Atheists - how can you have the audacity to claim that Darwinian evolution is a theory?

Question

Meaning, a scientific theory such as trhe theory of gravity. The hypotheses relating to evolution have been soundly and thoroughly refuted, why do you still cling to the falsity of Darwin's conclusions?

Dear Paul S - There you go again "letting down the side" with your unjust accusations that I'm lying. How easy is it for Mr. Paul S to throw out that sort of accusation? You expose the inherent weakness of your belief in the evolution nonsense by your shameful behavior here. Again , more cronyism, more ad hominem, more total lack of understanding that Darwininan evolution is nothing more than a grossly flawed hypothesis. Your answer simply eqates to an increase in your pseudo-intellectual behavior. One could say that your pseudo-intellectual behavior is "evolving".

Dear mountainman

There you go again with the accusations of lying - that equates with perverse behavior.

This is truly amusing because there are sound refutations to Darwinian evolution [just because you haven't searched them out doesn't mean they don't exist - same principle applies to God. Wink, wink - hint , hint ;)] I love your responses because they only serve to expose what type of person you are - and that helps our anti-evolution cause. Thank you so much!

Dear Paul S - but I'm only stating the obvious because anyone can see that you're all false accusations and no substance. Did you attempt to prove that Darwinian evolution is the truth? Answer : No. All you've done is act likle the pseudo-intellectuasl straw-man that you (obviously) are.

Dear pensterx

The problem here is that you and all the other pro-evolutionists make the fatal mistake of classifying Darwin's bundle of hypotheses about evolution with a proper scientific theory.

LOOK AT SKYLOLO'S POST.

It confirms what I've said, which is that Darwinian evolution is nothing more than a loose bundle of weak hypotheses.

LOOK at the words of Jonathon Wells Ph.d. - they carry more weight than any poster on this thread.

Dear Paul S

LOOK at skylolo's post. You seem to be a pseudo-intellectual (by the way that means that you're a pretender) with NO Ph.d. You have absolutely NO credibilty. I already have a person with a Ph.d agreeing that Darwin's pile of rubbish is totally invalid.

Icarus62

Because you agree with Paul S that naturally makes it true - doesn't it ? (not!). I'll refute your accusation by simply saying that you're wrong. Your accusation carries exactly the same weight as all of the unjust accusations that Paul S, mountainman and any/all others level at me.

Dear Paul S

PROVE YOUR CREDENTIALS.

In the mean time, don't come on here claiming that you have a degree, my "anonymous" friend, and expect anyone to believe that someone with such a lack of substance and display of poor polemics has a Ph.d. etc.. You're right, you're not going to win this one "kiddo".

creatrix.

I'm going to make this simple so even dummies (not sugessting that you're a dummy) can understand.

A classic flaw in Darwinian evolution: Skeletal remains (fossils) of an animal are found. Darwinian evolution (hypothesis) claims that that particular animal "evolved" into the present day "x animal". I say: How does one know that the fossilized animal is nothing more than just a TOTALLY different animal (maybe of the same species [?] ) which has become extinct?

Dear Paul S

We're waiting for you to produce your credentials, proving beyond a doubt that what you've claimed in your post is true.

Dear Paul S

All of your other posts, one in which you claimed that you had a Ph.d. and 2 Masters Degrees, have COMPLETELY disappeared in favor of the erudite comment :"Troll" .

What I said in your response to "You wont win this one kid", applies more than ever now that you cant even produce the "evidence" of your claims that you have scholastic qualifcations; let alone produce anything of substance to uphold that bunch of careless hypotheses that constitute Darwin's "theory" of evolution.

Dear creatrix

I have a great deal of respect for you after your reply to my objection.

You have had the courage and the intellectual honesty to admit that Darwinian evolution is not a proven science, but rather a hypothesis, i.e. something that "is not designed to be the proof, but merely 'a supposition, a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point (s) in question, something not proved but assumed for the purpose of argument' " ("Websters Dictionary" definition of hypothesis).

When I say "different animal but still the same species" I mean such as the "cat family" containing animals such as lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, cougars, panthers etc. Thank you for your honesty and integrity.

Dear Leviathan,

You're very large on slurs against people who adhere to their religious beliefs, but very minute in anything of substance that will alleviate my claims against evolution.

Dear creatrix,

I thank you for your lesson on classification. I concede that you are absolutely 100% correct. However, I think you know I was attempting to simplify my argument - perhaps I should have said that the belief is that certain animals discovered via fossils are claimed to have evolved into a known modern day animal. And I even go so far as to agree (never under dispute btw) that forms of evolution may take place in nature. What I'm saying is, that Darwinian evolution, taken in its entirety as believed today, is flawed. I'm posting a new question that has a reference to a refutation online.

