The Theory of Evolution

[☭proletarian☭]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

Anyone whop denies the fact of evolution is a fucking moron. There is no room for debate; evolution is a proven fact.

 

[Oddball]

Whatever you say fraud

What a stunningly cogent and fact-packet post....NOT!

Schmuck.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maybe that it's still a theory

Wrong. Evolution n is a fact.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Evolution is like saying:

If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.

When the wind finally died down.

There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.

You're an idiot and evolution =/= abiogenesis

 

[Sunni Man]

Maybe that it's still a theory

Wrong. Evolution n is a fact.

No, it is not a fact

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Yeah, just like gravity. Fuck'n hogwash!

Gravity: fact

Theory of Gravity: any of a number of theories regarding the how gravity is created, its nature, and how it operates (rather than merely describing its effects mathematically)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Yeah, just like gravity. Fuck'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

Silly premise refuted.

evolution =/= abiogenesis

Evolution doesn't address the emergence of the first replicators.

Scientifically illiterate moron refuted.

 

[Sunni Man]

Evolution is like saying:

If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.

When the wind finally died down.

There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.

You're an idiot and evolution =/= abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the ultimate crack pot theory.

It ranks right up there with the "hollow earth" theory.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maybe that it's still a theory

Wrong. Evolution n is a fact.

No, it is not a fact

Never heard of a child being born? Never heard of MRSA? Blue germs? Never got a shot?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Evolution is like saying:

If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.

When the wind finally died down.

There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.

You're an idiot and evolution =/= abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the ultimate crack pot theory.

It ranks right up there with the "hollow earth" theory.

If you wish to address abiogenesis, make a thread about it. This thread is about evolution.

 

[Sunni Man]

If you wish to address abiogenesis, make a thread about it. This thread is about evolution.

You are the one who injected "abiogenesis" first nto the conversation squid brain.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If you wish to address abiogenesis, make a thread about it. This thread is about evolution.

You are the one who injected "abiogenesis" into the conversation squid brain.

Wrong again, genius

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Yeah, just like gravity. Fuck'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

It was dude who compared Evolution to his gross misrepresentation of the theory of abiogenesis (only religions like Christianity say sentient life was created of out inanimate material).

You fail.

 

[Oddball]

evolution =/= abiogenesis

Evolution doesn't address the emergence of the first replicators.

Scientifically illiterate moron refuted.

This is a thread about evolution, not abiogenisis...If you want to talk about abiogenesis, start your own thread.

Asshelmet.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

evolution =/= abiogenesis

Evolution doesn't address the emergence of the first replicators.

Scientifically illiterate moron refuted.

This is a thread about evolution, not abiogenisis...If you want to talk about abiogenesis, start your own thread.

Asshelmet.

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Yeah, just like gravity. Fuck'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

Silly premise refuted.

This is a thread about evolution. If you wish to discuss either your gross misrepresentation of abiogenesis or the book of Genesis, make your own thread.


Dumbass.

 

[Oddball]

This is a thread about evolution. If you wish to discuss either your gross misrepresentation of abiogenesis or the book of Genesis, make your own thread.


Dumbass.

You're invoking abiogenisis here, not either one of us, so quit derailing.

And while your at it, evolve a little bit yourself.

 

[manifold]

Whatever you say fraud

What a stunningly cogent and fact-packet post....NOT!

Schmuck.

Yes. One more fact than you've posted so far fraud.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

This is a thread about evolution. If you wish to discuss either your gross misrepresentation of abiogenesis or the book of Genesis, make your own thread.


Dumbass.

You're invoking abiogenisis here, not either one of us,

Who was the first to speak of like emerging from cytoplasm? You? You've already shown yourself to be totally clueless about both evolution and abiogenesis, starting with your post about non-existent evolutionary theories. Try educating yourself regarding the matter being discussed before you try to chime in

Evolution: proven fact.

Theory of Evolution: (A)a misnomer; the scientific understanding of evolutionary changes which have occurred in the past. (B) A theory which posits that evolutionary changes will continue in the manner observed.

 

[geauxtohell]

Anyone that tries to apply evolutionary theory to explain the larger issues has stepped outside the scope of the theory. That's not Darwin's fault, nor does it negate the theory. BTW, I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole.

No evolutionist would deny that there are wholes in the theory. There are holes in most scientific theories. That's what makes science progressive. The evolutionary theory of today, doesn't really resemble Darwin's original theory. It's been changed and corrected throughout the years. Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well he did, but it was silly). Ironically, Mendal had already published his work on simple genetics, it just hadn't been noticed by the scientific community.

Darwin also didn't originate the concept of evolution. His major contribution, that fitness drives speciation, is now inherent to the theory.

Oh, I agree to all that.

Point being that as long as evolution is properly stipulated as still theory, it can be kept at arms length and we can baypass all the Dawkins and flying spaghetti moster crapola.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk&feature=related[/ame]

I think every scientific theory should be approached in a skeptical manner. I like Ken Miller's take on the matter.

However, you can't keep evolution at arm's length when it comes to the science classroom, as it's the only workable scientific theory for where we came from and how.

Also important to note, evolution picks up at the one cell level. Explaining how a one cell world came about is abiogenesis and is much more controversial. Though, I think Miller and Urey's work, and the "RNA World" theory is pretty interesting.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Also important to not, evolution picks up at the one cell level.

Incorrect. It picks up with the first replicators (self-replicating molecules).

Explaining how a one cell world came about is abiogenesis and is much more controversial.

Abiogenesis addresses the emergence of the first replicators. Once these are formed, evolution applies to them (the path of evolution in these early forms is open to speculation; there can be no theory as to how it occured, only to possible routes)

 

[geauxtohell]

The underlying fact is that we are not all alike, we pass our traits on in DNA, and that mutations cause alterations in traits.

What you are describing is adaptation.

That is not evolution

Yes it is. Adaptation or failure to adapt is part of evolution.

You don't have to believe in evolution, but you don't get to claim fiat on the matter.

Espeically when there are mountains of evidence that support it.