Question for Evolutionist's

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

1) The way that genetics works and the way that genes affect biological traits and the way that those traits affect an individuals ability to reproduce are thoroughly confirmed and tested under the conditions that you identify with the only valid scientific method on a regular basis. Evolution follows necessarily from these basic underlying mechanisms, therefore the theory is epistemologically sound, even by your strict definition of what constitutes scientific validity.

2) Several posters have identified clear cases of what you call "micro-evolution," but you've decided those aren't dramatic enough. Here's the thing: those small changes accumulate - we observe this - and it follows that large differences will exist after this happens for a very long time. The kinds of dramatic changes you think you need to see to be convinced don't happen; plants don't become animals. Genetic mutations are limited in scope, and the more dramatic they are in a single step, the less likely the organism to survive. A dog just doesn't have the genes to give birth to a dinosaur, and the mutations simply can't take place all at once.

3) The theory of evolution, like all theories, is an explanation of how things happen. The theory has successfully predicted the existence of intermediate traits. This is the prediction and confirmation that you claim the theory is lacking. These successful predictions are reproduced every time intermediate traits are discovered.

4) Ultimately, science is concerned with which explanation is most consistent with the evidence. Evolution is the answer in this case. It is the best explanation that has been proposed, so it is the accepted theory. No theory, even gravity, can be confirmed in an absolute sense, because there are an infinite number of explanations for any observation. We don't know without a doubt that no theory will come along which is more consistent with the available data, or that observations won't be made that are inconsistent with evolution. However, until that time, we have more reason to believe in evolution than in any alternative theory purporting to explain the same observations. Since we have the most reason to believe in evolution, we are fully justified in being evolutionists, even if you've never seen a plant turn into a dog.

This, This!
A thousand times, This!!!

reply to post by Nosred


Evolved? You mean *Bred*.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Nosred

 

Evolved? You mean *Bred*.

well breeding is an important part. how else would we pass down gentic information.
or does god send that down and impregnate virgin women with it?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration




It's the same as natural selection, just with humans doing the selecting instead of nature. I don't see how you don't consider one species turning into another evolution. This is very clear evidence of evolution that humans have observed.

Edit: It seems like you're just in denial now.

reply to post by UniverSoul


So its not evolution.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

So its not evolution.

do people really need to explain it again?

also do you believe that god sent sperm down from the heavens? maybe thats what preists are doing with little kiddies?

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

So its not evolution.

Evolution may in the long term lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

Yeah... it is. Now you're either just being ignorant or you're in denial.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


You still haven't answered my question regarding kind. Do you agree with the Bible when it says that birds and bats are of the same kind?

I have a few questions for the OP.

You have your beliefs, you are not going to abandon them, why post this thread?

Do you want to re-enforce your belief system, to bolster it in your mind by arguing with 'EVO heads'?

Are you trying to convert a few weak minded people to your faith, is that part of your religion?

Do you believe your God will look more favorably on you when he opens the book on your judgment day and sees 'spent a lot of time challenging heathens on an internet discussion site'?


Would any evidence of evolution presented to you make you change your mind? Be honest remember lying is a sin.

And finally: evolution does not dispute the existence of God, it simply contradicts a book, written, compiled, edited, printed, distributed, misinterpreted, extolled by men.....the bible. A book written, by the way, a long time ago, in a hot country far away from where you are now, by men who have nothing whatsoever in common with you.

Which is more important to you - God or a book?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Interesting how you equate the Biblical concept of "kind", which is never defined, to the scientific concept of "genus". Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Given that the classification of "bacteria" is a kingdom, which is several taxonomic steps above a genus, your reply is meaningless. You should at least take the time to learn the terminology you're throwing around.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Given that evolution doesn't occur in individual organisms, your reply is meaningless. You should at least take the time to understand the concepts you're trying to discuss.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Evolution from a plant to an animal would be a change in kingdom, not genus. You should at least take the time to learn the terminology you're throwing around.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Changing from a reptile to a mammal would be change at a class level, which is several steps above a genus. You should at least take the time to learn the terminology you're throwing around.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

In your OP, you equated the Biblical concept of "kind" to the scientific concept of "genus". In this post, you're equating it to the scientific concept of "species". You should at least take the time to decide where the goalposts are before you start moving them.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

Sorry to break it to you but evolution is pseudo science and not real science.

Actually that is a statement of ignorance of the highest order. I'm sorry I know that ignorance has be come fashionable and your leaders scramble to deny science - but I am old and I come from the generation that put men on the moon. The generation that celebrates intelligence. Your arguments are silly your evidence is ignorant and you would be very uncomfortable in a room full of thinking people. Sorry if that is rude but I am old enough that I don't care and I don't have to give ignorant people their quarter.

My mind is open you are flat out wrong -- it is provable how wrong you are. Creationists are wrong creation science is not science. Sometimes you just have to say to yourself - I am not smart enough to understand this but there are people who many respect who do and they say this is so.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Given that speciation has been observed, your post is factually incorrect. One example was elucidated by Hugo de Vries in his 1905 work, "Species and Varieties: their Origin by Mutation.". He was studying the genetics of the evening primrose and grew a variant that had a different number of chromosomes. The variant was unable to breed with the original species and therefore constituted a new species. You should really try doing some research before making factually incorrect statements.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Duplications and insertions both add information to the genome. You should really do some research before posting factually incorrect statements and claiming premature victory.

I havn't seen this anywhere in the thread...random mutation.com

This page goes on about how random mutation just can't do the things that are attributed to it, and I find it very compelling. This is a fundamental principal of evolution, so it is easy to make the assumption that science is going on faith with a oversight like this.

I don't know a lot about evolution but it seems to me that it is, at the very least a flawed, and not a completely understood theory.

Originally posted by Zeer0
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

Now you did it.

This completely Debunks Religion. And the stolen concept of a God. Enjoy it

edit on 14-9-2011 by Zeer0 because: (no reason given)

Your research skills have failed to lead you to the truth.

I encourage you to read kallisti36's definitive OP:

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again