Evolution Is Wrong - For & Against

» Home » Science

Evolution Is Wrong

Do you believe evolution? There is no scientist can give strong evidence to support evolution. I would like to hear your opinion.

hitomi

04 Dec 2007 14:37

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

My opinion doesn't really matter, so whatever makes me feel the best I will go with. I don't want to believe that i used to be a monkey. A serious source of self-doubt for teenagers, I'd think... But adaptation, the less extreme version, can be worked with.

Dadmad6

17 Feb 2013 17:40

1 Comment

well thats a big misunderstanding of evolution is thinking we came from monkey's or chimp.....we came from neither one, but we do share a common ancestor

godsgeew

16 May 2013 21:52

Comment

Evolution is for people who DON'T WON'T to believe in God Almighty

BiblicanB

29 Sep 2012 18:38

2 Comments

You know why people who believe in evultion don't often belive in god? That's because they have seen logic.

Kryten4000

30 Sep 2012 09:50

Comment

Mega cock!!!!

wilsja17

03 Sep 2012 02:19

Add a Comment

I believe evolution is not real. Sure they found "lucy" and such but the just need to find the "missing link" how long have they been looking? Yea. They will never find it. I was born a christian and always will be. When i was put into public school and i learnt about this nonsense it just seemed proposterous and not true at all.

taliae123

21 May 2012 00:07

3 Comments

School generally teach evolution very poorly, you sound like you are interested in learning, maybe look into it a little more.

nemomonopo

21 May 2012 03:55

Comment

Evolution is a theory, just like religion is a theory. Both are backed up with evidence and i think that there is really no purpose in life if you are a religion-hater because then you dont really have a philosophy ect.

notebook

01 Sep 2011 07:08

5 Comments

Oh really? A lack of religion has no philosophy? Why must we follow a set philosophy when we know our own morals and we don't need anyone to tell us how to live? What if we don't want to stone people for adultery?

Antares

17 Oct 2011 10:48

Comment

There are many reasons why evolution fails.

Giraffes - giraffes have a HUGE heart, naturally. It has to pump massive amounts of blood up to its brain. In its neck, arteries have check valves, for a lack of better terms. These valves help keep the blood flowing to the brain. At the back of the brain it has a sponge to absorb the blood and let it seep to the brain. With out these valves and sponge, when the giraffe bends down to drink, the force of its heart pumping the blood to the brain, his head would explode. That's how much pressure is coming out of its heart.

How do these valves and this sponge evolve? It couldn't have because there would be no parent species to pass on the "trial and error" results. All giraffes would be dead.

If someone wants, I have many more, even physical laws that would have to be broken.

Mr_Obvious

19 Jul 2011 14:44

41 Comments

"Simmons and Altwegg suggest that giraffes' necks may have begun growing as a way of eating hard-to-reach food, but that they were then "hijacked" for mating purposes. Once the necks had reached a certain length, males could use them for necking and clubbing – and at that point sexual selection took over, driving the necks to their current extreme lengths."
Blame it on sex and that little thing called “millions of years”.

justsumguy

19 Jul 2011 17:02

Comment

I believe you are referring to the idea of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately the giraffe is hardly the good example of Behe's notion that many intelligent design proponents seem to believe. In the first place there are many complications that the overall design fails to resolve very well leading to a number of health related problems for giraffes. Making one wonder if intelligent design is involved why didn't the intelligence design a little better. But more importantly the basic flaw in the idea is looking at the length of giraffe's neck as a singular event rather than a series of  smaller changes in response to environmental pressures. The giraffe's ancestors didn't simply wake up one morning with 3 meter necks. A slight increase allowed for a small competitive advantage. As even a slight morphological change requires adjustments in other areas to compensate, a series of small changes in the blood and nerve systems allowed some of the giraffes ancestors functionality advantages over other giraffes. As these tiny back and forth responses to 30-50 million years of environmental pressures accumulate eventually they begin to resemble the modern Giraffa camelopardalis. These changes and adjustments are still taking place. If you want to try to make the irreducible argument a little better you might try doing a bit more checking about before assuming what sounds good on the surface is actually an effective argument.

Comment

justsumguy. You did not answer my question.

finsch. You're just continuing the wishful thinking.

What finsch doesn't mention is the fact that if evolution has practically no limits, that that would mean that a race can, if isolated, become superiour to others, with the possibility of a divergent, new species, possibly superiour intellectually. This gives grounds for racism, since a race diverging into a new species, can eventually become greater than the previously-equal-humans, as we are greater than chimps, having RIGHTS THEY DON'T, and RULING THEM.
So while finsch and jsh enjoy their wishful thinking, I will use a racist's wishful thinking which macro-evolution JUSTIFIES:
A neo-nazi group against great odds separates from the rest of mankind in a space colony somewhere, and over millions of years becomes a species that is superiour to the humans back home.
The neo-nazis then return as superiour to the less advanced homos, as we are superiour to chimps, and put them in cages and do experiments on them in scientific concentration camps.

And if the earth perished by then, then let's just leave it at the space colonist neo-nazis having become superiour by the TOTALLY IMAGINARY, UNFALSIFIABLE and UNSCIENTIFIC CREATION MYTH finsch, justsumguy, and the deluded, unscrutinizing people on the right side bought into by blind faith and unquestioning adherence to the demands of authority figures in the collective I refer to as the not so scientific community.

Comment

I know that if God takes God’s “finger” off of anything it will cease to exist and have no history whatsoever. Speaking of evolution and God in the same breath is comical to me. I’ll do it if needed but its comical. I don’t think you have ever got a grasp of what God is to me…God isn’t a scientist or some really powerful dude measuring up to “justice” or “universal law” to me.

God could have made all of this as you think God made it just outside of our “absolute grasp of history” and made it all to appear as if it is billions of years old. What you don’t understand is that it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever if this was the case.

You constantly bring up the belief or disbelief of God in evolution argument as if one can prove that God exists by explaining how the sunrise works. It’s not how the sunrise works, it’s how it makes one feel. I’ll say it over and over Stranger…the proof of God is within us. If you want to prove God to people, start using your heart. I realize it can be difficult when love has been pushed aside by hate but it’s all we’ve got.

And before you take your usual dump on the love of God, consider how angry the very mention of it makes you…you KNOW sneered at it.

Comment

Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes.

Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas.

Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies.

Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish.

Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.

Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards.

Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges.

Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan.

Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as gills in amniotes.
Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g., nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish.

Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti.

Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia.

Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc.

Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs).

Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
Potential falsification: proteins that are no related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins, in Dave's sense of the term, which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from.

Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."

Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution.

Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.

Comment

Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA."

Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein.

Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein.

Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree. 
Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree.

Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified.

Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree.

Prediction 24: genetic change. There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the phylogenetic tree. Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible.
Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain.

Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically.

Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations.
Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true.

Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average. Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record.

Comment

I hate to impede my rising status but the only thing impressive about me regarding those posts is the fact that I know how to find information that I need to have.

Most of that makes sense to me but it is certainly not my area of expertise. I know enough to know that work is being done everyday to attempt to falsify all of those points because falsification is the starting point for exploration. Since A would be B and not C, but we have C and B, we are going to have to see if we can use C to make B into A. That sort of thing. We usually come up with D which we didn’t even know was possible and D enables us to get A which blows our mind and then while we are trying to get A to be B we get F which enables us to try to make A into C but that doesn’t work. So we still haven’t been able to falsify but we have a plant outside of Boston which is producing a mixture of A and D which is enabling us to reproduce blood veins on a “printer” that can be used for transplant instead of harvesting from the host.

Confusing but that’s the way it usually goes while there are people saying we are trying to prove God doesn’t exist. (banging head on floor)

Comment

Oh, goodie. Someone dared to copy and paste something.
You deserve praise for being a parrot of lame points, jsh.