Dear Paul S --- How long are we going to have to put up with your lies about having a Ph.D and 2 masters degrees (and falsely accusing people of lies which you've done) ? Yes Paul S, thankfully the west is predominantly Christian so we don't have to put up with bloodthirsty Atheistic/communist dictators like Stalin.

Answer 1

The famous "ape to man "species chart is based on guess work,not evidence. Darwinism has not contributed an iota to medicine.Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence not religious belief.

Nardhelain bacteria getting resitant to drugs could also suggest an Intelligent Designer moving the goal post ,could it not?

Answer 2

Despite your multi-syllabic posturing, you don't seem to know the purpose of a theory. No one denies gravity exists. We all know it does. The theory of gravitation seeks to explain HOW IT WORKS. The same goes for evolution. Everyone with an understanding of biology knows evolution exists. The theory of evolution seeks to explain HOW IT WORKS. It's actually a very simple concpet: over time, the gene pool changes through natural selection, thus allowing the species to evolve. If the gene pool contains a sub set that is unable to mate with another subset to produce fertile offspring, you have speciation. As with any theory, the minutia is in constant flux as we learn more, but the basic tenants are pretty solid.

Edit: First of all, thank you for phrasing your question to me respectfully. I appreciate that.

I'm not sure I understand how something can be both a "totally different animal" and remain "of the same species," but I don't think that really matters to the topic at hand.

Of course holes in our understanding will always exist simply because we do not live long enough to witness the process of larger mammal speciation from start to finish, which is why it is still called a theory; but we have been able to witness speciation among creatures with shorter life spans, such as the fruit fly. I believe - and I must admit that this really is a question better addressed by experts - but I believe they are able to track the changes in larger and older species by dating the skeletal remains and analyzing the genetic code. This enables them to make a reasonable hypothesis about the make-up of the gene pool at a given time. Obviously, the more remains found, the better the chances of getting it right.

Edit 2: Thanks again for the compliment, but I have to clarify that I actually do not concede that evolution is not proven science. The minutia of evolution is and will probably always be changing as we learn more, but this does not negate the fact that evolution occurs. It is the mechanisms and exact relations that are hypothetical. Biologists agree that there is a "family tree" of sorts that shows the evolution of life on the planet earth, although what we once thought to be the species equivalent of a great grandfather may be shown to have been a great uncle. These are the type changes we see in the theory all the time. Unfortunately, some people who are either outright lying to further their own agendas or who, more likely, simply do not understand it sufficiently, latch onto these modifications and use it to convince people that the theory is "flawed." Scientific theories are always changing. That is the nature of the beast, so to speak.

Also, just for the sake of giving you the correct terminology, species is the wrong word there. All life is categorized like this: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Taking the cats you spoke of, they are all classified like this:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata (Vertebrata)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae

Then, if we take the tiger, it is in the genus Panthera whereas a cheetah is in the genus Acinonyx. Within either genus, there are any number of species. When referring to a specific species, it is standard to refer to both the genus and the species. (In some cases (like humans) we use the family as well, making us family - homo, genus - sapiens, species - sapiens, thus diferentiating us from the other known species of Homo sapiens, the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu. So back to the cats, a cheetah is an Acinonyx jubatus, a tiger is Panthera tigris, a lion is a Panthera leo. Since there are 4 species of lynx, they are classified like this:

The four species placed in this genus are:

* Canadian Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
* Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx)
* Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus)
* Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

So if something is a different animal, it cannot be of the same species. :-)

Answer 3

My friends downstairs in the microbiology lab use the principles of darwinian evolution to start with harmless, non-drug-resistant bacteria and evolve a population that is resistant to all the common antibiotics on the market (for the purposes of testing the efficacy of new antibacterial agents at killing these highly resistant bacteria). Since evolution has been "thoroughly refuted", you won't mind if we expose you to these bacteria, will you? Strictly for research purposes, of course. They should still be harmless, right?

I don't know where you're getting your information, but I strongly question the validity of your sources. Atheism has nothing to do with the scientific status of evolution, incidentally - it's the scientific method at work here. A hypothesis is not labeled a "theory" until a vast quantity of evidence has been gathered, and the preponderance is in support of it. Darwin's hypotheses have been greatly refined and improved over the years, but the basic principles remain and are broadly supported by experimental evidence. To list all that evidence here would require more space than Yahoo Answers provides. I shall direct you to http://www.talkorigins.org/ instead, which maintains several well-referenced FAQs on the subject written in a style accessible to laymen.

