Every Evolutionist... explain? round 2?

Question

Nobody, but nobody answered my previous question about evolution...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoADM9O1GUFj48dClPjvdYvsy6IX?qid=20070114093538AAuQOc9

I didn't know this was a grammar class, and i wasn't saying words but the words of scientists... so the ignorant cannot be me...
Some people say... oh the scientific communtiny... blah blah blah... who is the scientific community... answer the question properly or are you afraid of going into the topics i have got in my last question???

When did Darwin prove that is theory was right???
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

Just open your eyes and search the truth about science... Tell me where Evolution is proven... show me 1 example minimum...

Answer 1

Here is what confirmed Darwinian says about the future of man. By the way, he's an editor of a text book on Evolution, he teaches at TWO colleges in London and hold a valid PH D. This came from an English newspaper and was provided to me by an Atheist.


====


I believe goblins are our future
Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The future of human evolution? When we look to the future, we look to perfection.

Fans of Star Trek see humanity seamlessly working together, while the film Gattaca, with its improbably good-looking cast, suggests we will become more beautiful.

But one evolution expert has come up with another theory on what some of us will become – dim-witted, squat, ugly goblin-like creatures. Not unlike Gollum from Lord Of The Rings, in fact.

Dr Oliver Curry, of the Darwin @LSE Centre at the London School of Economics, says the Gollums will be part of a genetic 'underclass', while an 'upper class' will be slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent and creative.



Such as sharp divide was predicted by HG Wells in his 1885 book, The Time Machine, where the ape-like Morlocks preyed on the fragile Eloi.

But Dr Curry's study predicts man peaking by the year 3000 with humans becoming giants up to 7ft (2.13m) tall.

Race will be a thing of the past and everybody will be 'coffee' coloured and live to 120 years.

Men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, have squarer jaws... and bigger penises, Dr Curry believes.

Women will develop large, clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, even features and smooth, lighter, hairless skin.

But, after 10,000 years, reliance on technology will see our genes degenerating and some humans could begin to resemble domesticated animals, or even children.

In about 100,000 years, sexual selection will breed greater and greater inequality and see the emergence of the two HG Wells-style sub-species.

Dr Curry said: 'The future of Man will be a story of the good, the bad and the ugly.

'While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover due to over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along.'

Dr Curry predicts that eventually this will result in people splitting into two categories – either the healthy superhuman elite or the genetically disadvantaged Gollums.

Sexual selection will allow people to be choosier about who they mate with, thereby reinforcing the distinctions.

Answer 2

If I give you an answer, will you then accept it? Because the answer may not be what you ask for.

Darwin didn't prove that his theory was right. You don't prove conclusively that a scientific theory is the final answer, because there are no final answers in science. You could argue that Newton proved his theories, but then how does that fit in with Einstein's theories that replaced them?

The answer is that scientific theories are not proven, they are either useful or disproven. Newton's theories, for instance, were fruitful (and still are). Einstein's turned out to be more precise, just as a new set of theories will one day replace them.

Darwin's theories are useful. They have not been disproven. They are consistent with observations such as the fossil record. There are no other theories concerning the development of life that can rival this. Creationism and Intelligent Design are non-scientific ideas that are inconsistent with (for instance) the fossil record, i.e. they have been disproven.

Edit:
Oh, crap, I just read your previous question. You're an ignorant moron. I want three minutes of my life back.

Answer 3

Neither is this a biology class.

If you are looking for the reasons 98% of biologists consider evolution a fact, ask a biologist.

If you are looking to find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, you're in the right forum.

And what is more, even if evolution were ever supplanted by a different scientific theory, it would not contain anything supernatural. God would have to be "proven," which would move God out of the supernatural into the natural world, or there would be a better natural explanation put forward about how species differentiated. At this point, the evidence for evolution mounts up almost weekly.

If you need to check it out, go to http://www.talkorigins.org .

Answer 4

The scientific community is a group of people who publish articles in scientific publications and put them up for peer review. It applies to physics, psychology, biology, philosophy, history etc..., etc... Peer reviews means that other scientists who publish in these publications get to criticize the articles that have been submitted. This competitive process allows for refinement of theories. By the time theories reach the general public, they have undergone extremely harsh criticism and have been debated left, right and center.

Scientific theories aim at explaining certain facts. Darwin's theory aims at explaining why animals are the way they are. So he presented his theory which was then debated by a host of other people interested in the same subject. It is true that the requirements for dong science were not as stringent in Darwin's time and that the university system was not as organized, but his theory has undergone much scrutiny and refinement over the more than 150 years it has been debated. The scientific community now vastly accepts it as the best explanation for what it set out to explain.

Answer 5

I'm a Christian and I have to agree with you on your hypothesis concerning Science and Evolution. I have researched the subject of Evolution myself, and it [Evolution] is still occurring to this very day. Although I believe that God created Evolution to continue on the chain of life, Science does not either, disagree nor agree, that there is a God , as the proof is not there, either way. I find that most people believers or non-believers in God, do not even have a remote inkling of a clue of what Evolution is about. You have covered or summarized the topic quite well however, brief. I.D. [intelligent design] is not a true Science, as you have well stated, supporting the statements of many Christian Scientists, who point out, that although ID may at first SEEMS to be a plausible approach, it is dependent upon an unstable "God of the Gaps" theoretical foundation. This topic, of course, is for another time. Well done there, Mr. ducky !

Answer 6

evolution ahs come a long way sicne Darwin's time, why don't you evolution opponents ever make points with present information? And there are many examples PROVING evolution, you just choose to isagree with them because they conflict with your religious beliefs

one fact--> Apes have 48 chromosomes, Humans have 46, that means in humans, two pairs combined, and that was discovered to be chromosome number 2

discoveries and advances made concerning many sciences aren't as publicized as religious warfare and other political issues around the world, but the facts are there, open YOUR eyes

Answer 7

Your previous question lamented on the amount of formal education Darwin received. I wasn't aware that ragging on the schooling of a man invalidated his theories.

You also were quite confused as to the "apparent" lack of change throughout fossil records. Hon... just because someone tells you "well heck, I didn't see it so it just ain't true" doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Just because someone says "believe it, I do" doesn't mean THEY know what they're talking about. The evidence speaks for ITSELF. The evidence exists but you WON'T find it at a site run by a Creationist propagandist.

I recommend that you take your own advice, sweety. Just open your eyes and search the truth about science.

Answer 8

Whales are a great example of a creature that used to live on land.

I assume you problem with evolution is that you think it is a atheistic concept. God created evolution as his method of creating life forms. This is stated in the Bible. "Let the earth bring forth the creatures of the sea"

We see evolution happen every day but the seed of life had to come from somewhere. The first life forms can NOT just spring into life.

Answer 9

You can rant against evolution all you want, but unless you can suggest an alternative theory that explains the known facts - that earlier species have been replaced by later species ever since life appeared on earth - there is really little point to such ranting.
.

Answer 10

Darwin did not prove his theory was right. Thousands of scientists that have in depth studied evolution, biology, genetics, chemistry, geology in the last 150 years have proven Darwin right.

An example - my favorite is the horse - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

If you are going to refute it please provide evidence from non-Christian sites. If evolution really wasn't proven then you certainly can find writings to say so from Buddhist, Hindu and Atheist scientists.