The Forum > General Discussion > Evolution is not a scientific theory
Evolution is not a scientific theory
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- ...
- 29
- 30
- 31
-
- All
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 7 January 2007 8:51:49 PM
| |
Arjay said: "Evolution has fossil,genetic,evidence,and logical hypothesis to back up it's credibility."
In terms of fossil evidence, gradualism is dead and punctuated equilibrium is a tepid and unfalsifiable excuse for the absence of transitional fossils that should be theoretically innumerable. Darwin, and much later, Gould went to their graves without discovering the trade secret. As for genetics, that's just as contentious. In order for a net evolutionary gain to occur, you need incredible amounts of new specified information to be added to the genetic code. Yet, there is no proven natural mechanism that actually generates new specified genetic information. Natural selection alone does not add new genetic information and is limited to information already resident in the gene pool e.g. the variation in the beaks of Darwin's finches, which incidentally reverted back after the drought. The lack of a developmental mechanism has led to the belief in "hopeful monsters". However, such random beneficial mutations (an oxymoron as mutations are either neutral or deleterious) require a huge leap of faith. Posted by Oligarch, Monday, 8 January 2007 5:45:56 AM
| |
Ludwig,
That was my point exactly - that 'missing links' are not a failure. The site that freediver is promoting harps on about the lack of predictive benefits offered by evolutionary theory. Whoever developed that site seems to have some serious 'missing links' in their own information. It may be through ignorance (which is no excuse) or it may be deliberate, in which case they are being deliberately deceitful. Posted by Porphyrin, Monday, 8 January 2007 5:46:42 AM
| |
Leigh, I read the Forum Rules and saw nothing about word count until I joined up and went to post to the Forum after I had already written my post in a WP package for cutting and pasting. But did you yourself notice the second rule which stated 'do not flame'? I also read the legal notices and under 'General prohibitions' it reiterates this: 'You must not up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person.'
Shame on your abusive comment, Leigh. Thanks for your support Ludwig.. Posted by zacco, Monday, 8 January 2007 6:16:45 AM
| |
Ludwig, I got blocked from posting here again so I put my response here:
http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/3#3 It looks like most of the comments since yours that were directed at me were little more than personal attacks, so I won't waste my time with a detailed response. If you aren't going to actually debate an issue why bother responding at all? Posted by freediver, Monday, 8 January 2007 9:20:19 AM
| |
It's sad that there are still people who believe that the theory of Evolution remains a debatable point. Sure, there are many disputes within the scientific community regarding many details and 'kinks' in the theory, but the vastly overwhelming body of the entire scientific community the world over agrees on the fundamental principles.
There is no leap of faith to be taken. To suggest that the theory of Evolution is wrong is to suggest that the massive body of evidence in support of Evolution (including the fossil record, behaviour of micro organisms, and the countless ways we can observe how life adapts to its surroundings) is merely a coincidence. If this were the case, it would be the most profoundly incomprehensable coincidence mankind has ever witnessed (the odds are absolutely astronomical). We should be past this by now. To deny Evolution as fact is to disregard science and scientific process entirely, as you are knowingly and willingly dismissing 99.9% of the scientific community (0.1% crackpot science is a given). I don't expect this to change any deniers mind...it seems the only thing that will convince them is a miracle. Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 8 January 2007 12:23:52 PM
|
And some of these missing links have been found very recently in Liaoning province, China, such as Confuscionis sanctus, one of several new feathered dinosaurs.