged, burned, stoned for the suggestion that the world is round.
Darwin proposed that, essentially, all of life has a common ancestor, and that gradual changes over large periods of time led to the variety of life as we know it. Ok, lets go with that. Then we find that the fossil record (primarily the Cambrian) shows that, rather than a long slow process of fossil change, species burst onto the scene fully formed. So, we need a new theory. Now we have "punctuated equilibrium", the theory that rather than Darwin's long slow process, we have a long process with quick bursts of change. And this is one of many revisions in the THEORY of evolution.
Note the necessary word theory. New evidence continually causes the need to revise what you and other evolutionists call an established fact. You can't have it both ways.
Sorry, it is not faith that disagrees with you. It is reason and science.
No matter how solid a believer any scientist is in evolution, not reputable scientist would say it is proven, because it is not provable (short of using a time machine), it is a theory.
You are sort of right, but for the completely wrong reason. While it is true that theories will not ever be considered to be proven, this is not the definition of a scientific theory. In science, the differentiation between fact/law and theory/hypothesis is that a fact is a description of a recorded event that always repeats itself in the same situations. A theory tells us WHY that happens. This does involve some degree of extrapolation, and theories are limited by known evidence. As a result, since we know we don't know everything, a theory must be considered unproven until such a time when we definitively know everything there is to know (which is not likely to ever happen). Further, in most cases (and evolution is one of these case) the theory is created to DESCRIBE A FACT. Gravity is a law, the theory of gravity is an attempt to figure out why gravity happens, how it works. The same goes with evolution. By modern understandings, evolution is the variation of allele frequencies within and between populations over time. This variation is fact, observed countless times. The theory of evolution (which is really the Theory of Natural Selection) is an attempt to explain WHY this happens. After over 150 years of intense, regular and heavily scrutinized research, natural selection has easily trumped all competing hypotheses by fitting nicely with all of the data we have discovered so far. Evolution/Natural Selection is one of strongest scientific theories ever conceived, stronger than atomic theory (the basis for most chemistry and nuclear physics. We actually realize that atomic theory is at least partially wrong, unlike evolution, but it still provides an adequate model for continuing our research and making products based around it. And Evolution is much more supported than Atomic Theory.)
One major argument against Darwin's THEORY....
Hold on a second. Its not just Darwin's theory anymore. Literally thousands of researches had added to the theory in the past 150 years. Our current understanding of evolution is exponentially greater than what Darwin discovered. His writings on the subject are now like a 3rd grade math class compared to a College Calculus Class. He wasn't even the first to propose the basic theory of natural selection, he was just the first to get famous doing it. Continuing on...
One major argument against Darwin's THEORY, is the adamant refusal of some scientists to consider any other possible explanation.
Even if this were true, which it isn't, this wouldn't be an argument against the theory itself but against the scientific community. The theory itself would be true or false regardless of the scientific community's reaction to it or competing theories. Basic logic.
And yes, the other possibilities have been entertained, but found lacking in the face of available data. Creationists aren't being blackballed because they believe in God. They are being ignored because that they propose that all current life was created simultaneously and in its current form. But this idea is not supported by any available evidence, in fact it is refuted by a nearly infinite stream of evidence from every major scientific field. If God does exist, then all of the evidence in the world around us shows that he used evolution/natural selection to sculpt the current variety of life found.
Darwin proposed that, essentially, all of life has a common ancestor
Actually, we are fairly sure that that was probably not the case anymore. Archea, Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes seem to have emerged from multiple cases of abiogenesis, and unraveling the exact lineage is quite difficult. We don't claim that Darwin was right about every little detail. But he does appear to be right about natural selection, which would happen regardless of how many ancestors current life had.
Then we find that the fossil record (primarily the Cambrian) shows that, rather than a long slow process of fossil change, species burst onto the scene fully formed.
Untrue. What we saw was a sudden increase in the diversification of life, and these things were not fully formed. Within the Cambrian itself, we have a period of over 250 million years to work with. That IS quicker than what we are used to seeing in evolution considering the extent of the diversity in question, but hardly sudden. Further, in the past few decades we have found fossils of closely related ancestors preceding the Cambrian by over 70 million years. Not exactly over night.
So, we need a new theory
Wrong. Punctuated evolution is not a competing theory, it is a part of the overall theory. It helps us better understand the "boundaries" of evolutionary timing. Punctuated evolution is no more mutually exclusive with Natural selection than walking is mutually exclusive with driving, or flying, as a viable means of traveling 20 miles. No matter what method you take, the distance traveled is the same, and so is the scenery when you get there. The only difference is how long it takes. We already know that environmental conditions were massively different during the CE than before or after it. Since Natural Selection is dependent on environmental factors, it makes perfect sense that the timing could be altered. The "slow, gradual" evolution is basically just an overall average that compares the amount of changes within the time involved. But in smaller increments, this timing can change substantially.
Note the necessary word theory.
Not until you learn what a "Scientific Theory" IS. Which is probably the first or second thing you should be knowledgeable about BEFORE discussing a scientific topic.
New evidence continually causes the need to revise what you and other evolutionists call an established fact. You can't have it both ways.
We aren't trying to have it both ways. When new evidence comes along, we alter our assertions. Its how a rational being would solve any problem, and it is the life blood of scientific inquiry.
It is reason and science (that disagrees with us).
Try again when you've learned a little something about reason and science :)
The statement i was addressing was, "Evolution has been proven to the extent anything can be proven." And as both Bohemian and Imrigone point out, there is no 'proof' for a theory. My point was not that theories can or can not be proven, I'm saying that evolution is taught as proven fact (as Topazxx and many others seem to believe) while it is not. To a scientist, the difference is obvious, while to the layman, when they find evolution in a science text it is written as fact, with no other explanations possible. This is either lazy, or propaganda. My desire is not to debate scientific theory or methodology; i'm not qualified. I wanted to point out that Evolutionists , as a whole, have closed the book on discussion regarding origin.
Evolution , as taught in primary and secondary schools, says that 80 million years is, as Bohemian said, "fast". And as soon as the fossils of the Canadian and Chinese digs revealed so much Cambrian material to study, what was "gradual change" became "punctuated equilibrium". And this is reasonable and good science. My point is that when new revelations occur, the only allowed revisions to Darwin's theory are those that fit the PC evolutionary plan. Any time design is suggested, even outside of a religious context, it is dismissed as scientific heresy and that previously esteemed scientist is dismissed as a religious nut.
Bohemian notes that every species is "fully formed". An obvious truth. Poor wording perhaps, but my thought was that, as opposed to the gradual development from primordial slime to a new species suggested by Darwin and expected to be found by Evolutionists, the Cambrian fossils show up with no evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor. This suggests the THEORY needs revision. Again my point that, contrary to much teaching, evolution is not a fact. You and I both know that, but many read the books, understand the 'fact' of evolution, and then argue on these sites that evolution is 'proven'. imrigone says that ancestors to the Cambrian fossils have been found. I'd like some references please, as i find none in my admittedly limited research.
My "major argument against Darwin's THEORY" should have read "...against the way Darwin's theory is taught", and the way Evolutionists react to theories that do not jive with their understanding of origin. I vehemently disagree that other theories are entertained. Behe proposed to meet Darwin's challenge regarding complex organisms and gradual change. His hypothesis was greeted with disdain, dismissal, and Behe was derided as a religious nut. Dembski denies that he is a creationist when he proposed to incorporate design theories with evolution, which he agrees with. Yet, again, a "religious nut".
Again you are correct that "Punctuated evolution is not a competing theory...". It is a revision of the evolutionary theory we all know. And i suggest that it is a revision that is only 'allowed' because it keeps Darwin alive. You say, "When new evidence comes along, we alter our assertions." But only with assertions that fit the Scientific PC.
"Try again when you've learned a little something..." Again, the smug, dismissive tone. Yes, I will keep trying. And some day we will all (or maybe our grand kids will) have proof that it was the Klingons who created us in an experiment gone wild. Or maybe that the Earth was 'seeded' by a godlet from another universe, and left to evolve from those seeds. Or maybe (gasp) there is a God of some sort. But the only way that will be allowed to happen, is if scientists allow open thought and consideration of ideas, and get past the 'stone anyone who does not accept the flat earth' mindset.
And, to answer the implied suggestions, i'm not a creationist. Just a guy who appreciates honesty.
