Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Atreju said:
Isn’t it just amazing how every single one of the people against evolution in this thread could not accurately describe what the theory says if their life depended on it?
Click to expand...
Yep, the theory of evolution is so complex that they teach it to kids in junior high.
 
Its not that complex, which is why it’s so weird to have people on here saying evolution means horses should never die and that bacteria should be growing human arms.

Or at least I should say the basics aren’t that complex. Obviously like all sciences it gets complicated and detailed in the specifics.
 
Last edited:
“Beyond_Reason said:
This is what’s called “tipping your hand”
Click to expand...
This is what’s called, “Yet another claim you can’t substantiate.” It seems that the only person who believes extant organisms have been witnessed becoming “new and different forms” is you.
 
Last edited:
I showed you specific studies showing organisms changing in shape, size, function, and ability, but because the study didn’t use the word “form”, (a bizarre criteria you invented to weasel out of actual discussion), you weaseled away. But you have tipped your hand with the post I referred to, you’re either a troll or frankly lacking in capacity to have a conversation.
 
Atreju said:
More benefit than knowing the earth goes around the sun. For a lot of people, sure, you probably will never actually use it in your life, but if you work in a lot of the sciences it’s necessary
Click to expand...
Please provide one example of a practical use in applied science for the “information” that all life on earth evolved a common ancestor.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Yes. It helps you to understand the means by which God created life on earth.
Click to expand...
A belief system is not a “real world benefit”. Contrary to evo-indoctrination, the belief that all life on earth evolved from a microbe provides nothing in the way of a practical use in applied science.
 
Last edited:
Atreju said:
I showed you specific studies showing organisms changing in shape, size, function, and ability, but because the study didn’t use the word “form”, (a bizarre criteria you invented to weasel out of actual discussion), you weaseled away. But you have tipped your hand with the post I referred to, you’re either a troll or frankly lacking in capacity to have a conversation.
Click to expand...
In other words, there is not a single scientific article or paper which states that any extant orgainisms have been witnessed becoming a “new and different forms”.

Btw, I greatly admire your style of argument, especialy how it’s completely devoid of ad hominem comments.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
In other words, there is not a single scientific article or paper which states that any extant orgainisms have been witnessed becoming a “new and different forms”.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant, as Atreju pointed out. There is scientific evidence of the emergence of new species, which is what evolution predicts. For example, de Vries (1905) shows scientific evidence of the evolution of the new species Oenothera lamarckiana.

You are over 100 years behind science I’m afraid. You have a lot of catching up to do.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
You really know how to twist things.
Click to expand...
There has been more than several attempts on your side to make the evolution of species seem absurd. But with the existence of changeable DNA and environmental pressures, there really isn’t anything in principle absurd about it. And given enough time it is reasonable to think that the existence of a new species is inevitable. If you accept microevolution then i don’t see a good enough reason why you would reject macroevolution since the latter is just the inevitable result of micro-changes.

Has it actually happened? I think reasonable examples have been given, not to mention the logical inference brought up in the OP. There is one very simple way to disprove the theory. You have to show that the animals we see today have always existed as long as there have been animals. Give us fossil evidence and the evil atheist plan to deceive the world into accepting evolution will be thwarted.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
What you keep claiming as macro-evolution is actually loss of function, devolution. If you want to continue to limit macro-evolution to loss of function and certain extinction, go ahead.
Click to expand...
You appear to think that what you call “devolution” is the antithesis of evolution. You appear to think that loss of function is inexorably associated with a reduction in fitness, and “certain extinction.”

Which demonstrates that you don’t understand the Theory. At all.

Like so many of your fellow creationists, you are arguing against a straw man.
buffalo said:
Here we have a person who has not picked up and read “The Edge of Evolution”. It is easier to disregard sources that will shatter the paradigm.
Click to expand...
Written by “irreducible complexity” Behe, a creationist who insists on presenting evolution analogies that rely on reaching a specific pre-defined goal and points out how unlikely that is through random mutation. And also makes the “devolution” error. And of course, the good old, “We can’t explain it [at the moment], therefore it must not have happened.”
 
FredBloggs said:
And of course, the good old, “We can’t explain it [at the moment], therefore it must not have happened.”
Click to expand...
That is the evo tag line: We can’t explain it at the moment we just know evolution happened as we cannot let the Divine foot in the door.
 
buffalo said:
That is the evo tag line: We can’t explain it at the moment we just know evolution happened as we cannot let the Divine foot in the door.
Click to expand...
You seriously think that the motivation for the Theory of Evolution is to try and deny the existence of god? Really? Really??
 
FredBloggs said:
You seriously think that the motivation for the Theory of Evolution is to try and deny the existence of god? Really? Really??
Click to expand...
It is not my quote, it is an evolutionist quote.

In any case evos worship the god of BUC.
 
BUC meaning “blind, unguided chance”, I assume? If so, that is incorrect, evolution is guided by natural selection. Neither would such a thing be a god by definition.

This is biology 101, people. Why do you keep making these mistakes?
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn’t. Evolution provides no guidance. There’s a lot of good material out there about how such monitoring is done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top