It's ridiculous that they're called predictions, as most are merely observations made before common descent was proposed. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has most of the same "predictions." You make it sound like it's grand.

"Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes."
How could you know for sure that they are unrelated? You can always assume that far back, they had the same origin, but then diverged to become separate. The assumption of common descent would remain unfalsifiable, unless you had omniscience concerning the most distant pasts.

"Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas."  
Common descent would remain unscathed, since the things falsified would be the connections between living things and certain ideas about certain glands/whatnot. DUH. You can always still assume common descent. DUH.
Hierarchies are artificial. DUH.
You can make any connection between stars that you fancy. DUH. Your non-theory and non-fact is as good as astrology.

"Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies."
This is basically repeating your 2nd failed attempt.
How could you know that they are "independently-derived phylogenies"? That assumption can be dismissed for the assumption of common descent, making it still unfalsifiable.

"Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish."
Any connection can be assumed. If a hyrax and an elephant can be assumed to be close cousins, then the establishment can make any connection it fancies. Use your imagination!
Also, you act as if definitions are objective realities. What a joke.

"Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates." 
There are so many assumptions on your part, I need to type more than  usual for this.
1. "Chronological order..." Any claim of a fossil being millions of years is a lie, since there is no reliable way to know such a thing. Dating methods for that involve the extremely irrational assumption that the thing dated was never contaminated in the supposed AEONS of its having been in the ever-changing earth. Earth always changes, so it is irrational to assume that there was no contamination.
2. "intermediates." There is no way to be sure that ANY fossil or species is an intermediate between any others. It's all guesswork and a game of imagining what makes the most sense to you. When most scientists agree on a particular IMAGINARY connection they can never prove, then they call it "science," despite it not being observed at all.
3. "stratigraphy." More guesswork. Same problem with contamination making stratigraphy a non-science.
4. "the phylogenetic tree." Notice how you use the word "the" instead of "a." There has never been only 1 unchangeable tree, but concepts of trees, which have always evolved. There is no "the" tree, but "a" tree which changes according to the whims of the establishment.
Now, common descent would remain unfalsifiable since all these falsifiable and artificial constructs ARE NOT IT. Your points are of related things being falsified rather than common descent of species itself. You're a misleading fool.

"Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards."
There is no such thing as a vestigial part. Every single claim of "vestigial" is an argument from ignorance. You can't know that it is vestigial unless you know everything that there is to know about it. You don't claim omniscience, do you?
The appendix was considered vestigial not long ago, yet now we know better. Some years ago, you would have used it to support your myth. Idiots.

"Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges."
Again, you'd have to be omniscient to know that no ancestor of such beings ever had a function for such allegedly vestigial parts.
And how would legs of supposed ancestors of whales who lived on land not have been used?
How would tails of supposed ancestors of humans not have been used? lol.

"Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan."
As always, every claim of "vestigial" is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You're irrational.

"Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as gills in amniotes.
Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g., nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish."
That would perhaps alter a current so-called "understanding" of the so-called "family tree," rather than falsify the assumption of common descent. And it could be interpreted as being recently new parts that have had reasons you would simply be ignorant of. Such anomalies do not falsify, but merely are not understood.

"Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti."
That would falsify certain claims of historical distribution of species/land masses, not common descent.

You can't make that distinction? You're stupid.

Continued.

Comment

"Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia."
More of the same failed points. What a waste of time. 
I already covered how dates of supposed millions of years for fossils and rocks are unreliable. And what would be falsified would be the current "understanding" of the distribution of species. This is independent of common descent of all species, which can be matched by any movement of lifeforms and their environment. The distributions of beings and lands can be ANYTHING, and you can still assume common descent of all species.
If this is the best you losers can do -a copied and pasted list of sometimes repeated falsification scenarios of ANYTHING BUT common descent, then it says a lot about just how "scientific" it really is.

"Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc."
Same krap as above. I got it covered already here. It's in the trash.

"Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs)."
What a lack of imagination you got, hypocrite!
I call you a hypocrite here since you start with a single-celled being from which ALL specialized parts of ALL beings derived, (having no resemblance to the single cell from which they "sprouted") yet you consider it impossible for a horse to get wings from its body!
It's the same thing!
If a single cell can produce a leg after multiplying into more cells, when there was no precedent, then a horse can become a pegasus.

"Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should [have] statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
Potential falsification: proteins that are no[t] related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins, in Dave's sense of the term, which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from."
=argument from ignorance. How can you know that they did not derive "from any previously-existing proteins"?
Phylogenies meant to cover the distant past are artificial, so it's meaningless to act as if finding flaws in them somehow falsifies common descent of all species. They're different things. Your every attempt is changing the subject. You commit the red herring fallacy with your argument from ignorance fallacies, with the underlying argument from authority fallacy, not to mention the underlying bandwagon argument fallacy, as well as the argument from incredulity fallacy. Haha.

[[[ Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."]]]
Problem there, partner, is that you're assuming it has to have the steps you expect. It doesn't. There are various forms of "evolution" "theory," and some of them allow for leaps of design. Punctuated equilibrium being the one I remember my textbooks using. Your myth is magical. You can have things appear as if spontaneously, and you can rely on your ignorance to explain it away, by saying something like: "We just haven't yet found the intermediates yet," Excuses there are. Your myth stands tall. And so falls!

"Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution."
Well, the structure can be interpreted as the same thing, or just as a coincidentally nearly-identical thing.
And if the former is assumed, then you can say that it is because of the COMMON DNA which stores the information for such a device for when handy. Use your imagination.
No matter what, you can't falsify the assumption of common descent of species, with another assumption.

[[[ Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.]]]
Blind spots are "suboptimal" only in your opinions. We have blind spots, yet most of us can see perfectly well. Having 2 eyes solves the little problem. It's no big deal.
And it's just funny how you actually "think" that reptiles lacking blind spots would prove that species don't have common ancestry. How freaking stupid can you get? lol.

Continued.

Comment

[[[ "Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA."]]]
Every single claim of junk DNA is an ignorant assertion by someone who cannot know enough to be able to know that such DNA has no purpose at all. Some things in DNA are switches that go off only in certain circumstances, and when they aren't on, you assume that they have no purpose. You're like someone who thinks that a light switch doesn't work simply because it's dark. You need to try it out and perhaps also check electrical connections. You need to know more before claiming that.

"Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein."
There will always be differences that common descent fanboys would seize on, to interpret as enough to stick to it. Looking at the big picture, there will always be something that can be interpreted for common descent, and anomalies can always be dismissed due to ignorance. Your side says you are ignorant when convenient, but not when it shows you are fallacious.

"Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein."
It seems you're saying (as a parrot) that there must be a correlation between how much DNA is shared, and the closeness of the relation between cousins. Of course, that is correct. The closer a cousin, the more similar their DNA must be.
But saying against what is proven, that if DNA does not correlate to how similar certain beings are to one another (which in the case of the relations between species is just because our similar structures are necessarily matched by similar instructions for structures in DNA, which common descent would not be required for), that it would falsify common descent of species, is like saying that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster assassinated the pope and took over the throne of Rome, declaring his noodly majesty as being the creator of heaven and earth without having used speciation, that all other creation explanations would be disproven, including common descent.
So, common descent can't be falsified, since there is indeed a correlation between DNA that is shared and traits that are shared.

"Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree. 
Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree."
Pretty much any transposon can fit into a nested hierarchy if you just let it by editing the hierarchy. In some cases, you'd have to start anew, but discarding a merely imaginary thing to make way for a reality should be no problem.
If a transposon is put into more than one "nested hierarchy," and that is a problem, then it can be dismissed as an anomaly. Common descent remains. There are always anomalies in nature.

"Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified."
A pseudogene is just allegedly "junk" DNA which your side claims to be descended from ancestral DNA over millions of years or whatever. As I covered already, there is no such thing as a proven claim of junk DNA, but only assumptions of it due to ignorance and arrogance and wishful thinking.
"...since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms."
Rare does not mean impossible. 
And it wouldn't surprise me if we and flies have some shared "junk DNA," because I know that "junk" DNA is (primarily) just switches for certain environmental conditions that flies and humans are not bearing now.

Continued.

Comment

Because Stranger's counter argument is 3 comments long and very boring, I shall rebut it in smaller, summarised points:

1) Stranger claims the idea of common descent would not be falsified by evidence contradicting Evolution. While this is technically true, as common descent on its own is not a theory, he fails to realise that the evidence is also the only thing propping common descent up. Without any supporting evidence, common descent would be no more valid than intelligent design, due to the inability to predict results.

2) Stranger claims fossils cannot be dated if they're contaminated. This ignores the fact that fossils are dated according to the layer of rock in which they were found, so contamination wouldn't make a difference. He also attacks palaeontology as "imaginary" and "guesswork", despite knowing nothing about it.

3) Stranger claims that there is no such thing as a vestigial part. Perhaps he'd care to explain to us what he thinks a vestigial part is? It would help if we're all using the same terms here. Same for atavisms, btw.

4) Stranger claims that a cell dividing into many cells and forming a leg is equivalent to a horse growing wings. Do I actually need to explain the obvious problem with this comparison? And don't accuse me of straw man, little last-woman-rapist, unless you're willing to explain in full detail what a straw man actually is and not just what you pretend it is so you can use it.

5) Stranger claims that because we all have DNA that we should all share the same basic genes. He will accuse me of straw man, and I will accuse him of not understanding what DNA is and how it works. Also, can somebody please explain the evolution of the eye to him?

6) Stranger thinks that because we don't know for certain that every single piece of Junk DNA is junk, that we therefore cannot be reasonably certain the majority is junk. I don't know the name of that fallacy, so I'm just going to slap him with the label "retard" and be done with it. At any rate, mouse embryos have had all their Junk DNA removed and still function exactly the same as normal mice, no better and no worse.

It looks like he still has more to say, but I can't bothered waiting for him.

Comment

"Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree."
Every single hierarchy at and above the species level is artificial, and is subject to change.
So of course you can always incorporate any observation of endogenous retroviruses into a scheme of common descent.
By the way, ERVs don't really support macro-evolution, as this shabby but valuable video shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjXP3vEA3Rk

"Prediction 24: genetic change. [LOL!] There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the [current & artificial] phylogenetic tree. [Translation: we should be able to interpret DNA to fit our agenda.] Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible. [That's a fact that was observed before common descent/macro-evolution/speciation was ever proposed. So what credit is that to you? What kind of prediction is it when it's after the fact? Absurd.]
Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain."
"Highly resistant to change" is a very subjective phrase.
If there's typical reversion to wild type, then it could be interpreted simply as there being at the respective time no need for new adaptations for survival, and common descent advocates would point to the croc and the like as proof that you don't need to always be changing for macro-evolution to be true. It has always been said that the crocodile has remained virtually unchanged "for millions of years," according to macro-evolutionists. Common descent remains untouched.

"Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically."
Too bad for you you can't have any reliable dating, as I covered already. Down the drain with this point! Also, there are many "primitive" beings around today, not including you in particular. So the idea that the past in life history is the age of primitivism, while modernity is the age of complexity, is just flat-out wrong.  You have mere opinions going for you there.

"Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations."
Speciation has never been observed unless you define the term species in such a way as to try to get away with it, which the establishment has tried to do. Every definition for "species" is artificial. The criteria for what makes a species is subjectively determined. So every claim of speciation, as I've made clear many times before, is a mere opinion.
There is no speciation. It's fantasy. Never been observed.
When a fly becomes another fly, and it's the same dam'n thing, but they can't interbreed successfully ("successfully" defined your way), you call that speciation. Pathetic.

"Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true."
What you're saying is that if reality were not real, then common descent would be falsifiable.
"Reality" being the fact that hybrids exist.
Also, in many if not most cases, we can't know that a particular group of animals is reproductively isolated.
So how can one know that about even half of all "species"?
You need omniscience.
And many months ago, I came across macroevolution.net (an anti-creationism website) where I found some interesting reading on the problem of defining species.
In the article "1.9: Reproductive Isolation — A Vague Criterion," I have some good excerpts.
Your definition is presumably Ernst Mayr's, which is, "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

[[[ ...for a taxonomist such a definition is an arduous criterion because it can be extremely difficult to determine whether two organisms are "actually or potentially interbreeding." The impracticality of such a criterion becomes evident as soon as one considers:

1.  how many pairs of populations might, on a purely hypothetical level, interbreed (millions); 
and
2.  that each such population is typically composed of millions of individuals distributed over a broad geographic range.
How much work, then, would be required to evaluate whether even a single such pair is "actually or potentially interbreeding?" ]]]

Continued.

Comment

[[[ Indeed, even if one fails to observe interbreeding in a given case, can one safely conclude that the organisms in question are in a state of reproductive isolation? It is always possible that hybrids may exist in some location other than those that have already been searched. Or they may occur in the same place at some other time. Surveys of natural populations are always of limited scope. As Buffon once said, regarding the possibility of natural hybridization among birds,

Who knows of every tryst in the depths of the wood? Who can number the illegitimate pleasures shared by creatures of separate species?

... 
But questions of practical implementation aside, the greatest weakness of Mayr's definition is the vagueness of the word interbreeding and of the term reproductive isolation. A broad spectrum of observations could be described as "interbreeding."

There are also various conceivable degrees of reproductive isolation. Both the observation of a single hybrid and of a million can be described as "interbreeding." Also, the production of a sterile hybrid and of a fertile one can both be called "interbreeding." How fertile and how numerous must the observed hybrids be? Is one hybrid allowed? Two? Three hundred? What is the exact criterion?

...

Darwin. In a letter to Joseph Hooker dated December 24, 1856, Darwin wrote
I have just been comparing the definitions of species ... It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they speak of 'species'; in some, resemblance is everything and descent of little weight -- in some, resemblance seems to go for nothing, and Creation [is] the reigning idea -- in some, descent is the key -- in some, sterility an unfailing test, with others it is not worth a farthing. It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the undefinable.1
And yet Darwin certainly doesn't avoid using the word in the Origin. In fact, he uses it in almost in every paragraph -- even in the very title of the book. Nor does he express amusement therein when commenting on the variety of its definitions:

Nor shall I here discuss the various definitions which have been given of the term species. No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species.

...

There has been endless debate over the meaning of the word. But its use has continued, ubiquitous not only in biology, but even in everyday conversation. Many naturalists can still be grimly serious when it comes to the issue of whether a given type of organism should be treated as a species. Different researchers use different criteria for making such decisions, just as they did in Darwin's day. For example, Mayr (1982: 171) says that when you compare the views of an ornithologist with those of an entomologist, the two will usually espouse "vastly different" definitions of species. Even among entomologists themselves there are differences in taxonomic practice. Thus, in a recent article in the journal Nature, Marris (2007: 251) observed that

ant taxonomists have decided that anything that's worth separating should be separated at the species level, and have no truck with the subspecies at all. Butterfly taxonomists, however, like the triple-barrelled name approach and dote on subspecies. As a result, the numbers of ant species and butterfly species are not directly comparable.

Even researchers working on the same group will disagree on such points. Such the writer has certainly found to be the case for ornithologists. In deciding whether populations should be treated as species, different ornithologists emphasize different criteria. Some base their decisions on call type, others, on morphology. Many attempt to apply Mayr's definition, or some version of it. There are also many cases where morphologically identical populations are treated as separate species because they occur in separate geographic regions. For example, it is common to treat seemingly identical forms living on separate islands or separate continents as separate species. A bird could be treated, then, as a different species simply because it flew from one island to another! ]]]

Continued.