The statement i was addressing was, "Evolution has been proven to the extent anything can be proven." And as both Bohemian and Imrigone point out, there is no 'proof' for a theory. My point was not that theories can or can not be proven, I'm saying that evolution is taught as proven fact (as Topazxx and many others seem to believe) while it is not. To a scientist, the difference is obvious, while to the layman, when they find evolution in a science text it is written as fact, with no other explanations possible.
You are right, evolution is not a fact. Evolutionary theory is an explanation that threads together various facts. When scientists talk about facts then do not mean "an explanation true beyond doubt", a fact in science is merely an observation which can be repeatably confirmed. Facts are a dime a dozen. You can find facts everywhere, and they don't mean a whole lot by themselves, it's not until facts are understood within the context of an overarching theory that they become significant.
Physical objects fall towards the earth. This is a fact and general relativity is the theory that explains this fact. That explanation of course being Gravity.
I wanted to point out that Evolutionists , as a whole, have closed the book on discussion regarding origin.
I beg to differ. No other explanation has been offered that can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Creationism simply isn't testable or falsifiable. This is not to say that the metaphysical couldn't be a possible cause, but it's not a cause that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
And this is reasonable and good science. My point is that when new revelations occur, the only allowed revisions to Darwin's theory are those that fit the PC evolutionary plan.
It's not that these are the only "allowed" discoveries, it just happens that every discovery happens to fit within the evolutionary framework. Speciation by change in allele frequency. If a discovery supported something else, certainly it would be allowed. Every great scientist in history has made his name by defying the status Quo and winning, so there is great incentive to Find better alternative explanations, it just hasn't happened yet. Which some find as further support of Evolutionary Theory, and why many scientists are so confident in the veracity of Evolution even if the details are contested.
Any time design is suggested, even outside of a religious context, it is dismissed
Because design is untestable and unfalsifiable, it is merely the presumption of a designer. When that designer is something metaphysical, something outside of the physical empirical universe we run into the same problem again. There is no way to subject it to any sort of scientific scrutiny. This isn't discrimination as you might think, it's simply a matter of these types of explanations being beyond the capabilities of scientific examination.
If God is responsible for biological diversification then he either did it through natural means or he did it in a way completely undetectable to science.
Again, you are correct on the definitions of these terms, but you still miss the crux of the issue and the point i am making. Evolution is taught as fact. And, contrary to your assertions, the pro-evolution community does dismiss, out of hand, any suggestions that design can be a part of the equation. For instance:
Richard Dawkins..."Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed." And Francis Crick takes it further..."Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather, evolved" Read that as 'don't even think of any alternative'. And the capper..."The theory of evolution is now so thoroughly understood, and so completely born out by the physical evidence, that anyone who questions evolution must be either ignorant, stupid wicked, or insane." Again, the eminent Richard Dawkins. I once sat in on a lecture and listened to Richard Leakey discuss the significance of his parents discovery of 'Lucy'. He prefaced his remarks with a thorough lashing of anyone foolish enough to question evolution (as taught at the time, i am sure). That version of evolution is now defunct too.
We will probably have to agree to disagree here. But i think that, as fast as science is moving these days, a major shift in our understanding is likely to happen in our lifetimes. May we both be wise enough to keep open minds; willing to accept surprising truths.
design is untestable and unfalsifiable, it is merely the presumption of a designer. When that designer is something metaphysical, something outside of the physical empirical universe we run into the same problem again. There is no way to subject it to any sort of scientific scrutiny. This isn't discrimination as you might think, it's simply a matter of these types of explanations being beyond the capabilities of scientific examination.
I agree with your point regarding the falsifiability of design. But there are elements of evolutionary theory that can be tested, and some scientists are doing so. But so long as men like Dawkins (who is not alone) hold and espouse such exclusionary opinions, and are held in such high esteem in the ranks of evolutionists, work in this area is all but forbidden. How many young scientists who are still trying to make a name for themselves simply avoid the probable contention, and seek another area of study? It is discrimination. When anyone who disagrees with the status quo is called "ignorant, stupid wicked, or insane.", how could it be called anything else?
Try something for me. Think of the name of a famous scientist.........okay, you ready?....... Chances are the scientist you just thought of made his name and became famous BECAUSE he defied the status quo and won. Scientists have a lot of incentive to challenge existing theories.
Granted. And how many were stoned, dismissed and ridiculed, or gave up trying to buck the system. I agree with you that the truth will win out in the end, regardless of the pressure to maintain the status quo. Dedicated scientists will continue to probe and test, particularly in the area of microbiology because that is where Darwin's test will be met (or so I believe). My frustration, and the reason for all of my side of this discussion, is that there is so much resistance to even thinking of design. And i understand that much of the resistance is caused the bible thumpers who declare with certainty that "GOD CREATED ALL IN SIX DAYS!!!", and will brook no debate on the subject. I just have a hard time accepting any declaration, from anyone, that 'we know [this truth], so don't even bother questioning it'. I dislike that from the pulpit, i dislike it from a teacher, and certainly from a scientist, whose job is to question.
Thanks for the feedback. Much food for thought here.
The statement i was addressing was, "Evolution has been proven to the extent anything can be proven."
I guess it depends how you look at it. When I read that statement originally, there seemed to be the implication that nothing can really be proven, but that evolution is about as close as we can come. And I'd agree with that. While a theory can never be proven, it only has to be disproved ONCE to be dismissed. Evolution is one of the oldest and most heavily studied theories out there, with many people looking into it critically. And out of all of the thousands and thousands of pieces of pertinent evidence revealed on the subject, not one has blown a hole in the theory, while the majority of them have supported it and been consistent with the predictions made by it. We have used the theory to predict certain types of species and where and when they should be found, and have found those species right where we expected them to be. We have used the principles to find the cause of many mysterious ailments. Guided by evolutionary principles we have created a variety of medications and procedures that we would not have been likely to stumble upon by accident, and they work. If both observation AND practical application give credence to a concept, it seems extremely likely that the concept is true. As close to proven as a good scientist will ever admit to.
As far as lay people calling it proven when it technically is not, the layman isn't a scientist. It isn't part of average person's job description to be really specific and technically correct on this subject. They don't need to know how it works in raw scientific detail any more than they have to know the intricacies of nuclear fusion and fission to get the idea that atom bombs are extremely destructive. What they have to know is that as far as diversification of species goes, evolution has always shown itself to be consistent with the evidence that has been revealed so far.
imrigone says that ancestors to the Cambrian fossils have been found. I'd like some references please
I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but here's a few quick links to give you a cursory overview of some of the evidence.
My point is that when new revelations occur, the only allowed revisions to Darwin's theory are those that fit the PC evolutionary plan. Any time design is suggested, even outside of a religious context, it is dismissed as scientific heresy and that previously esteemed scientist is dismissed as a religious nut.
You seem to be under the impression that there is some conspiracy among almost the entire scientific community, some old guard that only entertains previously established notions. But science is constantly changing, that's what keeps scientists working. And they are barely united, except by the necessary communication required to make sure that any proposals are accurate. As Bohemian has pointed out, pretty much every major scientific discovery was a challenge to previously accepted notions. Darwin himself went against the grain, as did Einstein. One of the reasons scientist celebrate these people is that they were able to demonstrate the validity of their claims through keen observation and using the scientific method.
The scientists proposing creationism have yet to do this. Their claims aren't dismissed because they aren't "PC", they are dismissed either because they are demonstrably wrong or because they don't fit the requirements of the scientific method. Both Dembski and Behe have undergone intense peer review, and due to their fame they have earned considerable informal academic discussion as well. The thoughts have been entertained, but they have been found lacking by the standards of legitimate investigative inquiry and logic.
Ken Miller and Robert T. Bakker are both deeply religious, yet they aren't dismissed at all, because they have consistently proven to be good scientists, that is: they have altered their beliefs to fit the evidence, not the other way around.
"Try again when you've learned a little something..." Again, the smug, dismissive tone.
It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if I came off as insulting. That being said, you have repeatedly shown to be rather unfamiliar with science, and your reasoning is not always logical. So I think you should be careful when asserting that science and reason fail to support evolution.
Actually, you are incorrect. No matter how solid a believer any scientist is in evolution, not reputable scientist would say it is proven.
Yes, but this has more to do with the nature of science than it does with the certainty of Evolutionary theory. Theories are not proven. Proof is not a scientific concept. Proof applies only to math, logic, and Jurisprudence. No credible scientist would say that any explanation has been proven, including those which we can demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.
