Evolution is wrong

[Milken]

really? iirc, steller evolution is well understood, considering we can see systems begin. we've seen systems(including planets) form.[/url]

 

LOL, yeah right, stellar evolution, I'm open, got a link I'll read about as well as any legitamate physicists, cosmo, etc representing it.

 

how so? you are different from your parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. etc.

 

I'll check the Origin of Species for this section.

 

 

 

 

that's just like saying economics is rediculous because it assumes humans already exist.

 

No' date=' evolution was designed with the intent to explain the existence of life on the planet naturalistically, without the need for a designer. That's why I think it's ridiculous, but don't take the statement too far.

 

which supernatural explainations fit the evidence? of those, which ones fit it better than evolution?

 

As a natural explaination, evolution is great.

 

be sure to check out this and this.

 

The first this was a link Bascule posted on the Evolution Pro Con thread. Similarity doesn't prove common descent. Chimps are linked with humans in amino acid sequencing, physically linked with gorillas, and DNA sequencing is ambiguous. Humans have lysozyme's like chickens and not primates.

The second link was too much information.

[Milken]

Evolution is a theory that states that animals change over time.

 

This is a very SOFT stance. Well, I'm an evolutionist. Everyone agrees with evolution if this is all it says, the orignal theory has been greatly watered down.

 

Trolling means you are attempting to anger me to get a response.

 

It's established, I've never trolled!

[Milken]

lucky that no-one trys to explain planetgenesis with the ToE then.

 

Plants are tough on the theory of evolution.

 

 

on the contrary' date=' the initial premises of evolution are entirely justified.

 

the earth, the universe, and life exist, therefore they must at some point have been created. otherwize they wouldnt be here. quid pro quo.[/quote']

 

Most evolutionist are not theistic, they're humanists or atheists. The original theory has definitely switched if that's your stance because it was not intened to be as you're stating. The premise you state may be inserted though, here I agree. If evolution was more substatiated I could go for you're premise.

 

 

i'll state again that ToE conserns itself with HOW ALLELE FREQUENCIES CHANGE OVER TIME' date=' including where new alleles come from, and, by extention, such things as speciation and adaptation/'improvement' over time.[/quote']

 

If this is all the ToE says, it's not even a theory because pre-Darwinain's belived in adaptation.

 

 

ToE does not make any comments on where the first life or earth came from. using a theory that relys upon the assumption that the creation of life/the earth somehow happened at some point to explain the creation of first life/the earth would be' date=' well, silly.[/quote']

 

There are many who belive just this, the majority actually.

 

hence -- and i really want to hammer this home -- the ToE can 'plug in' to either abiogenesis theory' date=' green-men-from-marz theory, or divine creation theory, as long as none of them are incompatable by saying, for example, that first life was created last tuesday. when, clearly, it wasnt.[/quote']

 

Evolution has evolved into this.

 

speaking of ToE 'plugging in' to other theories -- science has many theories that explain where first life/the earth etc may have come from. the fact that none of these theories are the ToE doesnt majickally invalidate the ToE.

 

Many hypothesis' date=' not theories

 

very well, and in agreance with empirical evidence

 

So well that most paleontologists don't accept evolution. = ) So well that many of the opponents of ToE weren't objecting for religous reasons but were anatomist, paleontologist, etc. The scientists with the most expertise with empirical evidence.

 

 

sorry' date=' i couldnt resist

 

if they fit in with observable evidence and make sence, then they wouldnt be supernatural.[/quote']

 

LOL, not offended Actually it's a slight mistake on my part. Natural science excludes the supernatural not evolution but it's basically the same people.

[Aardvark]

Most evolutionist are not theistic' date=' they're humanists or atheists. [/quote']

 

On what basis are you making that statement?

 

 

If this is all the ToE says, it's not even a theory because pre-Darwinain's belived in adaptation.

 

Not so. The idea that species were not immutable was highly controversial.

