Evolution can be disproved
Nowadays more and more people are starting to accept Evolution.
Is there enough evidence for the theory to be taken as fact, as so many people are doing nowadays?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
New species cannot arise through evolution
hi my name dr alex hayward at california universty i have been studying evoluyion for some time now and i believe that god created us and evolution is................... FUCKING FAKE BECAUSE HOW CAN AN INTIALY NEW SPECIES COME OUT OF NOTHING phew sorry about that but its just how i fill
You fail to take in the account of the Cambrian ezplosion, And the NUMEROUS accounts of false evidence submitted by scientists to help the debate of evolution v/s Creation . And also also the thing being physically impossible
It is very clear that you are not, in fact a Dr, and it would appear that your point is unfounded. If you actually had been studying evolution you would clearly realise that evolution isn't a new species coming out of nothing but the process of species coming from the thing before due to random variation. If I'm reading his (?) rant correctly, "Dr Alex" has confused the origins of life with evolution, when these are two very separate things. You're making a first cause argument, which is very likely to be disputed as soon as we get the LHC and find the Higgs Boson. It is interesting that "Dr Alex" claims to be from "California University", a university that happens to be non-existent.
Also, how would it be that a Dr STUDYING Evolution for "some time now" comes about to the conclusion that God created us?
Hi, im not going to pretend im a doctor at a university, but id like to tell you through my schooling of EVOLUTION its FUCKING REAL BECAUSE EVOLUTIONAL STUDIES TELL YOU HOW AN INITIALY NEW SPECIES COMES OUT OF ITS PREVIOUS FORM. phew... not sorry about that but its just how i FEEL.
You fail to take into account that you God supposedly made us come out of nothing and evolution says we came from somewhere. This means that you feel god created us but disbelieve in evolution and your reasoning is the opposite of what you believe in. And also also the thing in an invisible supperior being that makes things come from nothing is physically impossible.
Conclusion: Finish up middle school, graduate highschool. Go through college and get a degree in biology, then rethink all silly humor you fed us with :)
Evolution from chemicals is impossible
Scientists have found that within a cell there are thousands of "biochemical machines". For a cell to function, thousands of these machines must be placed in the correct concentration, at the correct time, and at the correct location.
Evolutionists believe that the very first life forms formed from a primordial soup of chemicals. However, without these "machines" no life can "evolve" from it.
Also, the odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
Just adding something here ...
This is so hilarious ... listen to this guy:
"there is absolutely no reason to suppose that cells of the first organisms were remotely as complex"
It's like saying:
"Well, yes, we can demonstrate that what your saying is provable and true, but why not just use our imagination about the past since we don't have a time travel machine .... "
What a total waste of cyber space! But this is what Evolution is all about at the very core. "Let us imagine that XYZ happened and continue our 'science' using this imaginative reality..."
Though this is true for "modern" cells, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that "cells" of the first organisms were remotely as complex. Very simple self-replicating systems built of simple RNA and lipid species, completely protein-free, are likely where life began. Also, it is important to remember the timescale involved in the origins of life, billions of years. If you play the lottery every day for a billion years you're going win many times.
<<<I'd say evolution was pretty much proven when scientists began bringing animals to foreign lands and watched generation after generation seeing the species evolve into one more adapt for its new environment.
Evolution of the homo sapien?
If evolution is an ongoing process, why haven't we seen it occurring with homo sapiens till now? It seems like just after the theory of evolution was 'realised', evolution somehow came to a halt. Has the modern human man achieved a state of complete perfection in form and quality by your understanding? Or do you believe that we have yet to evolve into a more sophisticated species?
Of course we are still evolving. Evolution does not drive species to become more sophisticated, just better adapted to their current environment (at a population level). Under normal circumstances it is a slow process, so it's little surprise you're not wowed.
Also, humans have cultural evolution as well as evolution by natural selection acting on them. Cultural 'evolution' is simply the accumulation of information passed down the generations. It moves much quicker than 'biological' evolution by natural selection and can sometimes mask the effects of it. For example, people with Alzheimer's disease die later than their ancestors would have done 10,000 years ago due to medical (i.e. cultural) advances.
Other species also have culture by the way. Like chimps passing on tool use. To a lesser degree, therefore, they also overcome constraints placed on them by the environment (e.g. they can crack open larger nuts).