Most nearly what you mean to say is that Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable, but it has been subject to various tests which given a certain outcome would undermine the credibility of the Theory. So it is quite falsifiable. Many fossils have been discovered because scientists knew where to look based on predictions from the Theory of Evolution. The Titaalik for example. On the other hand if one were to find a giraffe or squirrel fossil in pre-cambrian rock this would undermine the Theory of Evolution, as it so happens no one has found this. There is a distinct order in which extinct fauna appear in the fossil record.
Ok, lets go with that. Then we find that the fossil record (primarily the Cambrian) shows that, rather than a long slow process of fossil change, species burst onto the scene fully formed.
Well, I really wouldn't call 80 million years "bursting" onto the scene. 80 million years is fast by evolutionary terms but it is still a very long time. The Cambrian explosion is nothing more than a period of rapid diversification, and while scientists have struggled to explain the cause of this rapid diversification, it doesn't exactly fit within the creationist framework either and perhaps even less so. The creationist might have difficulty explaining how over a period of 80 million years species are diversifying at all without appealing to evolutionary mechanisms. Furthermore the creatures that came about as a result of the Cambrian Explosion were nearly all sea creatures unlike anything alive today and most of which are now extinct. (see link below)
To say they came about "fully-formed" is is somewhat deceptive. It assumes that there are partially formed species, which of course there aren't, and this is not the way that evolution works anyway. There is no goal, no intent, and no ending point to evolutionary forms. Every species is independently capable of surviving in it's particular niche, and if it's not then it goes extinct.
And this is one of many revisions in the THEORY of evolution.
It's more of a refinement than a revision, the same mechanisms still apply but the overall picture is a little different. Science is a self-correcting process which serves only to become more accurate over time.
The fact is that evolution is a complex subject that with as many back ups will still need a support. Besides, every non believer disputes over the minutest flaws.
Evolution is in a lot of bits. It has believers that accept these evidences quite well. And others who just don't!
because evolution is slow historical process. It takes scale number of ages and we can't notice it. Be honest, I think that no one knows answer, it is not a fact that evolution has been. But they say that it was, by historical antropolgy sighns. For example, we all know that in south Africa, there were found a skeleton of one monkey type which was close to humans, the skeleton which found was named as "Lucy". After some scientistic tests, they found an answer that it was the very first type of people look a like as monkey. They prove that, from this type of monkey nowadays human was developed. But there is no fact that evolution was at all! We will never get the answer. But from Darwin theory I knew that before death, he said that there is no evolution, everything was created by God!
But from Darwin theory I knew that before death, he said that there is no evolution, everything was created by God!
Psst...
With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston _Watchman Examiner_. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the _Reformation Review_ and in the _Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland_ in February 1957. These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the _Christian_ for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."' (Ellipsis is in the book)
we don't actually see it before us. We can't show hardcore, in your face evidence that Gravity is happening, but we figure "i'm still on the ground, so gravity must be happening".
Evolution, also, still has plenty of holes and many unanswered questions, but the basis of it can be agreed upon everyone that it is true.
"Evolution, also, still has plenty of holes and many unanswered questions..."
None that I know of. I think these unanswered questions came from a lack of specific knowledge. I'd be happy to fill you in on your knowledge gaps if you wish. Where are the holes you speak of?
There aren't any missing links; certainly none that can't be explained. Claims of missing links are mainly exploitations by the religious of purely human definitions of what constitutes a species. As soon as you present a new species to fill in a gap, more species are then required to fill in the gaps either side of the newly discovered species.
And evolution isn't concerned with how life started in any way. How life started is the concern of other theories (such as abiogenesis).
Here's a really cool video about the evolution of man, anyone interested should check it out.
It covers evolution from around 4 billion years ago to present.
The problem with the idea of missing links is that it encourages people to think of evolution in steps, which is not the case at all. Change is very slow, over incredible periods of time. Essentially, every single generation is a sort of link to the next one and the one before. And in that sense you would literally have to dig up every single human and pre-human fossil ever to really fill all the gaps, which is ridiculous as I think almost anyone would agree.
I think you're talking specifically about the missing link, as in the dude who starred in 80's movies, where he was frozen, then thawed out somewhere in CA and learned to skateboard or whatever.
Most people believe that this filled the last real gap link
But it's not essential to fill every single gap, in fact stricltly speaking, it's impossible. As every single human ever is a link. But there is more than enough evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we evolved.
What is to be understood as being evidence of the theory of evolution. And please do not assume the conclusion of the argument in the premise for that is the fallacy of petitio principii.
The existence of Vestigial structures, the pattern of ERVs, Homology, ontogeny, Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, and Chromosomal fusion are all understood as being evidence of evolutionary theory.
You are assuming the truth of your conclusion without proving the conclusion. Hence you are “begging the question”.
You must prove that the evidence is proof of something that is not proof of anything else.
Claiming that something is evidence of a claim is not the proof of a claim. If you claimed: “Semi-trucks create craters and therefore some of the craters on the moon were created by semi-trucks”, I would regard that claim with equal contempt on the grounds of logic alone as well.
Here is the inescapable fact: Your camp does not have enough evidence to prove the claim of evidence. Claiming otherwise is again begging the question.
Answer this one question, true or false:
You were taught what to think long before you were taught how to think. ]
I ask that question because I am aware that most proponents of evolutionary biology accepted the premises thereof long before, if ever, they were taught how to logically infer.
Sorry your post is entirely nonsensical. Prove the claim of evidence??? What are you even talking about? You don't prove evidence, that doesn't make any sense. Something either is evidence or it isn't. If a piece of information supports a conclusion without supporting contrary conclusions, then it's considered evidence. Unless you can show me that the existence of vestigial structures (or any of the other evidences I provided) supports anything except the occurrence of evolution, then your complaint is trivial.
Assuming the truth of a statement without proof, is not "begging the question", this is called a Bald Assertion. Please don't use terms that you don't understand, you're only making yourself look foolish. Begging the question (ie circular logic) only occurs when the conclusion is used in the premise.
EX: "I never lie, and you know I'm telling the truth because I don't lie"
That is an example of begging the question...
I have been in many real debates in academia, never has anyone been required to "prove evidence". Proof and evidence are nearly the same thing, proof is slightly stronger than evidence but otherwise they are the same thing. You might as well ask somebody to prove that something is proof. Which is quite silly. Then you must prove, that your proof proves your claim....hahaha! Anybody can see the absurdity of asking such a thing.
You asked for evidence, and I gave it to you, you can either accept it, or refute the evidence but inventing silly excuses won't get you anywhere.
The evidence is the validation. I gave you a list, remember?
The existence of Vestigial structures, the pattern of ERVs, Homology, ontogeny, Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, and Chromosomal fusion are all understood as being evidence of evolutionary theory.
All of these things support evolutionary theory. If any of them does not then I shall like to hear your refutations.
Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?
If so, then there is no point in wasting my time attempting to overcome your belief of the irrefutability of evolutionary theory.
You have assumed an absolute and therefore are not subject to considering contradictory propositions.
Essentially, you believe the debate is over. I on the other hand assert that the debate is now rationally impossible because of the absolute nature of your camp’s opinion.
Furthermore, what you are asking me to refute is thus:
The proponents of evolutionary theory believe the theory is irrefutable.
Ergo, that is why you continue to claim that such and such is evidence of evolution without arguing why such and such is evidence of evolution.
Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?
It is an invitation to refute the inferences you think are refutable. If you don't think those things are supporting evidence for evolution, the onus is on you to say why.
Essentially, you believe the debate is over.
He believes his position (a tautology) and gave supporting evidence - if you disagree, please explain. You seem to be trying to win the argument by playing word games rather than through substantiation of your position.
Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?
This is an invitation for you to make a sensible argument which supports your position. So far you are either unwilling or unable to do so.
You've asked for evidence, I provided it and then you essentially stated "You're wrong" without explaining why. In my book, that means you lost the debate.
You have assumed an absolute and therefore are not subject to considering contradictory propositions.
Never have I stated or even implied such.
Ergo, that is why you continue to claim that such and such is evidence of evolution without arguing why such and such is evidence of evolution.
If you're not aware of what a vestigial structure is or how is supports evolution, then you are not informed enough to have such a debate.
Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?
If so, then there is no point in wasting my time attempting to overcome your belief of the irrefutability of evolutionary theory.
It doesn't matter how you want to frame what he asked you, trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth. You can't "win" at it because you've chosen the wrong position.
The proponents of evolutionary theory believe the theory is irrefutable.
Ergo, that is why you continue to claim that such and such is evidence of evolution without arguing why such and such is evidence of evolution.
