Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I don't want to nitpick, and I'm sure it was just a slip, but this statement demonstrates a major misconception of evolution that only feeds some of the more misbegot arguments against it. Our ancestors didn't grow anything in order to do anything. No one and nothing chooses what mutations or variations occur or how they'll aid survival. To suggest otherwise is anthropomorphisis, and a small step removed from invoking God as explanation.

You will find Carl Sagan saying the very samething in the videos that I posted. I merely copied what he was saying. Obviously you do not spontaneously grow it, please do not nit-pick my rhetoric to the point of inventing an entirely new point.

Something with debating evolution and people throwing the "you do not know what you are talking about" thing way too often.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm sorry, I tried again and also read O'nus's response, and he only touched upon 1/10 of the irregularities in any given "argument." It still strikes me as a stack of disjointed ideas founded upon ill informed misunderstandings of science and history, in a logicky, not logical, arrangement. Where could "debating" it possibly lead?
But you're right, my response was unproductive--it didn't arise from malice, just incredulity.

Again, if I missed irregularities - then point them out instead of just saying that.

Furthermore, do you really expect me to exhaustively explore every single possible argument for and against evolution here? I was merely focusing on the problem of saying "it's just a theory".

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It will show you that evolution is an older model that doesn't hold up to the present known results of the latest work anyway.

Perhaps you could indulge us with these present known results?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Maybe they would realize their fragile ego has already being shattered by someone more qualified that they havn't even being bothered to read about yet.

You have not given a reason to believe otherwise other than vapid criticism

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Why should I go out of my way to point out to insecure rude lazy bias argumentative bitter zealots, what is already out there and written for all to read?

Then why did you post at all in the first place?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's no secret. It's on bookshelves ready. I have nothing to prove. Expecially to someone with a closed mind. If you want to prove evolution write a book. Posting on dreamviews to prove anything is ridiculious.

I was saying that the phrase "it's just a theory" is not sufficient enough to refute anything. Nothing more than that was I arguing. Please read posts thoroughly and formulate your oppositions thoughts before jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

Up to this point i've agreed with you Mystic. I don't believe Evolution either, but I have nowhere near the amount of scientific knowledge i'd need to start arguing with the people here

In other words; you have no reason to disbelieve in evolution. Deliberate ignorance.

Originally Posted by CrimsonWolf

But what's wrong with posting stuff on DV to prove something? I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I was saying that the phrase "it's just a theory" is not a sufficient rebuttal - to anything, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I said it was ridiculious. Maybe I should quote a book just to shut him up

Yes, perhaps you should give justification for what you are saying other than conjecture and bleak scrutiny.

~

@ Photosyphilis.

First let's examine if a macroevoltion could have even begun

This is from a book called Evolution from space.

They estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.” Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. this has a likely hood of a tornado ripping apart a junk yard and creating a boeing 747


@Moonshine, Wing stubs to me means more body weight. More body weight would be a huge disadvantage Ie, slower,couldn't hide as easy.

They estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.” Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. this has a likely hood of a tornado ripping apart a junk yard and creating a boeing 747

The analogy is completely flawed because Evolution does not start with nothing and try to go to the top. It uses small changes to 'home in' on something better. This is what many people do not seem to understand about evolution.

Here is a very good analogy for how evolution works:

Someone is trying to guess the code for a keypad. However each time they get a key right they are told. This would allow them to quickly home in on the answer.

And that's what happens. Relatively small chances in step by step process. It's like making changes to a computer, and if they don't work you revert to the last good configuration. You don't simply wipe it all and start from scratch.



Imagine a 6 digit code on a 10 digit panel. There are 1 million combinations, and it would take up to 1 million guesses by blind chance.

With the 'evolution' method however, you could guess the entire thing in at most 60 attempts (10 max per digit).

You need to fully understand this analogy. It is essential to understanding the probabilities of evolution, and why so many religious people get it completely wrong.

It is possible for complex proteins to form in a single mutation but anyone rational would agree that this is so unlikely that we can simply say it doesn't happen. No supporter of evolution has ever claimed this has happened, and in all chances, it never will; it's that improbable.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

@Moonshine, Wing stubs to me means more body weight. More body weight would be a huge disadvantage Ie, slower,couldn't hide as easy.

