Reply With Quote
We are obviously the creation of some alien experiment who we call God, but who created them? if I know.
This is a thread about the evidence for evolution, in order to provide a basic grounding of understanding for those who are unfamiliar with it.
Evolution, defined:
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. "Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations"Not evolution:
Abiogenesis- how life first arose on the earth
Cosmology- origins and nature of the universe
Required assertions:
1) Offspring retain traits from parents, now known to be passed on through DNA
Support for this assertion has developed into the field of genetics a basic background is here:
http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/...e/scimeth2.htm
2) Actions of selection will act to increase, or decrease frequencies of traits in populations over time.
Support for this assertion was ultimately found in the field of genetics as well, although many modern studies on short-lived species subjected to both natural and artificial selection are available, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Evolution 101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
The above link is a fair starting explanation as any I have seen.
A few ground rules:
1) If you wish to provide a criticism of the theory that you think is valid, I will address it once. If it is found to be logically flawed, or worse, factually mistaken, I will provide evidence of the logical flaw or mistaken fact, once. Repeating the same flawed fact or argument will simply be responded to by a link that points to the flaw was first addressed.
Luckily for me there are plenty of places where most commonly presented inaccuracies and flawed arguments have been addressed, often decades ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
This list making identifying previously debunked assertions and factual mistakes much easier. Before you post a criticism you should look for it there.
2) If anyone requests evidence, I will be happy to provide as much as asked for, in exchange, I would ask that the requestor read the basic introduction given above. Quid pro quo.
3) I will, for reference, keep track of flawed arguments and factual mistakes presented by editing this OP over time. This will help me having to address the same things repeatedly.
I will say, as someone who cares about the truth, that accepting evolution as the best, and pretty much only, explanation about how we arose is simply the only reasonable course, for anyone who cares about the truth, and having an accurate view of the universe.
We are obviously the creation of some alien experiment who we call God, but who created them? if I know.
Great idea! This will go well, I'm sure of it.
Its fun. In the process of providing evidence and counters to the bad arguments, I learn good science and logical thinking.
Much like my participation in the politics forum.
I occasionally change my mind or that of others, and that is neat, but beside the point.
For those that don't want to read a lot
Stopped reading at thread le.
Whatever makes you happy. Although evolution is often an entertaining topic, what we are isn't nearly as interesting as who we are imo. So at the end of the day my view on the topic is best summarized by a great philosopher...Its fun. In the process of providing evidence and counters to the bad arguments, I learn good science and logical thinking.
Much like my participation in the politics forum.
I occasionally change my mind or that of others, and that is neat, but beside the point.
Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. Tomorrow I'll probably still be a dog. Sigh! There's so little hope for advancement. -- Snoopy
Thinking about it, I don't believe you. If learning science was really your goal, you would be asking questions rather than trying to give everyone else the answers.
Thinking we all came from a fish isn't logical.
So I guess these fishy things just crawled up on shore knowing they'd find something they could eat and preceded to ........hmmmmmm? What happened next?
I;m with you, talk about some stupidity there it is.
Your imagination is awful.
Are you going to just follow me from thread to thread...AGAIN..today?
GET A LIFE WITHOUT ME IN IT...ok got?
Don't many scientists question evolution?
Return to main evolution page
David H. Bailey
1 Jan 2014 (c) 2014
It is often said that many scientists, including some with Ph.D. degrees and significant credentials in the field, now believe there are serious difficulties with modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, there are some scientists who dissent. For example, in 2005 Philip Skell, a retired chemistry professor at Pennsylvania State University and former member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote the following [Skell2005]:In 2001 the Discovery Ins ute, the principal sponsoring organization for the intelligent design movement, began to form a list of scientists who question evolution. Each of the scientists on this list, known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," affirmed the following statement [Dissent2010]:
Scientific journals now do ent many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory. ... Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. ... None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution -- it provided no support. ... In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Lol angry old man.
This isn't even your thread, dumbass.
But anyone with even a rudimentary imagination should be able to come up with a reason as to why organisms started to crawl up on land out of the water and adapt/evolve.
Lo loo lololololoo "the Discovery Ins ute"
You're way out of your league here, fat fry. Go back to tossing out lists of athletes nobody cares about.
So how come they aren't doing it now little guy?
Wrong as usual, this is right down my alley.
Blake, my threads are set up for little s like you...ok? When in others how about having some class and respect the OP and the topic, this case of Avante-itist you have is getting out of control....ok?
.... But just how ancient fish made this shift to terrestrial life still remains largely a mystery. To learn more about what happened when the now-extinct fish tried living on land, scientists investigated the bichir (Polypterus senegalus), a modern African fish that has lungs for breathing air, and stubby fins it can use to pull itself along on land.
The bichir possesses many traits similar to ones seen in*fossils of stem tetrapods, the researchers said.The scientists raised groups of juvenile bichir on land for eight months to see whether these fish differed in their anatomy and how they moved on land compared with bichir raised in the water. Researchers wanted to test how life on land might trigger changes in such fish.....
http://m.livescience.com/47582-unusu...evolution.html
But just how ancient fish made this shift to terrestrial life still remains largely a mystery.
So it must not have happened! This walking air breathing fish are just created that way for fun
You're out of your league. Go pick up an 8th grade science book.
Why not Google....The Bogus Theory of Evolution....little guy, educate yourself...ok?
You're out of your league. Go pick up an 8th grade science book.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