Getting back to our Earth example, we've been in space, seen the Earth from afar, sent probes to other worlds, the issue is settled and it is assumed that the evidence speaks well enough for itself that we don't need to explain how seeing Earth from afar validates its spherical nature.
By disputing evolution you're in the same position but simply aren't aware of it yet.
It doesn't matter how you want to frame what he asked you, trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth. You can't "win" at it because you've chosen the wrong position.
It is purely your opinion that that analogy is valid. None of which is an argument that validates your position or invalidates my position.
Getting back to our Earth example, we've been in space, seen the Earth from afar, sent probes to other worlds, the issue is settled and it is assumed that the evidence speaks well enough for itself that we don't need to explain how seeing Earth from afar validates its spherical nature.
By disputing evolution you're in the same position but simply aren't aware of it yet.
My previous statement still stands.
Are you thinking that evolution is a subject of observation? If so, what are its attributes outside its written definition?
Again, it doesn't matter whether my statement comes off as opinion it is still a fact.
I'm not disputing evolution, like a spherical earth I am saying that it is beyond doubt because so much supports it. Try going to the produce section of a grocery store. That is evolution, with all the cultivars made from totally different native species.
Again, it doesn't matter whether my statement comes off as opinion it is still a fact.
Yes, your statement is a fact. But it just doesn’t have any logical connection with reasonable discourse. Specifically:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth.”
The Earth is a tangible object. The theory of evolution is an assertion. One does not analyze the theory of evolution like the Earth is analyzed. Blah, blah blah!
Your analogy would be less illogical if you were to assert:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute a spherical Earth.”
Yet it too is an illogical comparison, despite the modification.
Now for a logical comparison the following suffices:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute the Big Bang.”
I know you believe that the theory of evolution is irrefutable.Therefore why do you waste our time with futility? It is not as though you question your belief. And nor is it as though my belief is known. However you can know this of me: Most Evolutionists and Creationists are prejudicially faithful to their ignorance.
I'm not disputing evolution, like a spherical earth I am saying that it is beyond doubt because so much supports it. Try going to the produce section of a grocery store. That is evolution, with all the cultivars made from totally different native species.
Evolution is not an empirical observation. Furthermore, cultivars denote artificial and not natural selection; unless of course you subscribe to the theory that all species originate from artificial selection.
Yes, your statement is a fact. But it just doesn’t have any logical connection with reasonable discourse. Specifically:
I'm basically telling you that it's impossible to convince a person who is in denial.
The Earth is a tangible object. The theory of evolution is an assertion. One does not analyze the theory of evolution like the Earth is analyzed. Blah, blah blah!
You missed the point. Evolution is a fact that is so well observed and supported that arguing against it is like saying the Earth is flat.
I know you believe that the theory of evolution is irrefutable.Therefore why do you waste our time with futility? It is not as though you question your belief. And nor is it as though my belief is known. However you can know this of me: Most Evolutionists and Creationists are prejudicially faithful to their ignorance.
See what I said about a flat earth. It isn't an issue of prejudice or faith, it's an issue of being able to know something with great certainty but someone in denial just cannot accept it. How do you argue with someone who must disbelieve your claim because they will be rewarded with heaven if they do so? How do you convince someone who will deny any and every piece of evidence you provide?
Evolution is not an empirical observation.
What you mean to say is that you know of no empirical evidence for evolution. Of course, if you research it, you'd find that over the last ten thousand years humanity has evolved wolves into dogs, feral cats into kittens, chickens from wild fowl, pigeons, cattle, all manner of animals, and we've taken simple grasses and turned them into corn, rye, wheat, and so on. What haven't we modified to suit our needs? You'd have read about how as far back as 100 or so years ago bacteria were evolved in a lab to have high heat tolerance, that recently bacteria were evolved so they can metabolise citrate. We have recorded recent experiments in domesticating foxes.
Furthermore, cultivars denote artificial and not natural selection; unless of course you subscribe to the theory that all species originate from artificial selection.
There really isn't a difference between artificial and natural selection. The mechanism is the same, natural selection just changes the environmental pressures away from something we would choose according to our whims.
What you mean to say is that you know of no empirical evidence for evolution.
No! Evolution is not a sensory experience. It is, however, a theory that is derived from an application of reason.
Of course, if you research it, you'd find that over the last ten thousand years humanity has evolved wolves into dogs, feral cats into kittens, chickens from wild fowl, pigeons, cattle, all manner of animals, and we've taken simple grasses and turned them into corn, rye, wheat, and so on.
Unfortunately, I wasted my time examining a large body of supposed evidence for evolution. Consequently I am aware of the root problem with the theory as well as the fallacious abstractions of the proponents of the theory.
Let’s tackle your examples of the evidence for evolution beginning with wolves and dogs.
Dogs are a variety of wolves; as such, they can interbreed.
Where is the evidence that they, wolves, have slowly and incrementally evolved from some other species which is not genetically compatible for interbreeding?
Should we therefore imagine that the evidence has not been discovered though it must exist?
Btw, the theory of evolution was formulated to explain the origin of species and not the variants of a biological family.
(Consider this a precursor of the logical hurdles you must overcome in order to logically persuade me that the theory of evolution explains, with evidence, the origin of species.)
Reminder: I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I am however one who is convinced that both camps rely solely upon fallacious arguments to advance their views. None of which means you do as well. It merely means that you must appeal to sound reason in order to validate a conclusion I can accept on the grounds of truth and reason.
Think of it this way, I think that all life originates from one life source. But nobody has yet to explain, with empirical evidence, the how and why of all other forms of life which are not genetically capable of interbreeding with the original source.
No! Evolution is not a sensory experience. It is, however, a theory that is derived from an application of reason.
It is an empirical theory, meaning it is based on experimentation.
Unfortunately, I wasted my time examining a large body of supposed evidence for evolution. Consequently I am aware of the root problem with the theory as well as the fallacious abstractions of the proponents of the theory.
You deluded yourself because of preference for a different explanation, is what I'm reading.
Let’s tackle your examples of the evidence for evolution beginning with wolves and dogs.
Dogs are a variety of wolves; as such, they can interbreed.
Where is the evidence that they, wolves, have slowly and incrementally evolved from some other species which is not genetically compatible for interbreeding?
You missed the point. Evolution causes divergence in populations. Dogs are diverged from wolves, and specifically certain breeds of dogs cannot naturally interbreed with wolves, or other types of dogs due to physical barriers (size difference). Evolution works because a mutation is selected for, or a specific allele, and this shapes the population. In the case of dogs and wolves, dogs have totally different fur, skeletal proportions, breeding cycles, and behaviour. If we had no idea where dogs came from we'd assume that each breed was a different species and apart from wolves, due to morphology.
Try researching canid evolution for wolf evolution.
Btw, the theory of evolution was formulated to explain the origin of species and not the variants of a biological family.
Evolution accounts for diversification, changes in allele frequencies in a population, and speciation. You are mistaken.
Reminder: I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I am however one who is convinced that both camps rely solely upon fallacious arguments to advance their views. None of which means you do as well. It merely means that you must appeal to sound reason in order to validate a conclusion I can accept on the grounds of truth and reason.
Whatever you call yourself, you are incorrect on many fronts.
As I said before, denying evolution is like defending a flat Earth. There's just no way that the genetic, molecular, fossil, anatomical, and experimental evidence is all a coincidence supporting the same thing.
Think of it this way, I think that all life originates from one life source. But nobody has yet to explain, with empirical evidence, the how and why of all other forms of life which are not genetically capable of interbreeding with the original source.
That's because you don't know much about the subject. The very beginning of life dealt with primitive protocells and horizontal gene transfer. There was no breeding to speak of and you could say that we had a soup of mutts. Everything descending from that transitioned to a less hard-to-trace inheritance, and we got to your basic eukaryotic life which at this point had more emphasis on diversification in the way we know now. In other words, live diversifies like branches on a tree, and eventually the branches cannot interbreed due to more and more accumulated genetic differences producing sterile offspring. That's how it works.
It is an empirical theory, meaning it is based on experimentation.
Thought experiments and hence not empirical!
You deluded yourself because of preference for a different explanation, is what I'm reading.
Your inference is derived from the imagination of your mind, is what I infer.
Again, why do you waste our time with futility?
If you disagree with my conclusions it is because you believe I am ignorant of the subject. If I examine the evidence you submit, written evidence that is, you assert that I am deluded if I submit a conclusion which contradicts yours. Either way, you are failing to debate the subject and are shifting your argument back and forth betwixt what you call ignorance and/or delusion on my part. This is not how a rational adult conducts logical debate. It is how a religious zealot protects his faith from scrutiny.