This notion of "wing stubs" is where you're tripping up. Are you visualizing some kind of two-limbed animal gradually developing two new limbs? Like most of us, winged creatures developed from four-limbed creatures--wings are specialized arms, which are specialized legs, which are specialized fins, and on and on and on. Barring a serious accident, wing stubs never come into it.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Wing stubs to me means more body weight. More body weight would be a huge disadvantage Ie, slower,couldn't hide as easy.

Don't feel bad, lots of people don't understand complex things.

The double slit experiment is just one revelation that does not conform to an evolution theory at all.

Hahaha. Epic fail.

Congratulations on proving decisively to all of us that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hahaha. Epic fail.

Congratulations on proving decisively to all of us that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. I do not see the relevance of that experiment. It is as relevant as mentioning how to make popsicles.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You will find Carl Sagan saying the very samething in the videos that I posted. I merely copied what he was saying. Obviously you do not spontaneously grow it, please do not nit-pick my rhetoric to the point of inventing an entirely new point.

Something with debating evolution and people throwing the "you do not know what you are talking about" thing way too often.

I'm pointing out the personification because it crops up in every evolution discussion; as you point out, even Carl Sagan has been known to do it. It generally goes unnoticed and unexamined, and I think it distorts a lot of people's understanding of evolution, painting it as a force behind the development of life, i.e. an alternative to God, rather than a powerful explanatory device uniting the varied discoveries of biology and natural history. I'm not nit-picking your rhetoric or even criticizing you specifically, just taking the opportunity to point out a common error that inhibits the widespread understanding of evolution and fuels the "What about Gawd?" debate.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, if I missed irregularities - then point them out instead of just saying that.

Furthermore, do you really expect me to exhaustively explore every single possible argument for and against evolution here? I was merely focusing on the problem of saying "it's just a theory".

Again, not a dig at you, but I'm just going to let this rest. If you all insist that the post in question made sufficient sense to warrant debate, you're welcome to debate it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm pointing out the personification because it crops up in every evolution discussion; as you point out, even Carl Sagan has been known to do it. It generally goes unnoticed and unexamined, and I think it distorts a lot of people's understanding of evolution, painting it as a force behind the development of life, i.e. an alternative to God, rather than a powerful explanatory device uniting the varied discoveries of biology and natural history. I'm not nit-picking your rhetoric or even criticizing you specifically, just taking the opportunity to point out a common error that inhibits the widespread understanding of evolution and fuels the "What about Gawd?" debate.

Again, not a dig at you, but I'm just going to let this rest. If you all insist that the post in question made sufficient sense to warrant debate, you're welcome to debate it.

Ohh, I see what you are saying. It made sense when I saw the word "anthropromorphsis". I did not realize that you were simply trying to re-iterate what was said in order for clarity. Sorry about that, and thank you. I think I may jump to conclusions and I humbly blame text, lol. (MoonBeam can attest to this as well :p)

~

Originally Posted by grod

You consistently try to prove reptilian people are coming to keep us in a false reality of the government on a regular basis. On this forum, if you didn't pick up on that

Look at this blatant dishonesty. Suggesting things that are fantasy doesn't make what I said go away. I've never even mentioned reptilian theories before on this forum at all. Maybe it's the most silly thing you could think of. That is low and desperate to try and pin that on me.

I still want to know how the leap from eggs to live birth was made....not saying it cant be done, I just havnt seen the facts on it. I mean, live birth in mammals requires an umbilical chord, placenta, other things all to happen at the same time...how did all of these go from an egg to this in steps?

It's their religion. So don't question it. They can't answer they just "know".

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's their religion. So don't question it. They can't answer they just "know".

Seattle Troll Statue

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Look at this blatant dishonesty. Suggesting things that are fantasy doesn't make what I said go away. I've never even mentioned reptilian theories before on this forum at all. Maybe it's the most silly thing you could think of. That is low and desperate to try and pin that on me.

Sorry. It's easy to get confused.

Originally Posted by grod

Sorry. It's easy to get confused.

Grod, that link is a thread about the illuminati not reptilians.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Grod, that link is a thread about the illuminati not reptilians.

Thank you, that was the joke. The point was that they are both incredibly nonsensical.

I think you are either:

1.) An extremely thick witted 13 year old. If this is true, it's well past your bedtime, so you should sneak back upstairs.

2.) A common troll

...amirite?