Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

You are precious


How is asking you to prove your statement trolling?, just curious

 

Evidence? Are you guys fucking serious? You've never heard of any mechanisms of Evolution?

You've never heard of Natural selection, or Genetic Drift, or Mutation, or adaptation, or germ line mutation, Migration, Decent, Genetic variation, coevolution, gene flow, genetic shuffling, sexual selection?

You've never heard that these mechanisms have been scientifically validated, confirmed, and verified a million times over? Somehow you've managed to find your way to a computer, look the stuff up. Why should I even waste my time typing this? This shit is common knowledge and undisputed fact in any scientific community.

Again, all mechanisms for evolution are proven facts. Just add a million years and a large shifting ecological environment with an occasional extinctive disaster and you've got evolution. I mean what kind of state of denial does someone have to be in to not be able piece this shit together?

 

What statement of mine do I need to prove?
Did I claim any particular theory to be scientifically valid?

 

I posted this earlier (Post #101). Guess you missed , so here it is:

It's nothing but empty word, baseless assertion unless you prove through clear and convincing argument that it is indeed so (NOTE:I am not asking anyone to take video camera, jump into the time-machine, travel 600 million years back and film all processes onward in slow motion and then do video presentation. If you thought that this is what I asked for then you have serious comprehension problems and I am afraid it is not something I can fix ).

Of course it is, see above.

Science has seen nothing but tiny bits of evidence which it then arbitrarily interprets to fit the original and already outdated theory of Darwin. Where is the logic and clear cut argument in support of inferences made? Where is the data that would support such inferences and possibility of suggested outcomes in the grand scale?
At least admit that you have no clue about the theory and suspend your judgement , if not then you will be ridiculed mercilessly, I can guarantee you that.

:cheers2:

 

Oh no!

Not ridiculed mercilessly, anything but that!!!

Are you a member of the flat Earth society as well?

 

Of course not!

I know Earth isn't flat. I know Big Bang is a scientifically valid theory (if you ask me why I will explain). And I know Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is just that - a Religious Theory.

So there is no way I could be a member of flat Earth society.

 

.

 

You're technically right. There are plenty of religious folks (like me) who believe in evolution--maybe a majority. But fundamentalists and atheists like Dawkins and Dennett have made a major issue of it. I put the thread here because the idea for it arose in response to issues arising on another thread in the atheist forum: "Do you think less of theists' intelligence?" A participant kept wanting to steer the discussion to the topic of the invalidity of evolution. I think you might agree that the topic has more relevance here than there.

 

Don't look to me to provide the "rock solid" evidence pieces or the proof that something as complex as a human could ever come across by random processes. I don't believe either can be done. But I still think evolution is an impressive scientific theory, and the best one we've got. As for the scope of the thread, it was my intention as OP to set up a site in which the scientific status of evolution could be debated, but I don't think it's irrelevant in doing that to point out that there is no alternative scientific theory available.

 

The search for cause is a valid thread of scientific inquiry.

 

You make evolutionists sound worse than evangelical Christians. The general feeling I get from the above post is "Believe, or you are an idiot" which sounds awfully like a religion trying to convert those around it.

What is also noticeable in the evolution theory and those who are defending it here is a tactic used in debate called "elephant hurling", by which he will throw basic summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

OK, so your points.

Natural selection. A testable hypothesis and is seen in micro-evolution of which I believe. I do not dispute natural selection and neither do most doubters of evolution. It proves the adaptation of a species to it's environment but doesn't actually prove macro-evolution at all.

Genetic Drift. Most evolutionists claim that genetic drift and mutation increase diversity and therefore promotes evolution, but this is easily refuted. In reality, genetic variation is actually limited by genetic drift as it strips variation in a species faster than a mutation can add it. This is evident in humans. In areas with less sunshine, lighter skinned genes are favourable, and the opposite is true for areas with more sunshine where darker skin is preferred. A population which is homozygous for skin colour will not produce much of a variation as the gene type for darker skin has been lose for those in areas of less sunshine. This homozygosity is caused by the genetic drift stripping the heterozygosity over time. This is obviously not what evolution theory would have us believe.