(I too can argue ad hominem.)
You missed the point. Evolution causes divergence in populations.
You don’t understand the subject term of your assertion.
Evolution is an abstract term. It is not the cause or effect of that which it describes.
Asserting that evolution causes divergence in populations is analogous to asserting that democracy causes the divergence of government.
Dogs are diverged from wolves, and specifically certain breeds of dogs cannot naturally interbreed with wolves, or other types of dogs due to physical barriers (size difference).
This is not a contradiction of my assertions.
Evolution works because a mutation is selected for, or a specific allele, and this shapes the population.
Mutation shapes the population of what species? You are not providing any evidence that mutations cause genetic incompatibility within a species.
In the case of dogs and wolves, dogs have totally different fur, skeletal proportions, breeding cycles, and behaviour.
So, are you asserting that dogs and wolves can’t interbreed either naturally or artificially because they are not genetically compatible?
If we had no idea where dogs came from we'd assume that each breed was a different species and apart from wolves, due to morphology.
Agreed! Your camp would assume morphology as an alternative theory to protect the theory of Evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is absolutely irrefutable.
Try researching canid evolution for wolf evolution.
Funny!
In a vain effort to direct me to accept, as truth, your evolutionary claims, you are directing me to research evolution for wolf evolution, all of which evidenced by a timeline chart which is nothing more than another theory formulated to conform to the theory of evolution.
Perhaps I should direct you to research the bible of god for the existence of god.
Evolution accounts for diversification, changes in allele frequencies in a population, and speciation. You are mistaken.
Okay, then I suppose that you also think that the theory of evolution does not account for the origin of species; if I am mistaken as you claim.
Whatever you call yourself, you are incorrect on many fronts.
Don’t feel too lowly of yourself because I understand your opinions are rarely correct on any front. Otherwise you would not continue to demonstrate sophomoric inferential skills of deductive and inductive reasoning.
As I said before, denying evolution is like defending a flat Earth. There's just no way that the genetic, molecular, fossil, anatomical, and experimental evidence is all a coincidence supporting the same thing.
Agreed, the absence of evidence for the origin of species!
That's because you don't know much about the subject.
The very beginning of life dealt with primitive protocells and horizontal gene transfer.
Great, an un-testable hypothesis in support of a theory!
There was no breeding to speak of and you could say that we had a soup of mutts. Everything descending from that transitioned to a less hard-to-trace inheritance, and we got to your basic eukaryotic life which at this point had more emphasis on diversification in the way we know now. In other words, live diversifies like branches on a tree, and eventually the branches cannot interbreed due to more and more accumulated genetic differences producing sterile offspring. That's how it works.
While I am chuckling, I must ask the question:
How many theories or hypotheses are necessary to validate a theory of religious proportions such as Evolutionary theory?
Go ahead and include geological, cosmological, and metaphysical theories in your final answer.
If you disagree with my conclusions it is because you believe I am ignorant of the subject. If I examine the evidence you submit, written evidence that is, you assert that I am deluded if I submit a conclusion which contradicts yours. Either way, you are failing to debate the subject and are shifting your argument back and forth betwixt what you call ignorance and/or delusion on my part. This is not how a rational adult conducts logical debate. It is how a religious zealot protects his faith from scrutiny.
The topic is one in which there is a right and wrong answer. Evolution is the demonstrably true right answer. You are considered deluded because of your insistence on semantics, amongst other things, to avoid reading and understanding the evidence which contradicts you.
You don’t understand the subject term of your assertion.
Evolution is an abstract term. It is not the cause or effect of that which it describes.
Asserting that evolution causes divergence in populations is analogous to asserting that democracy causes the divergence of government.
An example of semantics wordplay to evade the issue.
This is not a contradiction of my assertions.
Of course it is. Dogs evolved from wolves, that is what their divergence means.
Mutation shapes the population of what species? You are not providing any evidence that mutations cause genetic incompatibility within a species.
Every species. Corn is a mutated grain. Chickens are mutated wild gallus. Because of the way reproduction works, with sorting of sections of chromosomes of gametes, mutations in diverging populations lose the ability to accomplish this successfully. For example by merging chromosomes or duplicating them, which prevents the paternal karyotypes from complementing each other.
So, are you asserting that dogs and wolves can’t interbreed either naturally or artificially because they are not genetically compatible?
No, I have specified how they diverged.
Agreed! Your camp would assume morphology as an alternative theory to protect the theory of Evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is absolutely irrefutable.
Try researching what morphology is. You used the term incorrectly.
Funny!
In a vain effort to direct me to accept, as truth, your evolutionary claims, you are directing me to research evolution for wolf evolution, all of which evidenced by a timeline chart which is nothing more than another theory formulated to conform to the theory of evolution.
Perhaps I should direct you to research the bible of god for the existence of god.
You asked where wolves came from. Canid evolution explains this. Your ability to play word games doesn't change this fact.
Okay, then I suppose that you also think that the theory of evolution does not account for the origin of species; if I am mistaken as you claim.
It does not explain the origins of life. It explains how organisms diversify and adapt to their surroundings.
Don’t feel too lowly of yourself because I understand your opinions are rarely correct on any front. Otherwise you would not continue to demonstrate sophomoric inferential skills of deductive and inductive reasoning.
Resorting to word games, insults, distractions and so on will not make your position right. It is already and forever wrong.
Agreed, the absence of evidence for the origin of species!
Word games again and more delusion on your part.
Great, an un-testable hypothesis in support of a theory!
You not understanding the topic has no basis on its testability.
While I am chuckling, I must ask the question:
How many theories or hypotheses are necessary to validate a theory of religious proportions such as Evolutionary theory?
Go ahead and include geological, cosmological, and metaphysical theories in your final answer.
More attempts to change the topic. Be advised that sophistry will not make your position hold ground.
This is an excellent example of a hyphenated perversion of both logic and the English language.
It is nearly identical to pre-knowledge. And it is identical with pre-belief.
How can one know today what it is he/she shall believe tomorrow? If this is possible we could use another hyphenated perversion and couple the terms post-belief or post-conviction.
pre- means "before". Pre-convictions most nearly means "beliefs held before an event or time". In this case I'm talking about beliefs that are held before one hears about evolution, specifically which can affect how a person responds to it.
Beliefs held tomorrow would be post-convictions, not pre-convictions... assuming the time in question is today. Now if I were talking about some event in the past, post-convictions would be beliefs directly after that event and pre-convictions would be beliefs directly prior to that event. It's really not that complicated.
In this case I'm talking about beliefs that are held before one hears about evolution, specifically which can affect how a person responds to it.
Then they are, simply, convictions. There is no need to modify the term ‘conviction’ to express your thought.
‘Conviction with prejudice’ is a better term.
It's really not that complicated.
No kidding! But it is a fine piece of sophistry.
Let me now apply your description according to its logical contrary, post-conviction: beliefs that are held after one hears about evolution, specifically which affect how a person responds to it.
For humans especially, the "missing link" has been found... in fact many were found, more than scientists ever expected.
As far as other species, the discovery process is paradoxical. Let's say you have species A which is the ancestor of species B. You are looking for the "missing link" in between the two (species C). One day species C is discovered. Now, where you only had one hole (between A and B), you have two (between A and C, and between C and B). Creationists often take advantage of this fact by claim there are tons of holes in the fossil record, when in fact scientists have made lots of discoveries.
If you have some specific you're referring to, I'd love to hear them.
no, like i said, it's a pretty accepted and easily provable (somewhat) theory.
holes only means we don't know everything just yet. but yeah, it's unreasonable to say the bible is right just cause evolution has some holes. swiss cheese has holes, still makes it cheese.
To answer your question I would need to know between humans and what other species you are asking about. Homo habilis is a human ancestor, that lived about 1.6 million years ago. About 3 million years ago was Australopithecus. There are obviously ancestors that came before, after and in between, however, these are two of the more famous.
I think that it is very sad that people believe evolution. all it is saying is that there is no God and I don't have to follow any rules. What if you are taking a chance at not going to heaven? It really is sad.
Evolution makes no such statements. God and evolution do not preclude each other, nor does evolution tell anyone how they should or should not behave.
'All evolution is saying' is that traits that are beneficial to survival and/or reproduction are, naturally, more likely to be carried onto the next generation than other traits, and may eventually supersede them. Given time, these changes accumulate into speciation.