 

 

So well that most paleontologists don't accept evolution.

 

I'll be blunt. I think that is a false statement.

 

If i'm wrong i apologise but please substantiate that, as in my experience, both personal and professional, paleontologists are some of the most well versed evolutionists in existence.

[Dak]

Plants are tough on the theory of evolution.

 

Assuming you ment plants: no theyre not. the existense of kingdom plantae is perfectly in accord with the ToE.

 

Assuming you ment planets: no theyre not. the existence of planets has nothing to do with evolution. planets do not pass on their information, do not compete for limited resorses, and do not reproduce. ergo, planets do not evolve, and have nothing to do with ToE.

 

Most evolutionist are not theistic, they're humanists or atheists. The original theory has definitely switched if that's your stance because it was not intened to be as you're stating. The premise you state may be inserted though, here I agree. If evolution was more substatiated I could go for you're premise

 

The (unsubstansiated) 'fact' that most people who accept ToE aren't religiouse has absolutely no bearing on the ToE.

 

the original encarnation of ToE also has no bearing on its current encarnation.

 

and the presumption that life etc already existed is built in to the theory of evolution. first life likely emerged in a manner that was, at the least, significantly different from evolution as described by ToE. ToE makes no attempt to define first life (or the creation of planets for that matter), and merely accepts that they somehow came about at some point.

 

If this is all the ToE says, it's not even a theory because pre-Darwinain's belived in adaptation.

 

it's not just adaptation... at least not in the manner in which i believe that you are using the word.

 

change in allele frequency over time also describes emergence of new species from old, and thus gives a model of how contemporary life could have emerged from more basic, prokaryotic-esqu life.

 

the point that i was trying to make is that it doesnt, for example, describe the creation of planet's. do planets have alleles? no. then ToE says nothing about the creation of planets.

 

There are many who belive just this, the majority actually.

 

I doubt that the majority of people believe that ToE descibes the mechanism of the creation of planets. if they do, that might explain the trouble many people have accepting it.

 

reguardless: what people believe is irellevent to what is actually the case.

 

So well that most paleontologists don't accept evolution. = ) So well that many of the opponents of ToE weren't objecting for religous reasons but were anatomist, paleontologist, etc. The scientists with the most expertise with empirical evidence.

 

As Aardvark also asked, would you mind providing some example please? i've never before heard the suggestion that the situation you describe above is the case.

[ydoaPs]

LOL, yeah right, stellar evolution, I'm open, got a link I'll read about as well as any legitamate physicists, cosmo, etc representing it.

check wikipedia. it is fairly standard stuff. do not, however, confuse stellar evolution with biological evolution.

 

 

 

I'll check the Origin of Species for this section.

why? it is a fact. check the photo album. are you going to answer my question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, evolution was designed with the intent to explain the existence of life on the planet naturalistically, without the need for a designer. That's why I think it's ridiculous, but don't take the statement too far.

you shouldn't assume things. it only makes you look ignorant. Darwin was a christian.

 

 

 

As a natural explaination, evolution is great.

yes, it is. no examples of supernatural ones? that's what i thought.

 

 

 

The first this was a link Bascule posted on the Evolution Pro Con thread. Similarity doesn't prove common descent. Chimps are linked with humans in amino acid sequencing, physically linked with gorillas, and DNA sequencing is ambiguous. Humans have lysozyme's like chickens and not primates.

The second link was too much information.

too much information debunking creationist rubbish......doesn't that tell you something?

[FreeThinker]

Miken, how can you try and refute something you do not understand?

 

Darwin developed a hypothesis to explain the complexity of life on earth. His hypothesis was/is supported by a mountain of evidence. Do you think Newton was wrong about gravity or that Galileo was wrong about the earth orbiting the sun? Evolution is supported with just as much evidence as the two mentioned ‘theories’.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated.

 

Try and understand the fundamental principle behind the theory before you try and disprove it!