Comment

"Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average."
That's funny because it's just an unwarranted assumption, seeing as how speciation has never been observed.

"Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record."
Because you say so.
I already covered how dates are unreliable.
Saying that fossils show speciation is like saying that stars show constellations. Same nonsense.

Since when does speciation have to be consistent or accelerating in speed? How is punctuated equilibrium and similar "theories" false?

"Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record."
I am arguing with faith-heads who are not humble and will thus not admit that they have merely their own imagination as they interpret evidence their way.
Evidence that the FSM explains just as well as their myth.

But notice how they lie and act as if I didn't just destroy the claims of justsumheretic, who didn't even do any work. Just copied and pasted false claims of falsification scenarios.
Never was the "theory" of "evolution" falsified.
Only A "theory" of "evolution," which is certainly not common descent, but some arbitrary details built on it.

Common descent remains unscientific, fools.
The REAL issue in question.

Comment

finsch is a liar who is unable to defeat 22-year old non-scientist, supposedly stupid, little, old me, despite being a close-to-death, supposed scientist with the governments and their treasuries and most in the "scientific" community on his side.

If you notice, he can't defeat me, so he just ASSERTS.

What in all his bluff is anything resembling a refutation?

"Just like his debating methods he is good at spouting other peoples rhetoric without true understanding. He spouts a specifically created quasi scientific dialogue (created by the Discovery institute as part of a political and social agenda rather than anything to do with religious or scientific beliefs) designed to sound plausible to people who already wanted to hear such things, rather than convince anyone who has any real understanding. Even though every stage of these bald faced factually incorrect 'critiques' of modern biology and evolution theory has been taken apart piece by piece it is easy for Intelligent Design proponents to ignore what they don't want to hear. After all, they have their scraps of self deluded foolishness to keep themselves company."

He may as well type in: "I'm sticking to my racist sci-fi and there's nothing anyone can say to change my irrational faith!"

Comment

Look at the woodpecker. It is optimized for the repeated impact against trees, from its beak to its head to its tail feathers.

These features, according to evolutionary theory, would have had to develop in stages over a long period. Obviously, this could not have occurred. The first stages of this development would have been superfluous beginnings of anatomical changes. Those would have been bred out in offspring. In addition, a bird without these developments would not be able to drill into trees in the manner that a woodpecker does.

Alton1

30 Mar 2011 19:24

1 Comment

You are found wanting in faith. That makes you unscientific.

Stranger

05 May 2011 16:57

Comment

Your'e all going to hell

mubulu

23 Mar 2011 12:10

2 Comments

That isn't an argument.

Antares

27 Apr 2011 08:37

Comment

Micro evolution? Yes indeed..that has been confirmed and witnessed

Macro evolution? Way to dodge accountability from the God who created you, and allows you to breath every breath of oxygen. There are to many holes in macro evolution to list here........

Http://www.truegospel.org/

Mremerson

10 Feb 2011 14:28

1 Comment

What you call macro evolution, which is not a separate process than any other type of evolution, has not only been witnessed but recreated in the lab many many times. Here is just the very first site listed out of many describing some of the expirements.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

finsch

10 Feb 2011 15:06

Comment

If in evolution you refer Darwin's human evolution then yes it is wrong. It is wrong simply because we are not any specie of monkey's ( looking at humanity nowadays it's kinda hard to believe) nevertheless it has been reproached by scientists a couple of months ago proving that there is no link between us and the good old Neanderthal.as for DNA with a chimp well we share a percentage of DNA with every creature on the planet at variety of levels that so far doesn't mean much.

Medic

12 Dec 2010 16:56

3 Comments

I don't know what you have been reading but;

a) Recent findings have directly linked Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens to the point that we are now sure that their was sexual mingling between us.

b) Darwin did not directly deal with the subject of human evolution at all. The human monkey link was never made by him but by ignorant people who felt threatened by facts, so made things up.

finsch

05 Feb 2011 11:12

Comment

Of course

jerry0002

28 Jul 2010 19:42

Add a Comment

I think its so wrong and immoral too :)

shogduke

06 Jun 2010 02:12

1 Comment

That's life... as the song goes

gemeni

29 Jun 2010 21:59

Comment

Its not so much is evolution wrong but is religion right

btw i laughed for ages at the site below. U guys should take a look

KNIGHT

17 Apr 2010 05:46

1 Comment

LOL

Mr-Spicy

10 Jun 2010 22:49

Comment

Http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm heres proof of god

iluvgod

07 Apr 2010 01:08

1 Comment

http://www.riddledchain.org/contracreation.htm
Here is an article that nulls many of the points your linked article makes.

rewndude1

04 May 2012 06:38

Comment

It is wrong
and for you people that want to believe that you came from a monkey you're on your own you freak

yorly101

05 Mar 2010 01:40

2 Comments

how christlike :)

dagav

05 May 2011 15:52

Comment

The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible and I am so for the Bible.

Aquos

18 Dec 2009 01:03

2 Comments

You should know that the bible is written by humans as well.

Douglas

26 Feb 2010 09:31

Comment

It is about 40,000,000,000 to one that it is right!

Tomcat

28 Oct 2009 15:54

2 Comments

1 to 1 or one to one. See how much better it looks when you write them both out or just use the numbers on both? You should avoid switching in the middle of a sentence. Oh and your statistical analysis is a little light in facts and data and such. You seem to be more comfortable with fantasy. Why is that pussycat?

finsch

29 Oct 2009 13:56

Comment

I don't believe that monkies can evolve to humans, and that dinosaurs can evolve to birds. It's been many, many years since then, perhaps even millions years, and we humans still share the same physical attribute.

And yes, if you truly believe that we evolved from monkies, thanks for locking them up in cages at the zoo.
However, all things are necessary to know, is what I believe. It's worth knowing what evolution is about.

joylove101

02 Oct 2009 02:47

2 Comments

We didn't have the same attributes! Early humans were stouter and more chimp like as proven by fossils which were found underground.

Antares

27 Apr 2011 08:41

Comment

The theory of evolution is the persistent progressional change of all life forms in which small variances from one generation to the next unconsciously conspire to evolve itself to better suit the conditions presented to the species.
Thus, all species are in a transitional state that never rests into perpetuity. That being said it should be odd that ANY fossils of the same species would be alike in manner within the vast fossil record considering how infrequent a perspective fossil would find itself the beneficiary of the unlikely matter of events that takes a such snapshot in time. But the contrary is true in as much that all species within the fossil record appear suddenly without previous representation and just as suddenly disappear void of any transitional manifestations or advantageous improvements that evolution relies upon.
Scientists can only point to two representative fossils and draw an unscientific unproven conclusion that one evolved into the other. In fact there are innumerable examples of this. But, the one thing that doesn't exist in all of creation and the vast fossil record *IS THE FOSSIL IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO*!!!! Likenesses or similarities between species doesnt suggest evolution but instead suggests a common creator using likewise body structures and bio systems. Commonalities in design are the product of a common designer. Thus, when one finds two similar examples of an animal it is meaningless. The only thing that gives evolution credible legs to stand on is a succession of fossils that demonstrate an evolutionary timeline. NOTHING like this exists in the least in the fossil record. Of all of the millions of species not one single example can be shown of multiple succeding fossils.
Scientist stick to the world of unfamiliar and vague species to hang their hat on in the evolution lie. Why? Because its easier to make a sales pitch using scientific vernacular and long extinct reptiles and shellfish than it is to work in the realm of the understandable and familiar. In short, there are no "almost" elephants. No "almost giraffes". For evolution to be true one should find innumerable giraffes of varying stages of evolution. It should be rare that two are the same. Yet all are the same. There are no exceptions. Period. Again, the scientists ply their trade utilizing the vague and plausible and unfamiliar species to hoodwink everyone.
The only thing that can be gleaned from the fossil record are implied or coincidental similarities that fall radically short of a hundred million year progression of successively improved archetypes within the same species line. If evolution were valid the entire fossil record would consist of almost entirely different and varied subsequent species over the eons. Exactly the opposite is true, and that is the entire fossil record is static and unvaried. The fact is, you can go out and dig up some saber tooth tiger bones and they will be exactly like all those dug up before.

maxtor

01 Oct 2009 20:31

1 Comment

Hi Max. Good post and interesting points raised. I am very confident someone with a far more detailed understanding of the subject will come back at you and I for one will enjoy reading it. You pose some far better questions than usually come from the anti-evolutionists.

