"Evolution isn't science"

My argument is that MACRO evolution should not be taught in public schools.
Click to expand...
There is no scientific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution other than time. Every significant aspect of evolutionary theory has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild this includes speciation, mutation (arrival of genes not previously existing in the gene pool, and they weren't deformities btw), and natural selection. The only thing that hasn't occurred is the kind of big change that takes millions of years and several species to occur. But we can use the fossil record and genetics to confirm that those changes have occurred. The transtion from fish to amphibian took millions of years. There is clear fossil evidence for limb and ribcage formation. There is also physiologic and genetic evidence linking the terrestrial lung and the fish swim bladder.
 
There is no scientific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution other than time. Every significant aspect of evolutionary theory has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild this includes speciation, mutation (arrival of genes not previously existing in the gene pool, and they weren't deformities btw), and natural selection. The only thing that hasn't occurred is the kind of big change that takes millions of years and several species to occur. But we can use the fossil record and genetics to confirm that those changes have occurred. The transtion from fish to amphibian took millions of years. There is clear fossil evidence for limb and ribcage formation. There is also physiologic and genetic evidence linking the terrestrial lung and the fish swim bladder.
Click to expand...
So is time your god? seems that anything in your mind is possible with millions or billions or trillions of years.
 
The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966
 
CACTUSJACKmankin said:
There is no scientific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution other than time. Every significant aspect of evolutionary theory has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild this includes speciation, mutation (arrival of genes not previously existing in the gene pool, and they weren't deformities btw), and natural selection. The only thing that hasn't occurred is the kind of big change that takes millions of years and several species to occur. But we can use the fossil record and genetics to confirm that those changes have occurred. The transtion from fish to amphibian took millions of years. There is clear fossil evidence for limb and ribcage formation. There is also physiologic and genetic evidence linking the terrestrial lung and the fish swim bladder.
Click to expand...

Man, I told you not to give away my ending!!!!!!

Sheesh!
 
Time vs. God. Hmmm. What a leap of an irrational argument that is. Why not take a real leap and go to talkorigins.org and learn what scientists ACTUALLY learned about evolution. Or will your brain explode if you read something logical?

The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil.
Click to expand...

That's complete BULL. Where did you read that garbage? From Veith or Hovind?
 
jesus_freak said:
OK I'll take the bait...what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Oh, come on now. You are the one believing in the Bible as the literal truth. Surely you of all people must be aware that Genesis opens with not only one, but -two- creation stories, in which there are several details that are mutually exclusive. Such as that in one tale, the light is the first thing created, while in the other tale, it's the heavens and the earth, and then only afterwards is light added. Or how the first two humans are made at the same time in one tale, but in the other, Adam's created first, and then after a fair while, Eve's put together.

Go on, go ahead and -read- the two different creation stories that this "infallible" bible of yours provides.
 
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.[Shoot I copied this before I got the source I will try and get that soon.
 
JF, stop copying the same old same old GARBAGE from creationut sites and find some real science. If all you read are creationut lies, then of course science will never make any sense.

And it takes far more than mutation for speciation to happen, and thus get to some macroevolution. You're clearly completely ignorant of of actual science.

Those creationut sites are doing you no favors, since you only look like a raving ignorant primate with no grasp of actual facts.
 
Last edited:
These were your words.


What does any of that have to do with evolution?
Click to expand...

umm maybe these are some of the arguments used in high school textbooks to prove evolution...does that satisfy you?
 
jesus_freak said:
umm maybe these are some of the arguments used in high school textbooks to prove evolution...does that satisfy you?
Click to expand...

They are NOT used in high school textbooks, LIAR. Unless it's a creationut text used unethically in a high school by a teacher that's an ignoramous. I do therefore hope you're just lying.
 
The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966
Click to expand...

What were the assumptions, that it started with nothing? Because I agree that a protein cannot form from nothing, it can however form from a series of chemical reactions. All living things are made of molecules and exist as the result of countless chemical reactions, agreed? If life is chemical in nature then the only process that could concievably have created life is a chemical process. We call this process abiogenesis. If it wasnt a chemical process than what was it? Your answer is apparantly *POOF*! Magic words were said and it was so!!! Sorry but *POOF* isn't a viable scientific mechanism or a satisfactory explanation.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
They are NOT used in high school textbooks, LIAR. Unless it's a creationut text used unethically in a high school by a teacher that's an ignoramous. I do therefore hope you're just lying.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question about the Blue Girl.


It's at least as important as anything else on this thread.
 
They are NOT used in high school textbooks, LIAR. Unless it's a creationut text used unethically in a high school but a teacher that's a ignoramous. I do therefore hope you're just lying.
Click to expand...
Tomorrow I will give you books and pages, unless you have read every high school textbook I would ask you stop with the name calling or this will get ugly fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom