Evolution is great?

Question

.
.
I mean, hey, let's read some groups opinions and theories, without doubting them. They can't be wrong, can they? I mean, taking a small sampling of preserved artifacts, tossing out the fodder and focusing on the great GREAT discoveries that finally explain that we have a home. OHBOY. I am told, to read this and that. And I am told I don't look before I leap. But, hey guys, maybe I do! Transitional fossils....with disdain the question is answered, yet, it is still there. Todays theory, was not yesterdays. Remeber "Sudden Leap"..loved that one. The worm rubbed up against a rock, scratched itself and the spot became an eye! Amazing.

You, have no firm ground to stand upon. Misshapen skulls do not prove anything. We have people walking around who look like that. Piltdown, Nebraska, Lucy....all proven wrong. Or at least they were misguided and overzealous.

I can't prove my faith to you. You can't prove your faith to me. Theories have had hypothesis and assumption, piled up high

, leaving a tottering tower of 'fact', that is taught and believed blindly, as we are accused of believing blindly.

So, it is really a stalemate. See, your tools and measures do not make a rule. Who calibrates and decrees the tools, measures and theories as being The Truth?

Tolerance is our only hope. I won't throw rocks, if you don't sling mudpies....

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen J. The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p. 181.) Many evolutionary specialists, on the other hand, declare that intermediate forms are abundant. Cracraft claims: "Each species, then is intermediate in some sense of the word; all species possess primitive and derived characters." (Cracraft, Joel, "The Scientific Response to Creationism," in LaFollette (editor), Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case, 1983, p. 146

species is intermediate to other species if they all have a pattern of nested similarities, as displayed on a cladogram." This meaning is often used, even if there is no plausible ancestral evidence, and phylogeny (a lineage) is never clarified. (ReMine, Walter, The Biotic Message, 1993, p. 295.)

Anti-creationist authors like Arthur Strahler and Philip Kitcher are notorious for zeroing in on just a single trait of supposed intermediates, such as dentition or locomotion, while ignoring many other characteristics that are not "transitional." Their reason for this is predictable: "Given the vicissitudes of fossilization, there is no reason to expect a sequence of fossils showing continuous modification of any characteristic we choose, even if that characteristic was continuously modified. Paleontologists think themselves lucky to be able to trace the continuous emergence of some characteristics." (Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science, 1998 p. 110.) Here Kitcher offers up excuses for the pattern of gradual change, being absent.

Science. I have been blessed by the things and means available to me. I am indebted. I do not wave away science because I find it irrational. I am expressing here, my opinion, that it is incomplete. And, that many men, in order to reach their destination, have manufactured 'fact' to uphold the find.

My spelling and grammar was off because I was typing too fast. But, I stand on it. We are at a stalemate. I do not ignore yours. It has helped me greatly.

Answer 1

They are going to try boil you alive.

Answer 2

Ahh.. Gould (pg 150 of my version) was talking about the 'Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change'. He was talking about the apparent geological-rapid transitions BETWEEN most species. Cracraft is obviously talking about species THEMSELVES being intermediate between other species. But I know you just blindly lifted the quote-mines from a lairs-for-my-version-of-Jesus webpage and felt relieved because they seemed to confirm your self-deception.

But science isn't bible class, you won't convince anyone with with short passages, lifted and twisted out of context.

Yours is a position of ignorance, urban-myths and self-deception. If you think Lucy has been 'proven wong' then it only shows that you have been lapping up the lies of sociopaths like 'Dr' Dino. Nebraska man was a pigs-tooth, immediately reported as human remains by a journalist before scientists looked at it and immediately dismissed it. And I for one have never seen anyone that looks like an Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo hablils, or that has the distinct DNA of a neanderthal, that is ridiculous.

Evolution is fact. Evolution by Natural Selection is the scientific theory as to why and how. It is based on overwhelming evidence and principles of reason. Yes I know your faith makes you willingly blind (and leads you to call God who left all the evidence a liar). But science doesn't work the same way.

Answer 3

I think you characterize the anti-evolution movement quite well. You are ignorant and proud of it. You can hardly spell, or string a sentence together (much less a coherent proof), but you think you are some worthy judge of complex theories you don't even understand.

It is telling that you brought this up in the religion category, and not the biology one.

I just thought I'd mention one more thing. If you did have real proof that evolution was false, you'd become extremely rich and famous. So please... if you think you're not just parroting some mindless argument that you don't even understand, submit it to a real scientific journal, and see what happens.

Answer 4

Evolution is a theory because it uses science in order to make predictions about the world around us. That's what science DOES. It's what the theory of gravity DOES. Facts don't exist. Proofs exist, but only in mathematics. So science has theory. You work with the theory that provides the best results, with the least amount of "Clutter." It's called Occum's Razor.

Answer 5

Leave science to the scientists, don't try to presume you know the facts with your kindergarten-level knowledge of biology. You can attack evolution and scientific theories all you want, but eventually, just like the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" controversy, everyone will accept it. There's no point in proving anything to you anymore, because you just don't want to hear it.

Answer 6

Evolution is not about faith; it is about studying evidence. You have your blind faith. I can't show anything to people whose eyes are closed

Answer 7

Oh well, if you have so much evidence against evolution, why don't you go and disprove it? You will go down in history as an all-time great.

Answer 8

I noticed you site no sources for your ranting bull sh*t....gee what a surprise.
THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GOD IS REAL.....NONE....NUNCA.....
NADA...ZERO.
If you chose to ignore knowledge and science, be my guest. But expect to get made fun of and left behind by the rest of the world

Answer 9

Anyone with an open mind who wants alternative to the evolution brainwashing they have received. Find out if there really is evidence to support creation. Discover the inconsistencies, misrepresentations and outright lies of evolution. http://drdino.com/downloads.php

Answer 10

When it comes to evolution, even the most zealous scientists call it a theory. They have to call it a theory, because they have no proof to call it a fact. What's happening is that more and more scientist are saying that evolution isn't possible, and are beginning to believe in a Creator.

Answer 11

evolution starts with the mind then it is manifested