Evolution is oppossed to Love

  • Thread starter Thread starter TruthisBeauty7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
geometer said:
Evolution has never been physically observed. A scientific theory must be based on the observation of facts.

Evolution is based purely on imagination. Whatever one chooses to imagine from the slogan “survival of the fittest”.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that, but it’s not true.
 
geometer said:
That is a cult website. If evolution had been observed the mechanism of evolution would quickly be identified, and then there would be evolution technologies. It hasn’t happened yet…
Click to expand...
Isn’t it funny how things connect. We were talking about a cult on another thread, and I said that to claim something is a cult, you first have to give an accepted definition of cult (which is not “Any group of people I think are bad.”) and then you have to prove that the group you identify is, in fact, a cult.

Anxiously awaiting your reply.
 
geometer said:
They can call anything they like, evolution, but there has been no mechanism identified as evolution that I know of. It would seem to me that anyone who discovered the biochemical basis for actual evolutionary events would win the Nobel Prize.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. The mechanism by which populations evolve is not biochemical. You’re fighting a ghost here geometer. The mechanisms by which populations evolve are all natural consequences of Darwin’s observations, namely that:
  1. There’s great phenotypic variation within a population.
  2. Natural resources are finite.
  3. Populations grow beyond the means of their environments.
  4. Individuals tend to reproduce more than which their habitat can support.
From these four observations the obvious conclusions are that:

~ There’s a great deal of competition among individuals for the physical resources necessary for survival and reproduction.

~ Those individuals with physical traits that optimize one’s ability to survive and reproduce provide more “heritable information” to the subsequent generation.

The only point at which biochemistry enters all this is in the last conclusion I listed, and we already know the biochemical basis of this “heritable information”, and indeed someone has won a Nobel Prize for its discovery:

DNA
And you mean support for the hypothesis of evolution, because it is as yet unobserved, it is still an occult speculation…
Click to expand...
More nonsense. You outright dismiss any information that contradicts your preconceived notions of physical diversity amongst life. For someone who claims to know a thing or two about physics, biology, and chemistry, you of all people should know this is not the paradigm upon which science operates.
 
geometer said:
How is your view point a scientific one, and shouldn’t it be a scientific viewpoint, if you are going support a theory as scientific?

I have studied chemistry, physics, biology, and various other things in my education. In my best estimate evolution is simply Darwins Idea, just as it says on that page at Berkley.

A scientific theory is much more than simply an idea.
Click to expand...
All things are connected. Again, your post is so much like those on the other thread.

You have been unable, and apparently unwilling to even try to prove your debate points with facts, so you appeal to your “expertise” on the subject.

It’s funny that you make that claim for yourself (that because you took science classes, your opinion on the subject is correct), and then claim that all of the scientists who have far more worthy (and verifiable) credentials than you, an anonymous debater on the net, are dead wrong.

Certainly you see how silly that is.
 
geometer said:
Natural selection is not a biochemical mechanism, it is not science, it is philosophical rhetoric…
Click to expand...
Tell that to a person dying of a multi-drug resistant infection. Natural selection is not philosophical rhetoric for them.
 
Orogeny said:
Drinkin is from the debil just like evalushun is. If evalushun is true, we must for the sake of Congruency accept its moral Ramifications and that is probably that we will be drinkin. And drinkin is from the debil.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
:pshaw:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top