Is the theory of evolution correct?

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Natural selection in the form of adaptation is obvious. Labeling it 'micro evolution' seems to be an attempt to sell the big leap. If there's a 'micro', then surely there must be a 'macro', right? BZZZT!

That's ridiculous neo. Would you argue that I can't count to 1,000,000 by starting with the number 1? Even a 3rd grader would tell you that they could count that high given enough time. Now could they count to 1,000,000,000,000 if they had the time?

Slow changes just like slow increments will eventually result in huge changes or numbers that would seem impossible if you insist we concentrate on the slow change.

Alright! Sorry to have asserted there must be 2 mechanisms at work. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

It doesn't take a lot of technical knowledge to recognize the validity of evolution, it's pretty freaking obvious when you get right down to it.

When you get right down to it it is freaking obvious that what is seen is obviously a pattern nestled in the memory. Mind is limited to the conditions in which it has been exposed to. As a necessity the mind becomes moulded and functions according to its mould

All technical knowledge is based on a pattern govern by memory.Until you take subject; the one who looks at the concept of evolution into consideration, there can be no final analysis.

So no, the theory of evolution is not correct.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Basically, what Joe Nation said. Talking about the "theory of evolution" we so easily forget that evolution per se is not a "theory." It is a demonstrable fact. All the talk about "evolutionary theory" is about just how it happens, not about whether it occurs. Before you can ask whether the theory of evolution is correct, you have to explain which particular theory you're talking about -- Darwin's? Lamarck's? Some other?

Buried in this thread is this most sensible response to the question of evolution by Lustig Andrei Theories abound as to the history of evolutionary relationships, and there are many gaps, but that doesn't put evolution into question, because as Lustig says, it is a demonstrable fact. Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution, and that discovery freed the mind from an enslavement to the concept of a supernatural.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

Evolution as theorized is not a demonstrable fact. The closest we have come to demonstrating it is with bacteria gaining an ability to metabolize a different source of food. But when you look at exactly what happened, it was the Loss of an inhibitor function. No function was gained. And it sure as hell did not become a new species.
And that was the most successful attempt to prove evolution. Most of the time all we got was cancer or fatal birth defects.

Assertions like Lustig's are just that. Empty assertions free from facts.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

its a theory AND a fact. A theory is not a guess, its based on demonstrable evidence and facts of which all the evidence suports and NO evidence refutes..

We know the speciation of several dozen species into new genera of fish , wild canines, and polar bears.

Denial is not scientifically supported

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Evolution as theorized is not a demonstrable fact.

Things don't have to be demonstratable to be considered facts. I don't need to watch a Redwood Tree grow from a seed to know that it grew from a seed. It's a fact. Get over it. The evidence for evolution is absolutely, profoundly, overwhelming. It blasts us in the face with its obviousness. All you have to do is look at the life on this planet to see it. And god forbid you should actually look into morphology and genetics because then it just blasts us even harder with more interlinking functionality and proof of its effects.

Here's the proof for the theory of evolution: It works. It's functional. It meets expectations, answers questions and makes predictions. And oh, by the way, every piece of evidence ever found supports it and none contradict it. When it comes to human thought and the vagaries of our philosophical connection to reality, that's as close as it ever comes to knowing anything as a fact.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Interesting how you are so sure on the theory of evolution, ros, and yet you believe other theories that are totally foolish.

0 Replies

It is obvious that adaptation( microevolution) within the created ‘Kinds’..(genesis chapter 1) ..The dog kind, the cat kind, the whale kind, and mankind Is a repeatable, demonstratable, and observable fact for sure! Genetic barriers. Simple.

It is also obvious that bacteria is highly engineered, and Demands intelligent designer isn’t it?!
Romans 1:22 ‘.... he made it OBVIOUS!’

Is just so interesting how people are so caught up, And so deep in their religious beliefs in evolutionism, they deny such obvious truth.
I just love how God allows peoples minds to slip into such delusion and denial of him and obvious creation truth. Fascinating.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

when were all these "kinds" created?

Quote:

It is also obvious that bacteria is highly engineered, and Demands intelligent designer isn’t it?

are you questioning your beliefs? Id like to hear a non-Bible tract toting discussion about its obviousness. I read the Romans clip and actually I dont see that it says anything valuable to your belief, except that you are dissin others by claiming they have a"religion" like you.

Ya cant validate a fairy tale with other fairy tales, ya need some evidence and thats the main thing you guys fail to bring to your stories.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ya cant validate a fairy tale with other fairy tales, ya need some evidence and thats the main thing you guys fail to bring to your stories.

"ya need some evidence" do you, farmerman? That isn't always your take, is it? You pretend to believe mightily without a shred of evidence.

Man , you are one gigantic hypocrite!

1 Reply

@camlok,

Farmerman has repeatedly provided evolutionary evidence. You provide only hypocritical bitching.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The evidence for evolution is absolutely, profoundly, overwhelming.

Nothing but assertion here. All you know for a fact is that micro evolution happens and is usually detrimental. Even if we accept that macro evolution happened, the idea that mutations accomplished it is still just a theory. It has not been directly observed nor experimentally duplicated.

Your belief is based on the idea that random changes and natural selection can take life from bacteria to man. The way in which you embrace it makes it unfalsifiable, and therefore an unscientific dogma. But I respect your right to that faith.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

But he has totally failed in other areas where he advanced ludicrous ideas, no science. Someone willing to lie like farmerman has is not to be trusted on anything.

Just a heads up for those who are discussing this with farmerman the "scientist".

You don't trust Trump, do you, MJ, so why would you trust a guy, claiming to be a scientist, lying, misdirecting, in short, breaking any oath he ever took to uphold scientific principles and scientific discussion.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

macro evolution happened, It has not been directly observed nor experimentally duplicated

Thats quite untrue. You should really do more critical thinking and reading stuff thats not endorsed by the DI.(I know ya dont like to har that, but I have students read as much "Evolution" from the DI as they do real science. It doesnt take too long to find the McGuffin thats always a spot of BS that DI ALWAYS sticks into their "science book reports".
They print Steve Austin's work as if it were true (its been scientifically debunked by guard students and undergrads doing their senior theses)

You are certainly gullible.

"Only a Theory", by your own words we know from whence you extract your stuff.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are certainly gullible.

Is gullible worse than outright denying science and the truth, farmerman?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The way in which you embrace it makes it unfalsifiable,

This is quite incorrect also. We use "prediction" as a falsifiability tool. If our predictions fall flat, they are falsified and that part of evo/devo is also left hanging.

When Shubin went and hunted for Tiiktaalik as an "Intermediate" "Fishopod", he and his colleague used a stratigraphic column and a geologic map of the world to predict why and where such a possible intermediate SHOULD be found. Its always worked that way in modern paleo. Laioning province wasnt just tripped over. It was predicted to be there by knowing its geology and the fact that it was a lagerstatte.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
“macro evolution happened, It has not been directly observed nor experimentally duplicated.”

Farmerman replied:
Thats quite untrue.

Assertion is all you’ve got?
Beginning to think Camloc is right about you.
Put up a specific example or shut the **** up.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Sounds like you are claiming it as a missing link.

Quote:

However, it is inaccurate to claim that Tiktaalik and the other forms represent some sort of “fish-amphibian transition” or are a “missing link” between fishes and amphibians.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/Tiktaalik-roseae

Look, the question is not whether new species came about. The question is whether random mutation and natural selection explains it. We’re talking about Neo Evolution post Darwin. There are serious evolutionary biologists that question that premise and their numbers are growing.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Beginning to think Camloc is right about you.

I am totally right about farmerman, Lf. Did you hear farmerman make any denial?

You can see that in the way farmerman addresses the accusations made - personal attacks.

He doesn't dare deny it and try to prove me wrong because he knows that would simply compound his lies/dishonesty/unscientific behavior.

You won't see him address the science he has been guilty of attempting to debase because that will show everyone just how unscientific and dishonest he can be.

And now, he disappears rather than address it. Not the least bit surprising. That is how he has handled a lot of discussions on science.

1 Reply

@camlok,

I’ve gotten used to the name calling and insults, they don’t bother me so much as disappoint me.

But the avoidance he does when getting to the core of an argument is almost unforgivable. He has two strategies when he gets cornered. Either malign their character or post a wall of true but unrelated technobabble. Gives the appearance of having “shredded his opponent” , he thinks.

Oh, there is one other. If you have ever visited a website he disagrees with, that automatically disqualifies anything you say in his myopic eyes. Without giving any counter argument either. That one is especially pathetic.

But he always wins the ‘ Thumbs Up' score....
Says a lot, don't it..

3 Replies

Is the theory of evolution correct?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know