And what this guy thinks Is THAT two horses will make NOTHING more than horses. as opposed to evolution which believes In mankind to have ape ancestry etc "Evolution makes no such statements"
Stop trying to be politically correct.If what you do has no consequence in the after life, and it is possible to get away with it while you're alive, that creates a sense of anarchy in the individual.Im SURE it happened to ALL you evolutionists LOL
And what this guy thinks Is THAT two horses will make NOTHING more than horses. as opposed to evolution which believes In mankind to have ape ancestry etc "Evolution makes no such statements"
You might have to rephrase this because I'm not sure I understand you. I was referring to the fact that evolution makes no statements about the existence of God or the origin of life. I didn't say it makes no statement about mankind's primate ancestry.
Stop trying to be politically correct.
I'm not.
If what you do has no consequence in the after life, and it is possible to get away with it while you're alive, that creates a sense of anarchy in the individual.Im SURE it happened to ALL you evolutionists LOL
If this is true, I'm sure you can dig up some data about how most atheists and supporters of evolution are sociopaths and criminals.
A person's actions have consequences in their current life. Also, barring extenuating circumstances, people generally aren't that bad and most of us don't enjoy hurting others, not for fear of divine retribution, but just because it's the wrong thing to do. These factors are pretty effective for keeping nonbelievers in line.
Perhaps that's what you're getting out of it, and part of the reason you deny it, but that isn't at all what evolution is saying. In fact most evolutionists believe in god, including the expert witness for evolution at the Dover trial. Evolution does not question whether god exists, however what it does question is the literal interpretation people hold toward their revered sacred texts. Denial of evolution nearly always come from religious fundamentalists, because science contradicts some of their beliefs so they must then deny the science.
I think that it is very sad that people believe evolution. all it is saying is that there is no God and I don't have to follow any rules. What if you are taking a chance at not going to heaven? It really is sad.
I think it's very sad that people believe in god. All they're saying is that the need to believe we cannot die is more important than accepting reality as it is. It's really sad.
Evolution has been proven, scientists are just wishy-washy and don't like calling all theories 'laws' until hundreds of years after they are proven for a fact. They're assholes that way. That's why they didn't let Sir Issac Newton's Laws become laws until a really long time after he died.
Isn't it proven yet? Maybe some aspect of evolution is already resolved. But I do agree that it is not yet proven 100% because evolution is a very complex topic. I enjoyed this discussion. Thanks!
Evolution is not fact but rather fiction. It is based on the principle of drawing a straight line through random dots. If A exist and G exist then the conclusion must be Z. The rest of the letters aren't important and so they are discarded. Critical thinking at its best.
If apes exist, why not cavemen? Dinosaurs died off and apes live on. Atheist claim miracles don't happen but wish for one (evolution).
It has not been proven. When people dig up bones and skeletons, they don't have a label on them saying where they came from, who's they were, or how old they are.
Quite frankly it has been. Whether it is the true and only way that humans have evolved I am not completely sure. In fact I am a tad skeptical though that is a subject for another day should it arise.
Regardless of my or others opinions evolution has not been proven. It is merely a theory for a reason. "The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence." However much some do not want to believe science does not in fact deal with absolute proof, a theory could be proven wrong or right by new discoveries therefore no theory can be irrefutable.
Please tell me that your'e heading to keep this up! Its so great and so important. I cant wait to read more from you. I just really feel like you know so considerably and know how to make people listen to what you've to say. This weblog is just also cool to become missed. Terrific !
I say evolution makes more sense then adam and eve. I beleive in science. facts are facts. and science is is trying to tell us the truth. We should listen. the bible is just an idea. i'm not saying its right or wrong.But I will say (anything is possible) all you closed minded people seem to forget that
If evolution is proved should we have run out of monkeys by now ? Some of you think we evolved from monkeys when we really didnt
Question: "What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?"
Answer: It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution better fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.
For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.
However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”
If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.
If evolution is proved should we have run out of monkeys by now ?
Dogs came from domesticated wolves, so why have we not run out of wolves by now?
Obviously because this is not how evolution works. First and foremost humans did not come from monkeys but rather we share a common ancestor with them, an ancestor that is now extinct. Secondly, even if humans did come from monkeys, this does not require that all monkeys become human. Often times one group will split off from a parent group and both will live simultaneously. This is called speciation. The notion that monkeys should be extinct if humans came from monkeys is based on the assumption that evolution is a linear progression, which it is not.
I think that there are many hints saying that we evolved. But if we actually had evolved why haven't we evolved into something after humans. Things that evolve continue evolving. It is just a theory not a law
At this point, you don't even need the fossil record to show how evolution is far more plausible and has far more supporting evidence than any other theory in its field. As far as I'm concerned there's thermodynamics, then evolution.
There isn't anything more delightful in this existence than my sample. That's why I consistently search for more info on the internet. Being a researcher, I frequently have to research a variety of issues. At the moment, I'm reviewing web marketing agency.
I’m so glad to have found your web page. My pal mentioned it to me before, yet never got around to checking it out until now. I must express, I’m floored. I really enjoyed reading through your posts and will absolutely be back to get more. xylophone lessons
What creationists do is they fight logic with faith. Basically, they cover their ears with their hands and shouted "la, la, la, not listening. The Bible is right". They either ignore evidence, and say there is no real proof, or they say that they should just trust in God and stop questioning him.
In science, a theory is much like a recipe to make a meal. The recipe tells you which ingredients and tools you need to reproduce the meal and it explains in which order these ingredients are mixed together and manipulated with which tool at what time and for how long to get the final result that the recipe theorizes.
The theory of evolution describes why there is so much diversity between life forms on earth. Darwin didn't dare to state we humans are just a different species of apes at the time, because of the religion's grip on the "civilized" world. However, when DNA was discovered, much of Darwin's theory was proven to be correct, because after comparing DNA of different species of animals it revealed an ancestry.
For instance our DNA is much more like a chimpanzee then a rabbit, however rabbits and humans do share an ancestry as well, meaning all animals having 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils and 1 mouth and has 4 limbs and a tail, share an ancestor in the tree of life. If you go back in time you'll see that dinosaurs had the same configuration as today's mammals, so this ancestor lived on earth even before them, meaning we need to look for this "missing link" maybe a half a billion years back, or even further. Finding such a creature is near impossible, however we know it had to exist since equally configured creatures are still here today.
Take a good look into the mirror and realize you are just like any other living creature, the next step in evolution created by a mix your parents DNA. You're not a exact copy of one or the other, but a mutated copy that started it's own branch of mutations. If you reproduce, your children will be a mix of your DNA and of your partner e.g. yet another mutation. If you give it enough time, say 100 million years, that branch may have been evolved into... who knows what, whoever we know thanks to Darwin, we also know that environment and habitat plays a mayor role in which state a species will evolve.
If you try to find a other explanation for this all, the scientific community welcomes you... unless you start with supernatural beings, e.g. God, Allah, Vishnu, Wodan, Zeus, because the "super" natural belongs into the realm of fantasy where you have unicorns, Pegasus, cyclops and the like.
1. Why haven't we found any fossils of transitional life forms; if Darwin was correct we should be able to find many examples of this?
2. Why have we not been able to observe one species becoming another?
3. If we all came from a common ancestor, most likely from a single cell organism (I don't see the claim of abiogenesis producing a mammal or anything that complex); at what point did life forms change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Additionally what selective pressures would cause such a thing?
3. If we all came from a common ancestor, most likely from a single cell organism (I don't see the claim of abiogenesis producing a mammal or anything that complex); at what point did life forms change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Additionally what selective pressures would cause such a thing?
We cannot say with certainty exactly at what point this happened, but we do know that certain species are both asexual and sexual and each confers certain advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages of asexual reproduction is that it doesn't require mobility. Asexual organisms can reproduce in great numbers without expending very much energy. Asexual organisms need not wait for a suitable mate. The advantage of sexual reproduction is that it creates greater genetic diversity and thus greater adaptability. Sexually reproduced organisms are not clones and thus detrimental mutations do not pose much danger to the whole population. Most sexual organisms are mobile and do not need to compete with each other for food and space. The selective pressure would most likely be the habitability and stability of the environment, asexual organisms seem to live in places that sexual organisms can't but still require a stable environment as they are slower to adapt, but where the two co-exist sexual organisms tend to sit higher on the food chain.
We cannot say with certainty exactly at what point this happened, but we do know that certain species are both asexual and sexual and each confers certain advantages and disadvantages.
I always though of Mitosis/Meiosis to be a very plausible divergence.
I know what they are. I am simply saying that is how it may have arisen. First at the cellular level exclusively, then developing appendages to aid the process.