Answer 4

Care to give some evidence to backup this claim?

Anything will do, we're not picky. We'll even accept that insane Christian site that uses a lack of understanding in history, science, sociology etc to prove its illogical points--at least it would be something!
__

You keep repeating that there are these disproofs of evolution, why wont you post anything about them then?
Many of us here have searched and read many of those claims and never found any that hold up against common scientific and historical knowledge. If you have some that do, and you actually want to help then it would be logical to post the info you have. Wouldnt educating us heathens on evolution be a proper way to serve your God? Ok, then either post it, or stop making stuff up.

Answer 5

Darwinian evolution cannot be completely refuted or proved. I don't know how it can really be a scientific theory like gravity, but it is the best thing we have to explain things. Darwinian theory has evolved and proved that at least some of it is correct. There is no evidence that it is wrong and there wont be.

Answer 6

Atheists are people who don't believe in God. Those who claim Darwinian (or more properly neo Darwinian theory) is science are called scientists. Many are theists.

I know marbledog just said the same, but your claim of sound and thorough refutation is rubbish, and typically of such extraordinary claims is lacking in any supporting evidence. Claiming it doesn't make it so. If such a claim had any "sound" evidence it would be news to mainstream science. Stop wasting our time if you can't provide such evidence.

Answer 7

I hate to break it to you but a lot more evidence has been stacked up for evolution since Darwin's initial theories.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out where the refutations of modern evolution theory are?

Answer 8

You are ill informed. A theory is there to test and that test is ongoing until it is either disproved, modified or fits all observations. When new observations come along the theory is modified and tested again to fulfil the new observations.

Darwinism has never been disproved.

The difference is that religion can not be put to the test! At least evolution can be tests to an extent.

Answer 9

The Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin... 150 years during which ALL related branches of science have contributed to the 'knowledge-base' of evolution... and even spawned some NEW branches of science. Even though evolution is the MOST SUCCESSFUL scientific theory ever conceived, some of Dawrins original ideations... or manner of expression... are, today, considered to be 'quaint', or 'naive'. One of those is 'the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'. 'Favoured' implies that there is someone of something that is doing the 'favoring'... and this is simply not the case... unless you feel inclined to assign some sort of supernatural, divine guidance to 'statistics'.

Perhaps the following will clear things up for you.... a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA DOES NOT evolve... it experiences mutations.

* Organisms DO NOT evolve.

Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. 'Survival of the fittest' is a complete misapplication of the concept... it implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share. But what it REALLY means is something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... the expression of a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... being able to run slightly faster than your neighbor, so that it's the neighbor becomes the predator's lunch, instread of you... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time). Agains... organisms (creatures) DO NOT evolve.

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.

P.S.: you wrote: "Meaning, a scientific theory such as trhe theory of gravity."

News flash... Newton's Theory of Gravity is WRONG... and we have known that for almost 100 years... but it is still around... and it is still being used... WHY? Because it is 'useful'... and that is what establishes the value of a scientific theory... its 'usefulness'.

Here's the thing... Newton's theory postulates that gravity is an invisible 'force'. Einstein showed that gravity is actually an 'effect' that results from the geometric 'curveature' of space-time. But... so what? Newton's math still works for low mass - low velocity situations... and it's a lot easier to work than Einstein's math... and you get the same answers to the problems in 'non-relativistic' situations. So... we use it, as a matter of convenience and practicality, for things like building bridges and skyscrapers, calculating the orbits of bodies and space, and launching rockets.

So... your 'standard' (gravity) is faulty. It is WRONG. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, has NEVER been falsified... in fact, it is the most successful scientific theory that has ever been devised.
.

Answer 10

Er, Crusader, surely you can see the rather obvious flaws in the argument you're presenting, right?

["That only leaves one possibility" - obviously it doesn't.
And evolution is not random chance. ]

You recently posted an apology that suggested to me that you're capable of thinking clearly. But in this response to this question, you're falling short of what I think we know you're capable of.

Remember that the Catholic Church accepts evolution.

Answer 11

Please show me where and how evolution has been refuted. (Hint: "The Bible" is not the right answer.)

Evolution happens all around you, whether you want to see it or not. It's not a deliberate attack on your religion, any more than it was when Galileo showed that the Earth was not at the center of the universe. It's just THE WAY THINGS ARE.

BTW, Cecelia, it's "hear, hear."