One quick thought pops into my mind - isn't the saber toothed tiger an "almost tiger"? If not quite what do you mean by "almost elephant"? One with no trunk or 3 legs?

I take it you are a creationist (or similar). If so how do the dinosaurs fit into the whole process. Please explain the timeline? Did a creator have several spells of creating the animals of the planet over its 4 billion year history.

Are you religious, just out of interest.

StBalders

01 Oct 2009 20:47

Comment

I agree god created everything and everybody

shipp

01 Apr 2009 19:12

Add a Comment

You know what i don't think it makes sense either. I know the neanderthals were our ancestors, and somehow they evolved and so.......became smarter and less stronger than they were. It doesn't make sense. It's like a micro species came out of water, had butt sex with a bug, and that thing had butt sex with a monkey, and that had even more butt sex with a monkey and that became a neanderthal and that neanderthal somehow became a human being like us....i dunno

willis94

19 Mar 2009 02:55

Add a Comment

Science did it for the lulz

Epicfailgy

01 Dec 2008 17:25

Add a Comment

Amen breteren

Feremeir1

25 Nov 2008 03:58

Add a Comment

I believe that humans can mentally evolve, but not physically. Like for instance, half a dozen words used in common speech today were swear words back in the '60's. Also new ideas and new thoughts are springing up every day. That's why I think humans are getting smarter, not physically changing.

heracross1

25 Nov 2008 03:52

1 Comment

so why are there different races of humans??

openurmind

11 Jan 2009 22:02

Comment

Yes.

Because, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light."
(Genesis 1:1)

sylverwyld

07 Nov 2008 03:49

4 Comments

What in the heck does that have to do with evolution. You people are literally out of your minds.

So how about that beginning? (this is a different subject - sorry evolutionsists) Without form and void. let's think for once in our lives shall we?

How long was this without form and void period. One split second at the beginning?999 trillion years?
next:
Darkness upon the face of the deep where the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. This is before Light and was created and seperated from darkness which is before the creation of the lights in the sky which is before the creation of the two lights.
How long was this. What was happening through this period?
Then God created the light. He seperated it from the darkness which is described above. Again, this is before anything about the Sun and Moon and our planet. How long was this? What happened during this time?

Best of all..

What on God's green Earth does it have to do with evolution? Cosmology maybe.

Sorry for being so snippy about it. : )

justsumguy

07 Nov 2008 04:38

Comment

What in the heck does that have to do with evolution. You people are literally out of your minds.

So how about that beginning? (this is a different subject - sorry evolutionsists) Without form and void. let's think for once in our lives shall we?

How long was this without form and void period. One split second at the beginning?999 trillion years? 
next:
Darkness upon the face of the deep where the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. This is before Light and was created and seperated from darkness which is before the creation of the lights in the sky which is before the creation of the two lights.
How long was this. What was happening through this period?
Then God created the light. He seperated it from the darkness which is described above. Again, this is before anything about the Sun and Moon and our planet. How long was this? What happened during this time?

Best of all..

What on God's green Earth does it have to do with evolution? Cosmology maybe.

Sorry for being so snippy about it. : )

Comment

What in the heck does that have to do with evolution. You people are literally out of your minds.

So how about that beginning? (this is a different subject - sorry evolutionsists) Without form and void. let's think for once in our lives shall we?

Best of all..

What on God's green Earth does it have to do with evolution? Cosmology maybe.

Sorry for being so snippy about it. : )

Comment

God created the earth in six days according to Genesis.

Good1212

02 Nov 2008 16:38

8 Comments

Wow, it's scary that someone actually believes this.

Andromeda

05 Nov 2008 17:42

Comment

No, i don't believe in evolution. Evolution dis-credits the intelligent Creator in favor of blind chance.

webman1200

11 Oct 2008 18:44

6 Comments

It favours scientific evidence instead of blind faith don't you mean?

ScottyRAWR

12 Oct 2008 19:11

Comment

It is proven that it was just a random idea that Darwin had when he was in a boat at an island. He was just writing his thoughts in his journal. I just wonder how it became such a big thing as it is now? It all sounds stupid to me

ckell663

23 Sep 2008 09:39

6 Comments

Evolution was not an idea, but a well thought out theory. The only reason it sounds stupid to you is because you don't understand it. Get some education.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html

Andromeda

25 Sep 2008 17:06

Comment

Look I will put this as simply as I can. God created this World period. Evolution is a fairy tale. Now if you want to believe in evolution that's fine with me, but remember the bible says" it is appointed onto man once to die and then the judgement" so if you want to believe in evolution you better be prepared to tell God he is wrong someday. I truly feel sorry for evolutionist.

doran

15 Sep 2008 05:19

9 Comments

I don't think you can put it more simply then that, good job. The problem with saying god created this world is that you have no proof that any god created anything, or that a god even exists in the first place. Now this is the part that I had a good laugh at, "Evolution is a fairy tale." I've heard this several times and it makes me laugh every time. Evolution is a fairy tail and you believe a man wearing a robe and sandals created the world, you keep thinking that. The bible is a book of mythology that has some good fiction stories and that’s it. Some people use it as a self-help book to run their lives, but some of us know how to run our lives very well without it. This whole debate has nothing to do with the existence of god, but whether or not species are the way they are today as a result of evolution. Don't feel sorry for me, I feel sorry for you. Creationists are people who won't come out of the dark-ages. Creationists are walking around in circles in a room and they won't leave that room because all the doors say "EVOLUTION HAS HAPPENED" on them. Before you deny evolution out right, you should know what you're talking about, here's some websites so you can get educated.

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Andromeda

18 Sep 2008 01:39

Comment

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Comment

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Comment

I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution. Believing that we came from a rock just seems crazy to me.

created

15 Sep 2008 02:20

3 Comments

lol...I liked that. There's nothing wrong with evolution. Judging by what is said on this site, there are humans who insist they have no link to a creator.

It's possible they evolved and those who have the link were created.

I know...I know...that's sick. But it's good scientific debate.

justsumguy

15 Sep 2008 02:35

Comment

The chances that one cell evolved into another cell is HIGHLY unlikely. As one scientist puts it: "The probability that one cell evolves into another has the same probability of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and forming a 747 from scrap metal."

Also, most scientists agree that the Earth was formed 4.7 billion years ago. The time it would take for a trilobite (one of the most simplests forms of life) to evolve into a Human Being would take trillions of years. Not 4.7 billion.

bluestater

08 Sep 2008 00:02

4 Comments

Your not seriously suggesting that trilobites evolved into humans are you.

