The Theory of Evolution

[Soldier of Macedon]

From what I can gather in this and other similar discussions, the 'evolutionists' are being asked to provide scientific evidence of how it all began, and no response thus far has been acceptable to the 'creationists'. When the 'creationists' are being asked by 'evolutionists' to provide evidence of how it all began, they refer to Genesis. Neither side accepts the logic of the other yet some speak as if they know what happened as a matter of fact. The 'creationists' will never be satisfied with a scientific explanation because even science cannot concretely answer how it "really" all began, whereas 'evolutionists' will never be satisfied with a biblical explanation because to them it appears too simplistic and convenient to merely refer to Genesis. All of you have made your points. None of you are willing to concede. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you continue trying to argue that your point of view is the correct one. What all that obviousness in mind, what is the point of this discussion? Although this is the general discussions section of the forum and most topics are open for debate, I would like to encourage you all to start focusing on issues that are actually pertinent to the Macedonian Cause, because this here is a cyclic debate and is drowning out other worthwhile topics that could be discussed. And if it continues, I will be very much inclined to close this thread and any others of a similar nature which have detracted from the core reason of why this forum exists. Time to move on people.

[Nikolaj]

From what I can gather in this and other similar discussions, the 'evolutionists' are being asked to provide scientific evidence of how it all began, and no response thus far has been acceptable to the 'creationists'. When the 'creationists' are being asked by 'evolutionists' to provide evidence of how it all began, they refer to Genesis. Neither side accepts the logic of the other yet some speak as if they know what happened as a matter of fact. The 'creationists' will never be satisfied with a scientific explanation because even science cannot concretely answer how it "really" all began, whereas 'evolutionists' will never be satisfied with a biblical explanation because to them it appears too simplistic and convenient to merely refer to Genesis. All of you have made your points. None of you are willing to concede. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you continue trying to argue that your point of view is the correct one. What all that obviousness in mind, what is the point of this discussion? Although this is the general discussions section of the forum and most topics are open for debate, I would like to encourage you all to start focusing on issues that are actually pertinent to the Macedonian Cause, because this here is a cyclic debate and is drowning out other worthwhile topics that could be discussed. And if it continues, I will be very much inclined to close this thread and any others of a similar nature which have detracted from the core reason of why this forum exists. Time to move on people.

SoM, this is meant to be a scientific debate. I know many non-religious people within science who do not agree with evolutionary theory. Religion never actually took a role in this thread from what i've read so far. Hence why, if someone asks for proof of this theory, it is only logical to do so, with or without religion being a factor. If someone does not agree with evolution, it doesn't mean they've turned to God for creation, it means they'd prefer to look elsewhere as there are of course, other possibilities.

I have not read enough of this thread to know how much religious talk has been done (been busy since it has started), but I don't see its relevance.

But yes, I do agree we should be focusing for the Macedonian cause, but it doesn't hurt taking a rest from it once in a while to come back with a fresh mind.

[spitfire]

Not quite.



A mutation is a copying error in DNA. And you have not answered the question posed. Are mutations more likely to produce new animals, or more likely to degrade information?



Spitfire, I have been following this thread very carefully, and I can honestly state you have not made one valid argument thus far. Your arguments have been riddled with errors and mistakes. How you manage to continue is beyond me.

I just realized something. Apparently, when responding to posts, you copy and paste information without credit.

Case in point.



You responded with:



But apparently, you got this (virtually word for word) from here:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creationist_delusions.htm

So now it appears that, in addition to having made a total fool of yourself far too many times, you are in the business of copying answers from a website that is run by intellectual monkeys without citation.

Checkmate.

All the citations you need are provided in this link. Some of them don't work, because it is a bit old.

I will answer only about the mutations. If you want to start from the alphabet of science, then by all means do.

Here's what a mutation is:

Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_18

I can give hundreds of citations. That's because science is based in gathering of evidence. Therefore it outnumbers everything you could ever imagine of what the other side provides.
As you see, all the delusions of creationists have been confronted by science. You are just trying to prove something that will make you feel OK. All ID supporters do.
Now go to that ID guy and tell him, that no matter how he and his ID colleagues try to distort what science says, it will be there to prove them wrong.

Mutation is genetic error? Yes, but not only genetic error. Much more. ID supporters try to hide that. But they fail immensely!

[Origin]

After laughing my way through '44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults', the ensuing discussion kept reminding me of the phrase "like showing a dog a card trick". Vicsinad and Spitfire, I applaud your patience

[Nikolaj]

After laughing my way through '44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults', the ensuing discussion kept reminding me of the phrase "like showing a dog a card trick". Vicsinad and Spitfire, I applaud your patience

I love how you just labelled someone who disagree's with evolution to have the cognitive ability of a dog.

Idiot.

[Philosopher]

Vicsinad and Spitfire, I applaud your patience

Did you also applaud when Spitfire plagiarized answers off the Web and presented it as his own? Did you also applaud when Spitfire stated “carbon” transformed non-living matter to living matter? Did you also applaud when Vicsinad stated that genetic mutations and natural selection account for the complexity and diversity of life on this planet? Did you also applaud when more than 800 scientists signed the declaration “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, stating:

“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 of Darwinian theory should be encouraged".

DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.

http://www.discovery.org/a/13011

Can you please explain to us how unguided and undirected natural processes can write information “far, far, more advanced than any software” known to man?

[Nikolaj]

Philosopher, implying he actually read anything you wrote previously; He quite obviously disagreed with you blindly.

[Vangelovski]

Did you also applaud when more than 800 scientists signed the declaration “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, stating:

“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 of Darwinian theory should be encouraged".

We should be skeptical of everything proposed by scientists. Afterall, they're just human and they make mistakes. What scientists believe one day changes the next as new information comes to light. They admit it themselves.

By the way, those 800 don't count - they must be nut jobs to be skeptical of evolution

[spitfire]

Did you also applaud when Spitfire plagiarized answers off the Web and presented it as his own? Did you also applaud when Spitfire stated “carbon” transformed non-living matter to living matter? Did you also applaud when Vicsinad stated that genetic mutations and natural selection account for the complexity and diversity of life on this planet? Did you also applaud when more than 800 scientists signed the declaration “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, stating:

“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 of Darwinian theory should be encouraged".

Philosopher, I can understand how it hurts your feelings, but given the fact that I am not a scientist, means that I take information from science as they are the only authority on the matter.

There's vinegar also if you can't accept science. It helps. Especially when hanging from the edge of that flat earth of yours.

[Constellation]

Especially when hanging from the edge of that flat earth of yours.

Do you believe this is applicable to all who dissent from Darwinism or just Philosopher? What about the 800 plus scientists referenced earlier? If so, maybe you should contact those professors, some of whom are from Princeton University, MIT, and Rice, and you should tell them that dissent from Darwinism is akin to a flat earth advocate.

And please, by all means, document their responses for all to read on this forum.

[spitfire]

Do you believe this is applicable to all who dissent from Darwinism or just Philosopher? What about the 800 plus scientists referenced earlier? If so, maybe you should contact those professors, some of whom are from Princeton University, MIT, and Rice, and you should tell them that dissent from Darwinism is akin to a flat earth advocate.

And please, by all means, document their responses for all to read on this forum.

Actually philosopher is quoting from ID links. He is trying desperatelly to prove science wrong.
The only prescription is vinegar, since it makes everything taste sweet afterwards.

One thing is certain. Science accepts evolution. Non science doesn't accept it. If those professors can't understand it, then this doesn't make it wrong.
All they have to do is provide evidence of another case, of how life evolved.
Unfortunately for them, Science keeps pilling up evidence that prove evolution to be true, not the other way around.
So, in order for those professors' claims to have the least credibility, they have to prove their claims with evidence. Otherwise, this is not a scientific debate, it is a case of people who don't understand entirely how evolution works.
QED.

[Constellation]

Actually philosopher is quoting from ID links. He is trying desperatelly to prove science wrong.

From what I can see, the professors who signed the dissent from Darwinism are not creationists. Few (if any) are intelligent design proponents. They appear to be skeptical of the theory of evolution.

One thing is certain. Science accepts evolution. Non science doesn't accept it. If those professors can't understand it, then this doesn't make it wrong.

A rather simplistic analysis.

All they have to do is provide evidence of another case, of how life evolved. Unfortunately for them, Science keeps pilling up evidence that prove evolution to be true, not the other way around. So, in order for those professors' claims to have the least credibility, they have to prove their claims with evidence. Otherwise, this is not a scientific debate, it is a case of people who don't understand entirely how evolution works.
QED.

Weak argument. Again, I would recommend you look up the names on the list, and contact these professors with your rationale and please report back to us their statements.

[spitfire]

I am not going to waste time on the god of the gaps argument. Evidence or charlatans. As simple as that. Scientific community stands for evolution and that's it.

[Nikolaj]

Actually philosopher is quoting from ID links. He is trying desperatelly to prove science wrong.
The only prescription is vinegar, since it makes everything taste sweet afterwards.

One thing is certain. Science accepts evolution. Non science doesn't accept it. If those professors can't understand it, then this doesn't make it wrong.
All they have to do is provide evidence of another case, of how life evolved.
Unfortunately for them, Science keeps pilling up evidence that prove evolution to be true, not the other way around.
So, in order for those professors' claims to have the least credibility, they have to prove their claims with evidence. Otherwise, this is not a scientific debate, it is a case of people who don't understand entirely how evolution works.
QED.

Let me re-quote constellations post seeing as though you completely avoided it.

What about the 800 plus scientists referenced earlier? If so, maybe you should contact those professors, some of whom are from Princeton University, MIT, and Rice, and you should tell them that dissent from Darwinism is akin to a flat earth advocate.

And please, by all means, document their responses for all to read on this forum.

Spitfire, you make me cringe quite legitimately.

Science does not accept evolution because of the integrity of it, they accept evolution because that's the ONLY explanation they have. This acceptance gives authority to use fundings and resources to further pursue their theory by finding evidence for it.

You have taken the whole 'acceptance' factor out of context.

I would like you to respond to constellations post properly, it is the only way you can see how stupid your reasoning that these scientists are 'doing it wrong'. I'm not saying you should go email them all, i'm saying you should think of what email response you'd get from them.

[spitfire]

As you see Nokolaj I'm quicker than you. God of the gaps. I have refered to it earlier. Evidence is the scientific way. The other way is the charlatan's way.
Those professors are not what the scientific community says.