Mutation. I think I have covered this above in genetic drift. But in addition to this is the mathematical probability of a mutation in DNA. The rate of any type of mutation, be it of benefit, negative or of nuetrality, on average is about once in every 10 million duplications of the DNA molecule (10^7, a one followed by 7 zeroes). For evolution to progress, organisms would require a series of related mutations to occur, but the odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of their separate probabilities. If every 10^7 duplications of DNA a mutation occurs the equation would start to look like this; 10^7 x 10^7 or 10^14. The odds of getting just three similar mutations is one in a billion trillion or 10^21. The small mutations would barely change the look of a creature. So what is the real mathematical probability of this? Very tiny. [cited from this paper]

Sexual Selection. This mainly predicts behaviour patterns in the reasoning why mates are made and assumes preferences. The problem with this is we cannot always make assumptions on what a man or a woman will find attractive in a mate, especially not in humans. It also requires than a man and a woman's preference in each other simultaneously "evolves" to match how they themselves have "evolved". Add to that, sexual selection can create traits which will be detrimental to it's survival. The brightly coloured feathers on a peacock will attract a partner, but it will also make it stand out as prey.

I am looking forward to seeing how I will be answered on this.

Edit: I have noticed that powers do not come up so I have edited to clear it up.

 

Clearly nothing will convince those against so it's pointless to proceed. I don't have time for bullshit games with people who can't connect the fucking dots. Jesus Christ is is that hard of a leap to grasp from micro to macro? The definition between species is the inability to reproduce. There have been studies that suggest fertility problems between Asians and Europeans. Is is so hard to imagine if different races had remained segregated for another million years the genetic difference would be enough to divide the species? Is that such a ridiculous a leap of imagination that creationism actually sounds more plausible??? I don't care if I sound like an evangelical ass, anyone who can't connect these simple dots or claims evolution has no scientific evidence is an ignorant tool, plain and fucking simple. You theists are trolling on an atheist forum, fuck off and take you ignorant bullshit somewhere else.

 

I hope that you don't think all people attacking evolution on this thread are theists or that all the people defending evolution are not. I'm the OP, but I've been arguing in favor of evolution; and as you know, I'm a Christian. The opponents of the theory on the thread thus far consist of a teenage fundamentalist Christian who is trying her best and a fellow having fun. He seems to have contempt for theists and non-theists, alike. Some of his arguments against Darwin might seem stupid because they're meant to be so. Go figure! But connecting dots is always a matter of inference.

 

Clearly nothing?
And what did you do so far other than asserting that the theory is valid merely because it is valid and that it is proven merely because it's already proven and that there is a mountain of evidence to support it merely because you say so?

Talk about trolling

 

Evolution is a valid scientific theory because while it may not satisfy every conceivable conjugation of the word valid, the line continues to offer up testable hypotheses.

 

Good job. Your source?

 

If so then why don't you do more than merely assert that?

 

You haven't answered my points so you react in insult and derogatory language. How mature. If you don't know how to answer my points just say so, rather than throwing attacks.

I may be a Christian, but if you have noticed I have always argued from a scientific perspective and not once have I mentioned anything biblical. I haven't even covered my own beliefs because it's not of use to the thread. I am here, like Jumbuli, for the fun of it really, and I'm finding it rather interesting the manner in which evolution believers are posting and their general attitude... that's why I stay around. I'm fascinated by people's reactions on here.

 

Basically a mixture of high school science lessons and Wikipedia...

 

I have been observing human behavior on online boards for long enough time to recognise various patterns and I will say that there is a possibility (based on past patterns observed) that you may be setting up a straw man argument.

I wouldn't go as far as accusing you of doing it, but so far it is a possibility one can't exclude.

So I will watch until evolutionists refute all of your criticisms and then will intervene to show how miserably they failed to address much greater criticisms that I will colllect and hold in reserve in the meantime