Andromeda

10 Sep 2008 14:54

Comment

Evolution, and creation, like archaeology, and crime scene investigation are deductive sciences. They posit a theory, and then search for the proofs. The problem arrives when they find answers that don't tell them what they want to hear. Both sides of this question are guilty of wrongly interpreting evidence, or of rejecting a priori, evidence that is applicable to the question, because it doesn't work within the limits of their theory.
In deductive sciences, the way to find which theory is the most plausible, or probable (because the only way to be 100% sure is to be able to return back in time to when it actually happened and to observe it.), is to compile the evidence for both sides, and see which side applies properly the most amount of evidence, from all of the domains of science and philosophy.
One problem that comes into the picture is that when we debate this problem, our presuppositions often take control, and we refuse to listen to the arguments of the other side.
I found it interesting to recently find out that in North America, there is a very small community of Astrophysicists (Carl Sagan was a part of this community), and the majority of the community believe that God created the universe (evidently Carl Sagan was not part of this majority). This fact is interesting because these scientists deal with the stars, and especially with what evidence our universe gives us of it's beginning. Astrophysicists are unanimous that the universe began with a "bang". Philosophers will tell us that every thing that has a beginning must have a creator. Aristotle speaks of the unmoved mover. (Someone might ask the rather unphilosophical question, "well if everything that exists needs a cause, who caused God?" I will answer right now, that neither I, nor the philosopher who first realised this ever said that "everything that exists needs a cause", but everything that has a beginning, in other words, everything that is finite. God, by definition is infinite, which means that he had no beginning. But, that's another debate.) Therefore, philosophically speaking, if the universe had a beginning, it therefore had a cause. If you want to know more, read aristotle on the different types of causes.
Time is short, so, I'll just finish with a simple observation. If evolution is true, then the universe is eternal. However, science has shown us that the universe cannot be eternal (2nd law of thermodynamics). Scientests have tried to get around this fact by positing a theory where the universe is in constant fluctuation. An interesting theory, but inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When all the usable energy is used up, we will not have energy for another "bounce." Whatever the case, I must go, these are some of the reasons why I think that evolution is wrong. However, I haven't read all the books yet, I'm currently working through Richard Dawkins, "the blind watchmaker," which is so far, quite interesting. Until next time.

Romains1

07 Sep 2008 22:14

5 Comments

I agree with everything you said except for one point. The universe and the big bang theory have nothing to do with evolution; they are two completely different sciences. One is astronomy/cosmology the other is biology. Let me ask one question. Have you ever seen any convincing evidence to back up evolution? I haven't read any of Dawkins work yet but I plan too. Right now I'm working on "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea," by Carl Zimmer, and I'm also reading, "Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe," by Simon Singh. Both are really good, and would recommend them to anyone who is interested.

Andromeda

07 Sep 2008 23:12

Comment

Have I ever seen any convincing evidence to back up evolution? I'll sidestep the question for a quick comment, the most interesting evolutionist that I have ever read is Stephen Jay Gould. I recently watched Richard Dawkins documentary called, "The root of all Evil". I would have to say that when I finished watching it, the only thing I could think was that he should have stuck with Biology. I have not been impressed with Dawkins, because he lets his hate for religion blind his objectivity. I have found that Stephen Jay Gould is much more objective and interesting. That being said, I will return to the original question.
 Personally I believe that if I'm going to make an educated choice, I have to go not just with the facts, but with the theory that most accurately and honestly applies the largest quantity of facts from the most disciplines. Doing this forms a worldview.  In the course of my studies, I have found that the worldview that most consistently applies the most amount of facts from the most disciplines is the christian theistic worldview. Why? Because it combines strong philosophical arguments, with scientific, archaeological, psychological, sociological, and historical facts. I have found that quite often evolutionists claim to have found the proper solution, but fail to account for the strong philosophical arguments for the existence of God such as can be seen in Aquinas, Geisler, Plantinga, etc., They fail to account for the fact that many Astrophysicists believe that God created the universe. (As for the big bang theory, you are right, it has nothing to do with evolution in the sense that it entails a prior cause, which is not natural - see aristotles causes - therefore, if the "big bang" then God - this is an unsophisticated way of putting the argument- If God, no evolution. Evolution assumes a natural universe without supernatural intervention. Evolution assumes that the universe "came to be as it is withouth "divine intervention". I am of course refering to Macroevolution. Microevolution is undeniable. So, evolution naturally (pun intended) is atheistic. This is one claim that Richard Dawkins has already claimed.)
 Evolutionists fail to account for the fact that if evolution is true, then there is actually no purpose for life in itself, no reason to study history, no reason to act morally. If evolution is true then it is every man for himself, not necessarily for his family, or race, or nationality, because all that really matters is one's proper survival.
 Numerous philosophers have already realized this, such as Bertrand Russell, and Nietzche.  
  To answer your question, as of yet, I have seen many interesting arguments for evolution, but none that have not already been answered by various philosophers. It must be remembered that the theory of evolution and the theory of creation are primarily philosophical questions into which we plug the facts that we find around us.
 I have recently come across Alvin Plantinga, I believe that I mention in another debate that I am currently reading a book of his. He developed a naturalistic argument from evolution that absolutely destroys the theory of evolution. I believe that you can find it in his book "Warrant and Proper Function." Some other books that I have on this subject of evolution/creation, that have been helpful, are "The Meaning of Evolution" by G.G.Simpson; "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History" by Stephen Jay Gould; "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson; "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe; and "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow. I have recently ordered, and it is still on the way, "Natural Limits to Biological Change"  by Lester, Lane P. & Bohlin, Raymond G. I don't know if it's good or not, but I'll find out. The strange thing is that many people blindly accept one theory or another, without, and I should at discounting a priori, the writings and ideas of the other theory. This is at best naive, and at worst poor scholarship. 
Hope this helps. I think I answered your question, and I have to say, your comment was much more respectful than the majority of conversations that I've read on this forum.
By the way, thanks for the two books you listed, I'll check them out.

Comment

I've read some of Stephen Gould's work, but not much. Unfortunately, I can't get Richard Dawkins documentary here, its only airing in the UK I think, at least that’s what I read on his website. I did get the chance to listen to Stephen Hawking do a speech on the importance of space exploration on NASA TV live, it was interesting. I don't know much about Dawkins, all I know is I've heard he's a genius when it comes to evolutionary biology. Even if evolution is true there is a purpose in life, and that is to survive, to reproduce. Just like every other organism on earth humans are driven toward that, and in case you haven't noticed humans are good at bringing in the next generation. Even if you’re an atheist and an evolutionist doesn't mean you have to believe in this survival of the fittest mentality. I might be an atheist and an evolutionist, but I'm also human and I have sympathy for the weak and less fortunate. I guess I'm the exception rather than the rule, not all atheists are equal in that aspect. Thank you for the book recommendations.

Comment

for Dawkins documentary go to the following address, you can download parts 1 & 2. I enjoyed watching it, but he makes many claims that are simply false, and that are no longer even discutable. 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4321574955310561251
I don't have time now to comment further on my statement about atheists, morals, and the purpose of life, I'll comment on that later. Check out the film. If the link doesn't work, just go to google videos, and search for "Richard Dawkins, the god delusion." As much as I find that Dawkins makes many fallacious statements in the movie, I still think that it is worth the time to check it out. I have two other books by Stephen Gould, but they are in french, and I'm not sure what their titles are in english. he is honestly the most interesting evolutionist that I've ever heard of. A quick comment on atheist writers, I find it interesting that in the last 3 or 4 years there has been an increased popular attack on religion by atheist writers (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens), but at the same time, one of the most influential atheist philosophers, Antony Flew has changed his philosophical position to a form of deism. Antony Flew is one author, that I would really like to read, but I just haven't had the time to search for his books.
Gotta go.

Comment

I would say the best way to find out if something is true would be to generate hypotheses based on your observations and then come up with ways of empirically and repeatably testing those hypotheses. This will in turn generate applications which can then be used, medicine for example. If your methods turn out to be valid and your theory stands up to scrutiny from other people who are trained in your field (in other words your work is peer reviewed) then that is good confirmation that indeed, your theory is correct. The problem with direct observation is that there are things which have not been observed, yet we still have excellent evidence to support, i.e. black holes, atoms, and evolution. People have tried to prove Darwin's theory wrong countless times, over and over again, and it has stood up to scrutiny, and then was even confirmed further with the discovery of DNA. It still holds up today. Now going to your point Romains1 about the Christian Theistic World view, as interesting as the fields of philosophy, sociology and archaeology go, Evolution has nothing to say on the subjects. There are plenty of religious people who accept Evolution because the evidence is there, they hold onto their religious beliefs as a matter of faith. I personally cannot believe this argument is still going on!