And there HAS been recent human evolution. One example is lactose tolerance (caused by a very simple single mutation), which occurred at around the same time as people started to drink milk from cattle/sheep more frequently and still is somewhat isolated so that only groups of people descended from shepherding populations can drink milk into adulthood without adverse reactions (mainly bloating). Populations which never had the selection pressure placed on them by their circumstances never acquired lactose tolerance and many Balkan people, for example, are lactose intolerant for this reason.
Another example is that of a particular blood group (known as 'Duffy') which is related to the likelihood of acquiring a specific strain of Malaria (Falciparum vivax). If you have the blood type that confers immunity, you are obviously less at risk from malaria so you are more likely to grow up, have kids, pass the blood type down (since it's a genetic trait and inherited) and live long enough to raise them so they can also have kids of their own and so on. Over time, the blood type spreads. This is evolution by natural selection and accounts for why certain populations have the particular blood type and others don't (those that don't are also those not as much at risk from Malaria).
Similarly, selection for particular skin colours accounts for why darker people tend to be from more equatorial regions where protection from the sun is important while lighter ones come from colder climates where the important factor is avoiding vitamin D deficiency. (We all have dark-skinned ancestors, incidentally, as we all have African ancestors, if you go back far enough).
Absence of intermediate species between man and ape.
If evolution is inevitable in all circumstances, why do apes still exist? Why haven't they evolved into humans? Why aren't there communities of intermediates species that are in the process of transformation from ape to homo sapien? Why is there such a huge gap between the most primitive and the most developed, the beginning and the end of the chain of evolution? To where did the creatures in the middle vanish?
Version 1, 24-Aug-2008 13:24 by admin
Version 2, 05-Mar-2009 14:01 by admin
Tell me of your apelike ancestors. Were they as condescending as you? Sorry, I don't have an imagination. You will have to provide historical references. 99.9% extinct, wow, I should feel privileged to be in the minority, but not for long. Ah, yes, maladaptive traits, like dark skin and a large jaw and eyebrows, no less? Traits of a less evolved humanoid? Now consider (imagine) it's been a few million years and your cousin is still looking for the bones of his apelike ancestor and denying real history for an illusion called 'evolution'. Sad that his ancestors had to make up an unprovable story and call it science under the guise of searching for the truth; unbiased and ever open to change. What a pile of shit.
I just had to add something here. Concerning the last paragraph on the other side of the debate. What a load of crock!
My 50th cousin will still be HUMAN!
THAT is the key point here!
Who cares if they "look" different ... I am sure I look different to 100 generations prior, but like them I am still human! I have not began to evolve into a new species for crying out loud.
I am not a religious zealot like the evolutionists like to condescendingly label people who do not believe evolution is a fact. My concern is of intermediate species. If apes still exist, and, there were many intermediate steps, why aren't there large populations of these intermediate species still in existence to this very day? Apes are! You can surely show me large populations of apes, and saying there are 'dropouts' is a clever way to try and convince people to believe that viewpoint. If there are 'dropouts' why didn't the apes 'dropout'? The whole thing needs more faith to connect the dots that I care to put forth. I do believe that species 'adapt' and that is very logical, however, trying to tell us that evolution is a fact, is not correct, it still is NOT fact, it is still THEORY, and that THEORY is preached too often as a religion. Good grief, this other poster, the 'theory of gravity'?? Come on! Gravity is a fact we live with every day, it cannot be denied. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how convoluted the arguments for it are put forth. Evolution needs more study because the verifiable facts are a little too sketchy and require too much faith to believe in. Just because some scientist who we 'trust' says something is a 'fact' doesn't truly make it so either. Scientists have been known to be wrong and 'science' built upon a lie or fanciful notion by 'scientific minds' isn't always true. Too many people want to believe ANYTHING other than a message that there may actually be a method to the madness, meaning we may have been created by a power well beyond our comprehension and understanding. Thought of the day, who knows how long God's 'day' was in the 'beginning'? It could be 75 trillion years, it could be 75 years, or what is time really? How can God himself be limited by 'time'? "Time' is purely a human restriction! Go to Mars, and the 'day' is different, the 'year' is different etc. Move at the speed of light, time is different! Time is different to every part of the universe in every universe in existence! So, how can we say how long the 'day' was?? Just a little thought provoking concepts.