First of all I would suggest not using Wikipedia as a reference...anyone can post anything on there and it is not peer reviewed.
Secondly we are still seeing species reproducing after their kind...you see variations of species; big dogs, small dogs, furry dogs, furless dogs...but they are still dogs. Mosquitoes are still producing mosquitoes,fish are still producing fish, and flies are still producing flies.
Lastly I don't believe my last question was answered regarding a selective pressure that would cause an asexual organism to reproduce sexually...if it were to happen what are the odds that a male and female of that species to be produced and manage to find each other.
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that, yes, anyone can edit wikipedia entries, but those entries are corrected just as easily, and wikipedia has software that monitors for vandalism which most of the time is pretty easy to spot.
Secondly we are still seeing species reproducing after their kind
And this invalidates observed instances of speciation....how exactly? How does mosquitoes producing mosquitoes, invalidate the fact that speciation has been observed and well documented. I gave specific examples of where speciation has been documented and observed.
Lastly I don't believe my last question was answered regarding a selective pressure that would cause an asexual organism to reproduce sexually
What sort of answer were you looking for, I believe I already answered this, I said the stability and hospitality of the environment.
if it were to happen what are the odds that a male and female of that species to be produced and manage to find each other
Well, it probably didn't happen like that. It's more likely that a species began as hermaphroditic (having both male and female parts) and certain members of the species only relying on one set of reproductive organs at any given time. Would you like to discuss the advantages of this reproductive strategy?
We really don't know how it happened since humanity never observed it. Now if science is supposed to be knowledge gained through observation and study? If we can't observe it then we are left speculating. I think the search for the origin of life should be approached with a blank slate...people need to stop trying to fit the round peg in the square hole. Instead of worrying about how to make things fit into the hole that is evolution you should be looking for the hole it does fit in regardless of where it takes you.
Thank you, pictures are more than just copying photographs the expressions are absolutely wonderful and the lion’s hairdo is absolutke beautiful, he looks so bewildered.
It has not been really proven if half the world says it has and the other says it has not. I think what is really stopping it from being proven is religion. The conflict would arise saying that "you guys do not believe in god" the others would say "you do not believe in logic or the truth" these conflicts and arguments MAY be the reason for evolution not having been proven yet.
Its not been proven, but its a fairly good scientific explanation of things. But did any of us witness it ? can we show enough evidence of it happening to PROVE it ? no.
Evolution has not been proven. There are flaws in evolution and it can be disproved. The theroy of evolution is foolish and people who believe it are foolish also
Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and will often come back in the future. make money files
evolution doesnt need to be proved if people are against it than they can belive what they want to elive and not care about the other. i am for evolution because they have proof that the different spiceis have changed and still contain identical DNA
I went on the web to look for issues regarding hybrid annuities for my web page however I accidentally discovered your site. I enjoy your post and you have a very creative content. Hope you'll be posting for more!
I was seeking on the internet points pertaining to hybrid annuities for my article but I accidentally stumbled on your site. I love your post and you have a creative content. Keep on blogging!
Then we find that the fossil record (primarily the Cambrian) shows that, rather than a long slow process of fossil change, species burst onto the scene fully formed. So, we need a new theory. Now we have "punctuated equilibrium", the theory that rather than Darwin's long slow process, we have a long process with quick bursts of change.
I think what is really stopping it from being proven is religion. The conflict would arise saying that web design company
"you guys do not believe in god" the others would say "you do not believe in logic or the truth" these conflicts and arguments MAY be the reason for evolution not having been proven yet.
Pretty neat submit. I just stumbled upon your weblog and desired to say that I possess seriously favored reading your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your blog and I wish you submit again soon!
By this I mean we would have to, from scratch in an isolated system, evolve a race of creates of intelligence equivalent to human intelligence, with absolutely no direction from humans, and it would have to be explicable in its entirety. This is impractical if not impossible at this point in time.
Seriously! I truly like everything I discovered on your web page. As I was in search of epilef91onsm sites, I found Why has evolution not been proven yet? on your web site instead. However thanks to that!
I have read how most people are on the side of Evolution. there arguments are basically they fact how Bacterial can defend against antibiotics. If we evolved then why haven't we evolved enough to fight and beat cancer. There are more people being getting sicker by Cancer instead of beating cancer. We are getting weaker instead of stronger. If we are evolving has most beleave then how come we have not gotten stronger in time against all of diseases? Why havent any of the past animals people beleave we have evolved from are still the same never to evolve into a human again, like all the monkey's they still remaine monkey's. please dont correct spelling or anything like that....
I have been spending a lot of time on the internet recently. This is why I saw this blog on annuity loans. I additionally saw your internet site and I simply needed to comment. I love everything you have actually posted here! I truly appreciate bloggers who share popular info and facts to all. Remarkable Job! Visit this site to learn more.
Supporting Evidence:
Visit this site
(annuityratesinstantly.com)
the only way to prove a lie is by calling it a theory Creation is proven and to know this all you have to do is get to know your creator. Why don't you? because you love your life more than you want the truth seek and you will find ask and you shall receive the Holy Spirit is in the World He came to set the captives free,
This is not a battle of flesh and blood but of principalities and powers. We where all born into this spiritual battle weather we know it or not. Evolution is designed to keep Gods Created people from searching for the truth and sadly it is working on so many lost souls but the good news is He is Risen and the Holy spirit is in the world if you want to know the truth that sets men free seek Jesus. If you want to believe in lies harden your heart get proud and selfish love your foolish theory its never gonna do you any good. you ask the question who made God but never ask what made matter ? i ask the question what's the matter with people. why do so many chase after the wind when they can know the truth?
It is fact i have no clue why it is not sed to be proven i can even prove and i dont even have any collge yet. It simple we all know that servlie of the fittist is true we see it every day we all know the gentic mutation is real just look at hair, disease there is even a villege of only deaf human they had no other contact.obvilsy genics get passed down we are human and dogs are dog that proves that. the resion why we dont see evltion to day is because it is slow as a soth held up by snail it take more the 10,000 years just for a change and i would say we are more evloed then be for.
I liked to know even more regarding annuity experts so I went online to check out concerning it, and then I saw your site. I was amazed with the createdebate because of its intriguing point Terrific job!
Because it is a theory. Even those most people agree it is the most likely theory, it can never be proven because that is the nature of scientific study.
I always explore for something interesting on the web every time I get bored. Valuable thing, I found this variable annuity that supplied your createdebate. I most definitely gonna take a note of your site! Good luck!
I had actually been searching information on Click here. I am happy that I had actually seen your weblog site which has outstanding helpful info that is associated with my task. I smile that there are good people like you in this globe.
When I am done with all of my home tasks, I like to spend time online. I just finished reading a post on Business Consultant when I saw the hyperlink to your web page. I believe it is excellent to read helpful reasons provided by genuine individuals.
Amazing! I hope you know exactly how impressive your Why has evolution not been proven yet is. I actually found your web site right after inspecting green card by marriage websites.
When I have absolutely nothing to do, I like to go online. This is why I saw this blog site on Business Consultant. There is definitely a great deal to be profited from blogs like yours.
Evolution isn't a theory. It's a verified fact. Evolution can and has been demonstrated in the lab repeatedly. All evolution is change in any given system (biological or not) over time in direct response to external forces. Speciation is a theory. We have yet to to find a verifiable and credible example of speciation (one species becoming another). Every time a researcher thought they found one after careful examination they found it to be misidentification or errors in their process. So far we have yet to see one species become another in the lab. best annuity
Supporting Evidence:
best annuity
(www.advocatefinancialcenter.com)
I located your web page and review the createdebate after scanning great paginas web. It is extremely remarkable and I ensure that my colleagues will like it.
Supporting Evidence:
paginas web
(www.artesyweb.com)
Well, actually it was proven long ago but some idiot burned up all the evidence so the religious community took over and now the scientific community is gaining hand!
Among my most favored leisure activities is surfing the net due to the fact that I always find fantastic things to see and read. This is why I saw this blog site on gvoteamelite.com. I simply adore discovering educational sites like yours.
Just recently, I saw this blog site on Waterloo Structures which captured my attention. Its incredible article and I believe! To get more information, click here.
Supporting Evidence:
Click Here
(chickencoops-by-waterloo.com)
As I was browsing for websites that provides recommendations on no deposit car insurance, I came across your web page. The createdebate that I read on your site is quite striking.
I spotted your internet site as I was web surfing for posts on Security Guards Jacksonville FL. The Why has evolution not been proven yet is very amazing and I will certainly tell my friends about it.
Whilst browsing for compositions relating to how to learn to trade forex, I happen to go through Why has evolution not been proven yet?. And I confess, its among the most reliable that I've had read so far.
I'm on my track looking out for computer repairs chatswood when I ran into your online site and read regarding createdebate posted. The article was truly really fabulous. Keep it up!
I was tied up browsing the internet for editorial works to read on; and just a bit gone by I happen to stumble upon createdebate and it was absolutely outstanding. Click here and read more from it, you'll appreciate it as well.
Supporting Evidence:
Read More
(garages-by-waterloo.com)
With regard to maintaining hassle-free as well as productive building operations, all-new innovation manuals are a must for me to read. As I was going through data recovery sydney guidebooks on the internet; I chanced on createdebate and to my surprise, I desired to read everything over again.
A common misunderstanding employed by opponents of evolution is what the term 'Theory' means, quick to say 'Its just a theory!'
They confuse theory with hypothesis- hypothesis being a tentative assumption made based on observation, that further study and experimentation is based off of.
In science, a Theory is backed up by all available observational evidence thus far. It is 'not proven yet' in the sense that by its very nature it is almost impossible to design an experiment to prove or disprove it. Even using fast-reproducing specimens, we're looking at a timetable beyond measuring the viscosity of pitch here.
But all available data so far seems to support evolution. Or at least, none directly discredits evolution and most directly support it. While opponents are quick to point out gaps in the current fossil record, it should be noted that corpses fossilize only under very particular conditions, and as such there are likely many species that never fossilized at all due to their own life cycle or tendencies. Also consider the rather small portion of the earths surface we've actually dug up looking for fossils... New species are being discovered frequently even now.
I should probably note that the impossible to experiment portion that I'm referring to is speciation, as would be required for the scope the theory refers to. I'm aware that selective tendencies for specific genetic traits has been observed.
The post regarding createdebate is undoubtedly extremely motivational. The Bible verse wall decals being pointed out there is certainly an excellent pointer for me as a Christian. Thank you for publishing such terrific post.
Yes. I know the standard definitions. You fail to notice the inherent relationship between the two concepts. You also don't understand the definition of species.
What is microevolution without macroevolution?
Why can't mutations occur in the reproductive system to cause speciation (go look up the definition of species)? Does this mean what we currently understand about mutations is wrong since our current understanding indicates that mutations can happen anywhere? What force limits mutations?
You just regurgitate what you hear/read without actually understanding the science and reasoning behind something you deny. No worries though, proponents of evolution (even if they are in the right) are exactly the same. People will always be people.
Holy crap. I actually got bored and clicked on the link. These people have no understanding of statistics, entropy, evolution, or basic logic.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them.
This is referring to the rise in entropy of a closed system. Since the organism is not in a closed system, there is nothing to suggest that the average mutation will be harmful or beneficial. This is basic chemistry.
No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process.
There are several examples observed today. Many of these examples relate to the industrial revolution and the expansion of human habitats. Just google for evolution examples. They are pretty lazy if they can't even be bothered to use google.
These people don't even understand what evolution is. They use an example of a 200-part organism and how reduction in complexity is more likely than increase in complexity. What they don't understand is that a reduction in complexity will be passed on if it is beneficial, just like a increase in complexity will be passed on if it is beneficial. It has nothing to do with what is more likely to occur, but what is more likely to be passed on.
You can debunk the rest yourself. Go learn some math and science first.
It can't be proven, because it never happened. There is not one piece of evidence that supports Darwinian evolution. In fact, there is plenty of peer reviewed evidence that indicates that it's completely impossible. Answer me one question. What single piece of evidence is enough to prove it ever happened? There isn't any. All of the evidence for evolution has to be interpreted. It cannot be falsified, like the other branches of REAL science. Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. Nothing more.
So do you just think that the majority of the scientific community believes in something without any evidence, and that they are ignoring all of this "Real" evidence that contradicts it that you apparently have? If so, why?
I've looked at the evidence for evolution, as have many others. Many of them respected scientists. Take the fossil record, for instance. Evolutionists brag about how this is proof for evolution. But is it. What does it show us? It shows a series of complete species. There is not one undisputed fossil that shows a link between species. If evolution were true, we would see many of these in between species. We don't. What does that tell us? Most scientists who work in the field of evolution are atheists. They are biased because they won't even consider any alternative to evolution. There is plenty of scientific research in fields such as microbiology and cellular networks that raises some serious doubts about a naturalistic origin of life. If someone had a clue about just how complicated even the simplest form of life is, they could only believe in evolution by a deliberate rejection of the obvious truth. Recently, scientists created an artificial life form. It was created by replacing the DNA of a yeast cell with one that was created in the lab. Get this. They had to rely on living systems not once. Not twice, but three times. In other words, they could not have done it without using natures own machinery. So if we can't do something like this on our own, in a lab, how could it have happened through chance and necessity; like scientists claim? I can't remember who said this, but I think it applies to everyone who believes in evolution. "It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled." You've been fooled, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
I've looked at the evidence for evolution, as have many others.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!
Many of them respected scientists.
Coincidentally in fields other than biology.
There is not one undisputed fossil that shows a link between species.
Right, there are way more than 1.
If evolution were true, we would see many of these in between species.
You should stick to statements that don't have a way to be proven. You just admitted to believing in evolution.
We don't. What does that tell us?
We do, it tells us that you ignore evidence.
They are biased because they won't even consider any alternative to evolution.
The bias here is that scientists need evidence to consider an alternative.
There is plenty of scientific research in fields such as microbiology and cellular networks that raises some serious doubts about a naturalistic origin of life.
First off, that is not true at all. Second, that isn't evolution.
If someone had a clue about just how complicated even the simplest form of life is, they could only believe in evolution by a deliberate rejection of the obvious truth.
No, they would have to reject abiogenesis.
Recently, scientists created an artificial life form. It was created by replacing the DNA of a yeast cell with one that was created in the lab. Get this. They had to rely on living systems not once. Not twice, but three times. In other words, they could not have done it without using natures own machinery.
What are they supposed to use imagination? The have to use stuff from nature.
So if we can't do something like this on our own, in a lab, how could it have happened through chance and necessity;
We have had the ability to perform lab experiments for how many years? The Earth had how many years to create it through chance? Oh, and the argument that scientists haven't found it yet therefore scientists will never be able to find it is a ridiculous position to take.
I can't remember who said this, but I think it applies to everyone who believes in evolution. "It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled."
This applies to religion.
You've been fooled, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
Evolution is a process, based on unclear initial conditions. It has not been proven because we can't completely simulate it or "redo" it from scratch.
To prove it would require nothing less than the evolution of a new sentient race. By this I mean we would have to, from scratch in an isolated system, evolve a race of creates of intelligence equivalent to human intelligence, with absolutely no direction from humans, and it would have to be explicable in its entirety. This is impractical if not impossible at this point in time.
"Seeing is believing" and it cannot be seen from start to finish because in practice the process of evolving takes longer than any one person's lifetime. Adaptation and mutation are short term and can be viewed by an individual, but those are only aspects of the larger process, which is the topic of conversation.
We have directly observed evolution in action in the peppered moth, to take one example. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is another laboratory provable example.
That does not prove evolution at all. Just because it becomes resistant to an antibiotic does not mean anything. who says the antibiotics were mixed correctly. What about the peppered moth proves Evolution?
Exactly. It's artificial selection rather than natural selection, but it's the sort of thing that Kirk Cameron might want to look into before he embarrasses himself again.
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.’
- Ronald R. West
Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.
Time Magazine, 1994
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of "missing links".
- Arthur J. Boucot
Evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record.
- Lipson, FRS
[F]or more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding ... Today the fossil record ... is forcing us to revise this conventional view.
- Stanley, S. M.
The known fossil record is not, and has never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.
-Stanley, S. M.
It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.
- Simpson, George Gaylord
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record.
- David B. Kitts
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.
-Ronald R. West
Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.
- Ernst Mayr
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and , ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
- Dr David M. Raup
Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
- Niles Eldredge
One might suppose that Darwin, like his modern intellectual descendants, saw in the fossil record a confirmation of his theory -- the literal documentation of life's evolution from the Cambrian to the present day. In fact, the two chapters devoted to geology in The Origin of Species are anything but celebratory. On the contrary, they constitute a carefully worded apology in which Darwin argues that evolution by natural selection is correct despite an evident lack of support from fossils.
- Andrew Knoll
It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level most species appear without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare.