Evolution is a religion. Evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.
The religion of evolution has its own doctrines, traditions, lifestyle, and culture. Social Darwinism is the logical extension of the theory of evolution, which manifests itself in many different philosophies and religions. Examples of these are:
* The "do your own thing" philosophy.
* The "survival of the fittest, and I am the fittest" mentality.
* The "rugged individual" type of capitalism (like Ayn Rand).
* New Age movement.
* Marxism.
* Socialism.
* Racism.
* Nazism.
Hitler worshiped and was worshiped

v00v

05 Sep 2008 03:24

10 Comments

You don't know much about evolution, science or even what the definition of religion is do you. For something to be religious it has to do with belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body. As far as I know evolution has nothing to do with any of these things. "Ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms," I'm not going to respond to that. If you want to ask an intelligent question about evolution you're more than welcome to. Before you deny something are make ludicrous comments about it you should always understand it first. I am glad you didn't say we came from apes.

Andromeda

07 Sep 2008 21:39

Comment

I just want you to understand what a religion is, and that evolution is not a religion. Religion is based on ancient text and faith, not experimentation and research. I'm an atheist and an evolutionist but my traditions, lifestyle, and culture are pretty much the same as most other Americans, I have a family whom I love, I have a job, I like sports, I enjoy hiking. I also like eating as much Italian food as possible, but that’s beside the point. I have friends who are African American and I treat them the same way I treat my other friends. I help people who need help, I don't believe in abortion, and when it comes to the human species I don't believe in the survival of the fittest. I don't have that mentality because I was raised to have sympathy for the weak, and those that are less fortunate. To assume that I have that state of mind just because I'm an atheist and an evolutionist is quite frankly an insult. Maybe you have met up with the wrong atheist in your life, not all atheists are equal in that aspect. I don't know why your bringing Hitler into the debate, Hitler professed a belief in Jesus Christ. When you say doctrines do you mean scientific papers and research? I'll ask a question that goes back to what this whole debate is about. Have you ever seen irrefutable evidence that evolution has taken place?

Comment

Why are you asking me a question? I asked a question first. You still don't understand what the difference between religion and science is. You're being unreasonable, and I usually don't talk to or debate someone when their being unreasonable. Science does involve observation, studying fossils, is that not observation. Please don't say, "Well them fossils don't mean nothing." I can blow you out of the water with fossil evidence. Was you present whenever John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln in the back of the head. How do we know that any part of history is true or not without being there to witness it ourselves? We study it and find as much evidence and as many clues as possible to find out the truth. Studying what happened yesterday is a little easier than trying to piece together what happened 4.5 billion years ago. What is your irrefutable evidence to support evolution? I'm not going to answer that question. You want the evidence for evolution you're going to have research to find it yourself just like I've done. I'm tired of educating people, when it goes in one ear and out the other, or over their head.

Comment

The whole purpose of the study of origins is the search for God or the denial of Him, depending on your point of view. Both are religious in nature, since neither can be verified by scientific experimentation. But, creation is more scientific, since it doesn't violate any known scientific laws. In contrast, evolution requires much more "faith" since it bucks up against the laws of thermodynamics and probability. The molecular machines that manufacture proteins in fractions of a second can be contrasted with man's attempt to duplicate it. To synthesize proteins, it requires a team of brilliant scientists, a large quantity of expensive chemical reagents, hundreds of steps, automated equipment and months of planning.

Predictions based upon the theory of evolution are not a reflection of reality. For example, fossils and strata are found in the wrong order, DNA content of certain animals does not follow the evolutionary pattern, and interdependence between organisms defies evolutionary explanation.

If the theory of evolution were true, it would be difficult to classify organisms, since there would be so many intermediate forms. Instead, all animals can be classified into distinct "kinds", separated genetically by barriers in breeding.

Comment

To find out if evolution is true or not read the first verse of the bible. Gen 1:1

Krahner

18 Aug 2008 04:50

3 Comments

FROM THE BIBLE'S POINT OF VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lawyer

18 Aug 2008 06:08

Comment

Evolution is right because how did we get here fall from the sky no we had to come from somewhere whether it is bacteria or a fish adapted to an enviroment so much that we are here we didnt fall from the sky no matter what argument you put up there is a counter argument

ronix10

23 Feb 2013 22:08

Add a Comment

There is plenty of strong evidence that supports evolution. Wether it is undeniable is another story. There is no evidence what so ever for the alternative. So it isn't wrong.We just dont know its 100% right. Although logically, it is.

df0512

26 Dec 2012 13:19

Add a Comment

Evolution is just better

Lewz

19 Nov 2012 05:33

Add a Comment

The fact that you were even born, is evidence of evolution. Are you superior to you're parents in some stuff? Are you a bit taller, or something alike? Have you got any differ artibutes? If yes, congratulation, you have just proven evolution. If not, to bad, but you have still found reliable proof. Think about it... If there was no evolution, , you would be in no way different from your parents. Like a clone. You'd be as short and have the same lack of intelligence as the ancients. Genetic mutations are evidence, as they indicate c o n v e r s i o n.

prospekt

08 Nov 2012 14:42

Add a Comment

It is backed up by many facts and is know it's self a fact. Just give up creationist you have lost. All you can do know is nag.

Kryten4000

22 Sep 2012 06:16

1 Comment

What facts ?

BiblicanB

29 Sep 2012 18:39

Comment

I do not believe that we came from monkeys, simply because there are still monkeys, but everyone and everything evolves in some way or another. You simply cannot argue with scientific evidence/fact. Just seems strange that you prefer opinion over fact.

mscoxie

22 Aug 2012 23:31

Add a Comment

Evolution is an important part in the world as we know it. If there was no evolution there would be know humans

huge_mama

16 Aug 2012 04:19

Add a Comment

So what we have done since we were monkeys is wrong? Nope!

jdawg92

10 Jul 2012 09:22

Add a Comment

Sorry, but the scientific evidence is overwhelming. But you're perfectly free to believe in talking snakes and forbidden fruit, if you chose.

pollywog

12 Jun 2012 19:21

Add a Comment

Evolution is reality and does exist. Whether or not some sort of God intended for evolution to exist is to be left to another debate. I will state, however, that I have proof of evolution and other sciences, but not of God. While it is true that I cannot disprove him, neither can a christian prove him. I can't disprove God any more than a christian can disprove that one of the personalities taken on by a person suffering from Dissociative identity disorder, which has decided to kill 42 innocent people with a wooden cooking spoon while naked is actually god acting through him.

rewndude1

02 May 2012 08:48

Add a Comment

Evolution is not wrong actually, it is very simple if you take the time to study it and not "research" it on your creationist forums. Evolution is this, before there was a society that cared about the inhabitants, there were loose hierarchical societies where the inhabitants with the lesser capabilities to survive in that environment would die off, so the ones who had the capabilities that were "superiour" in that environment lived on, and when they mated with other inhabitants that survived because they had "superiour" traits as well, the offspring of these two will have the traits of the parents and since environment varies, it is never constant to which traits are "superiour". But now that we have modern civilization we can care for everyone for the most part and that is a good thing, I detest social Darwinism.

bridfu5150

28 Apr 2012 10:49

Add a Comment

Can you imagine looking at a monkey and saying: "Hey, that's my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa"

penguinboy

03 Apr 2012 16:56

Add a Comment

Yea well there isnt exactly loads of evidence that god is real, infact there is nothing at all exept from the bible which anyone could have made up, There is evidence of evolution, strong evidence.

floreos

16 Mar 2012 22:07

Add a Comment

Evolution is a very strong theory that is widely supported because scientists have, in fact, given VERY STRONG evidence for it. Take a couple science and anthropology classes and get back to me when you're educated.

ria13

19 Feb 2012 23:18

Add a Comment

If no scientist has ever produced strong evidence to support Evolution then why do you go to a doctor when you are sick and not to a faith healer? Because medicine is a scientific field and faith healing is a placebo at best. And the whole of biology is based on Evolutionary theory by the way.

punkphuck

26 Jan 2012 18:22

Add a Comment

Darwin alone gave plenty of evidence and convinced a large portion of the world, who were previously creationists, that evolution is true. The only ones left have zero understanding of what evolution is and how it works, some of them willfully ignorant, and as a result they make up weak straw-man arguments.