Ok, clearly you are interested, a good start, now try putting in the effort to learn something more tangable about evolution. Try reading a few books on evolution written for a general audience. Pick books about evolution, not about religion. It will be a challenge for you, which is good. To your points, evolution does NOT take a whole species and turn it magically into another. For speciation to occur, natural selection, genetic diversity within a species, habitat fragmentation and/or enviromental changes act together. Though I'm sure religious zealots would like you to believe that an overwhelming flaw in the theory of evolution is the fact that Humans and apes co-exist, this is actually a silly argument. We did not evolve from existing ape species. Instead, humans and modern apes share common ape-like ancestors that have been extinct for millions of years. Why did these intermediate forms vanish? 99.9% of all life forms that have ever existed on earth are now exinct. From the fossil record it is clear that most species are extinct roughly 10 million years after their first appearance. Life's tough. Many intermediate forms are among these "dropouts", including early hominid and other primate species. As the enviroments that animals, plants, fungi, et cetera, exploit change adaptations that were once favorable can become less favorable. Species are outcompeted, decrease in number and disappear, just like 8-track tape recorders and CRT monitors. As you probably know, there are numerous human traits that are maladaptive in the modern world. Why does there seem to be a gap between the "most developed" and "most primative" species. What gaps do you see? Humans are to apes, as honey bees are to solitary bees. We are not better suited to our environment than dolphins or bats are to theirs. Humans are generalists, like rats. Evolution is not a "chain". It isn't directed toward a purpose other that increased fitness. Species sophistication isn't the goal. Fancier doesn't usually work better. Yes, evolution is a theory, like the theory of gravity. You see, science is supposed to be careful. Where science requires proof, religion assumes fact. Which is more arrogant? In science we refer to ideas, like relativity, that are supported best by evidence as theories. Hypotheses are ideas that require testing. Theories change over time as new evidence develops. It's a superb method. I hope this helps.
Humans ARE apes. We didn't 'evolve from them'. We evolved from 'ape-like common ancestors' the same way you and your 3rd cousin share a great great grandmother. You and your 3rd cousin probably look less alike than you and your brother/sister. Now imagine your 50th cousin - maybe it's me - I probably look even less like you than either your 3rd cousin or your siblings. Now consider that it's been a few million years since you and your chimp cousin shared a great great great great... grandmother. That's how it works.
Science based on assumptions and fear of failure...
"Except you completely leave out all the tests scientists have conducted, bringing animals to foreign soils and watching them evolve to be more adapt to that land. That IS evolution. To say evolution doesn't exist is absurd. " I'm no Einstein but if you say that IS evolution and evolution not existing is absurd.. Then why is evolution still just a THEORY?!
Except you completely leave out all the tests scientists have conducted, bringing animals to foreign soils and watching them evolve to be more adapt to that land. That IS evolution. To say evolution doesn't exist is absurd. It's like claiming camels don't exist. It's been seen before, studied before.
Your issue with this being based off of assumption is the whole fact that its... you know... SCIENCE!? I don't know how young you are or if you've ever been through high school, but the scientific method states that everything should start with an assumption.
Furthermore, studying where we came from will give us a better idea on life and where we could go with it in the future. If we do learn that we truly did adapt to this world then what is stopping us from adapting to another?
Clearly when you go to debates the scientists who study evolution want to stay on track of the information that they themselves have experiences and concluded instead of being on the high school PMS squad and bitching down everything the other side states. Science is built on proving your own information, not attacking others.
Evidence for Evolution - Vestigial Organs
the appendix not a vital organ in humans.
how about the coccyx? Do you not find it weird that Humans have a bone where a tail should be attached?
also "Goosebumps" which primates get for 2 main reasons: Shock and Cold. On apes, goosebumps raise the hair on its body, making the hair stand up which gives it a larger appearance to be more intimidating to predators. It also traps a layer of air under the hair which is warmed through body heat.
Both of these features are ideal for creatures with hiar/fur and a tail, but useless to humans. Why do we have them?
That's it? Which "vestigial organs"? Name them and then go and get them removed by your local hospital. After that we can discuss how "vestigial" they were!
Yes it can... but that's a good thing!
Of course it can be disproved! Theoretically, any scientific 'theory' - to even qualify as scientific - must be able to be disproven. In fact, scientists never 'prove' anything - only disprove. And this is how science progresses.
For example, as various scientists have said and quoted, 'fossil rabbits in the Precambrian' would disprove evolution (by natural selection - and it is important to realise that 'evolution' alone is just a loose concept that no one needs to object to as all it means is change over time - the specific theory some take offence at is 'evolution by natural selection'). Happily, the rabbits are still evading discovery.
<< Just because it is in an early age of the scientific method does not make it poor science.
The problem Evolution faces is that it is not doing good on overcoming the issues which disprove it!
Science only progresses by overcoming the issues which threaten to disprove the theory. In this way Evolution is very poor science.
What do you think?