Vel

07 Jan 2012 00:25

Add a Comment

Evolution is so true just the fact that it is a theory doesn't change my idea. Gravity is a theory that cannot be proved , so is pythagorean theorem, so is the triangle angle sum theory, they work in every case but cannot be proved because there are infinite combinations

mcnejon0

21 Nov 2011 21:31

Add a Comment

There is more evidence of evolution than God existing. It doesn't mean evolution is true.

kalv

14 Nov 2011 23:46

Add a Comment

How would U all know Its a Theory get what it means Theory isnt proven yet or proven wrong

rhoking

18 Oct 2011 06:42

Add a Comment

I have to say it does exist, because right now we do not have any other rational explanation.

IWillTrump

22 Sep 2011 23:50

4 Comments

There's a reason why we have creationists...

Antares

07 Nov 2011 04:30

Comment

Sorry for the people who believe in religion, but there are examples of evolution such as the birds in galapagos islands.

goodjay

26 Jul 2011 06:23

Add a Comment

Evolution is a fact of this life.

justsumguy

19 Jul 2011 17:03

19 Comments

"Evolution is a fact of this life."
I agree. Too bad macro-evolution isn't.

Stranger

19 Jul 2011 17:26

Comment

Evolution is not wrong and it was proved by Charles Darwin, founder of the evolution theory.

erickwon35

06 Jul 2011 01:25

3 Comments

No, a theory isn't a proof.

Antares

06 Jul 2011 01:42

Comment

35% for? Are you kidding me? When will people get an education?!?

Occultdude

15 Jun 2011 00:38

2 Comments

One dunce's education is an independent thinker's indoctrination.

Stranger

19 Jul 2011 17:17

Comment

Lol evolution is proven to be right. And yes there like .4 or something between each species. Thats because when they evolve the old strand of dna breaks and over time dissaperers.

jaiden190

03 Jun 2011 07:53

1 Comment

So where are all those "transitional" fossils. You know, the ones that died off, the half species?

Mr_Obvious

19 Jul 2011 14:48

Comment

Actually they have proved the evolution between horses timeline so you were wrong about that, and anyway they are imcompleted proof of evolution aswell in other organisms and in humans

Chaaaz

19 May 2011 06:25

1 Comment

A horse is still a horse, a dog is still a dog, it doesn't matter if it's a bull mastiff or a chihuahua, it's still canine.

Mr_Obvious

19 Jul 2011 14:50

Comment

It holds more proof than any religion

redmaster

28 Mar 2011 09:56

1 Comment

It has no proof. It would be a fact if it did. Macro-evolution, I mean.

Stranger

05 May 2011 16:28

Comment

Teachers, we really need to do a better job educating the public. Look we have a D on this test question only 65% have chosen the right answer.

Volans

28 Mar 2011 07:53

2 Comments

Step it up! The indoctrination is not strong enough! MORE DRILLS! REPEAT THE LIE UNTIL THEY BELIEVE IT!

Stranger

05 May 2011 16:26

Comment

I dunno, all the fossils and tools seem to be evidence for me. Besides, if you wanna get technical there is no evidence to support the creationism theory, it is based soley on belief.

hasdass

05 Mar 2011 08:15

1 Comment

The same evidence is used by both sides. It's just INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY.

Stranger

05 May 2011 16:27

Comment

Evolution is not wrong and I can prove it. I asked everyone to post their real pictures. Look at Verum he looks like he is still a monkey.

artemis

05 Feb 2011 10:22

1 Comment

ha ha ha good one, Artemis :-D

debategal

05 Feb 2011 11:17

Comment

Evolution is not a belief. Religion is. Evolution is science. All you extremely religious people just don't want to believe it because it contradicts the bible that was written how many years ago? The bible is not science. Its just an explanation for everything that people don't know before all this real science existed. I'm not trying to insult the bible or anything, but I'm just saying religion shouldn't stop you from accepting the truth.

kaley222

05 Feb 2011 10:20

8 Comments

evolution is for monkey-boys

debategal

05 Feb 2011 11:59

Comment

Evolution in every way, shape, and form has been qualitatively and quantitatively proven by scientists worldwide.

Zolotros

04 Feb 2011 15:50

1 Comment

ssssh there are religious folk on this site

damselfly

19 Jul 2011 15:11

Comment

You're a testicle in my eyes sunshine!

proby96

08 Jan 2011 02:08

Add a Comment

What a broad statement. I assume you're home-schooled by a parent who didn't complete college and doesn't believe in algebra, either.

Another broad, unfounded statement.

Lynn

07 Jan 2011 13:06

7 Comments

I wasn't home-schooled. I was subjected to indoctrination attempts by the establishment in public schools. They tried to get me to believe that all species have a common ancestor, yet the absurd notion is unfalsifiable. And all of you are blind, willingly or unwittingly, of the fact that that makes the "theory" of "evolution" UNSCIENTIFIC.

Stranger

05 May 2011 16:24

Comment

Actually scientists do have a whole lot of proof and evidence that makes it undeniable that evolution and the process of natural selection occured so I'm not sure where you get your facts from that no scientist has any proof. I would also like to see some cold, hard evidence that God exists instead of people just justifying their claims by having a bash at the theory of evolution.

There may be some gaps in our knowledge about it but that doesn't mean we have to use the same old method of using God to just fill the gaps in and make excuses.

Octopus212

07 Jan 2011 12:31

Add a Comment

136 More Responses

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

60 minutes ago

Abortion is the choice of a woman since it is her body. If she has a 99% risk of dying while giving birth then she should... read more...

2 hours ago

Home work is necessary to a point. I understand some teachers go above our limits which is not acceptable considering we... read more...

2 hours ago

I am 13 and I say no. I am not saying it since I have not started dating yet. But based on what I have experienced in my... read more...

11 hours ago

Yes because if you do one of the things the world will be bad read more...

22 hours ago

Don't do it because your friends do.. Your probably insecure or unstable. Wait till you are ready to take it seriously read more...

Related Debates

	To Not Belive In Evolution Is To Not Belive In Natural Selection
	Interstellar Travel Will Be Possible By The Year 2150.
	God Can't Be Omnipotent
	Scientology's ZEN Is Quite A Major New Revelation In The "GOD" PHENOMENON
	I'm Changing Phylum From Homo Sapien To Hetero Erectus Giganticus
	The Big Bangs Rule Out Atheism
	Evolution Is True And Creation Is False.
	The First Step In Understanding The Universe Is Not Through Physics But Through Neuroscience.
	Not Teaching Children The Flaws Of Evolution Is An Embarrassment To Science
	The New Advancement About To Be Announced In 3D Nocular Vision Screens Will Make All TV, Monitors, And...

New Debates

	Finals And State Tests Put Too Much Pressure On Kids.
	Save The World!
	Racism Against Australian Aboriginals Should Stop
	Different School Uniform!
	What Type Is Sylveon (pokemon) Going To Be?
	Pokemon Is For Kids
	Are You Feeling Happy Right Now?
	Europe Should Have An European FBI
	Italy Is A Cooler Place Than Spain
	It Is Better To Be Formally Unequal And Informally Equal Than To Be Formally Equal And Informally Unequal...