Why aren't monkeys evolving now?

[indiajo]

It has everything to do with the origins of life. Without the magical, mystical idea that somehow life was born out of lifeless molten lava, and then somehow by magical and mystical "selection" this life arranged itself into thinking, sensuous beings, this can only be believed by people that are more ignorant than those who believe it was created by a greater power / intelligence.

There are no "facts" that support either evolution or natural selection. There is only studies by those who seek to discredit those of faith, and attempt to present their work in a way that appears as fact, but falls short of actually proving anything beyond simple, basic, garden variety adaptation by organisms already present.

I admit, I have no idea how to reply to this bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

If man evolved from the monkey, then why are monkeys not still evolving?

Where's the monkey who is smarter than the other monkeys, who's trying to evolve into a man?

Why don't we see monkeys doing anything intelligent, like discovering fire, or inventing the wheel, or burying their dead with ceremonial ritual?

Has the evolutionary process stopped cold?

This is remarkably ignorant.

Actually, it's a very good question. If you have such a monkey please produce him.

Why is it a good question?

Because you can't produce your monkey.

or a talking donkey.

None of which has anything to do with evolution.

 

[the_human_being]

Nothing.

Really? You don't say. It is the religious people who do understand that God is outside of time and space and therefore has existed for eternity past and eternity future simply because time and space limitations as well as gravity and other laws of physics do not apply to Him. God lives in a different dimension than we do. The spiritual world is the reality. God created this dimension for us. Ours is the virtual world, not God's world.

Well, well, well.
Listen, i stated a theory. A theory is a fact based assumption of the situation as far as we can get a hold on it presently. It's advantage is: it can and will be corrected if proven false or amended if not complete.

What you do is: you state you know. But you don't know. You just repeat like a parrot the same old fairytale that is told by religious gurus since they sipped the first mushroom juice at meetings of stone age medicine men.
You have a god of the gaps. Not so long ago your god sat on a cloud and watched you fapping, making notes in his little book of everyrhing.
Now he retreated in another dimension and created this -THIS- !!! universe, this dimension, just for us.
You see, since beginning of history you religious people tell us you know everything about god. Well, this knowledge appearantly changed somehow over time and adapted to the scientific falsification of your claims. Step by step.

I would not object to you and your fellow believers in any religion if you were straigt and honest.
That means, you admit that never ever any god has spoken to you, nor had he given you any rules to impose them on other people. Which caused about 200 to 300 million victims killed in unspeakable ways by now.
Because, you know, even you should reckognize that it is more than weird to assume, a god who made the physics to create a 13,x billion year old universe with a few hundred million galaxies decides to speak to one specimen of some illiterate sand people in the middle east, and that without witnesses, of course.
(And, moreover, this idiots lost the stone plates, the one and forever only, even though very vague, proof of the single personal contact in all history of a human beeing to his god. I can't get over that, excuse me. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!)
If you believe that your god who created THIS universe gave a few engraved stone plates to Moses for us to live obeying this rules or burn in hell, I consider you merely on the level of a Cro Magnon man.
If you believe you have the right, or even the god given obligation to impose that on me you have me on defcon 1.

Would you simply say: "ok, I do not understand the physics or math behind recent discoveries, and I feel more comfortable with a kind of superior beeing behind all that, and the idea that there could be a plan where I am part of gives a meaning to my life", I would have no reason to object to that.
May your life be happy and prosperous.

Peace.

Anything can be corrected when new discoveries are made. Even religious beliefs. Yes, you do consider everyone except your own conceded little self as being stupid. That's exactly what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

 

[007]

It has everything to do with the origins of life. Without the magical, mystical idea that somehow life was born out of lifeless molten lava, and then somehow by magical and mystical "selection" this life arranged itself into thinking, sensuous beings, this can only be believed by people that are more ignorant than those who believe it was created by a greater power / intelligence.

There are no "facts" that support either evolution or natural selection. There is only studies by those who seek to discredit those of faith, and attempt to present their work in a way that appears as fact, but falls short of actually proving anything beyond simple, basic, garden variety adaptation by organisms already present.

I admit, I have no idea how to reply to this bullshit.

So the truth leaves you speechless... I'm good with that.

Dumbass.

 

[007]

Learning a Short Example

Is it reasonable to say that research has shown that, in the wild, natural selection of traits in any direction is so uncommon that it may not exist?

Yes. The American Naturalist published the largest analysis of the degree to which selection of changes of specific physical traits in an animal group affects their fitness--as measured by survival, mating success, and offspring. It tabulated 63 prior field studies covering 62 species and over 2,500 estimates of selection. Significance was obtained using statistical analysis and not opinions. The highest median correlation of trait selection to fitness was a low 16 percent. This means 84 percent of changes were not explained by selection. Directional and stabilizing selection were no more likely to happen than non-directional and disruptive selection. In studies with species sample sizes greater than 1,000, the correlation of selection to survival was essentially negligible.12

Pulling It All Together

When constructing arguments for design, it is important to know why the only other explanation for intelligent design--natural selection--does not work. Research shows that environmental changes are just as random as mutations. But limits are necessary to the amount of luck allowed into science--otherwise, it degenerates into magic. Claims of unquantifiable emergent properties or lawfulness are equally mystical. Nevertheless, evolutionists claim reproductive abilities were not designed, but emerged by natural selection's powers to blindly see traits and lawfully save them with no final purpose to build complexity.

Christians must categorically push back the invalid claim that environments select organisms or even traits. This fallacy is essential to perpetuating evolutionary theory. No natural explanation exists for how creatures originally reproduced varieties of traits. It is not survival of the fittest, it is really survival of the "fitted." Creatures came designed with innate abilities to diversify, multiply, and fill environments.

The Institute for Creation Research

 

[Syriusly]

Again. Educate yourself. We don't know where or how 'life' begins. Any organic compound is a sign of life. Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Organic compounds, it is theorized, were in the sea on Earth, and over billions of years evolved into aquatic life forms that evolved into terrestial life forms. Didn't you take any science classes in school?

Well then, since I have no education and am willing to learn, I need to know where the Earth came from. That might be a start, Captain Knowledge.

The Earth came from space dust coalescing over eons. Meteors and comets added lots of iron and water.

Lots of good shows on TV explaining the latest theories.

Theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves.

Wow......considering that theories are the basis of much of science......that is an amazing statement.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Einstein believed in intelligent design. I am surprised you chose to use him for an example since you claim to be much more intelligent than anyone who believes in intelligent design.

fascinating- meanwhile I was responding to the idiot who said that 'theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves- once again:

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Oh wait- that would be you.

 

[Syriusly]

The Institute for Creation Research

LOL....really?

Is that like the Institute for Flat Earth Research?

 

[the_human_being]

Well then, since I have no education and am willing to learn, I need to know where the Earth came from. That might be a start, Captain Knowledge.

The Earth came from space dust coalescing over eons. Meteors and comets added lots of iron and water.

Lots of good shows on TV explaining the latest theories.

Theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves.

Wow......considering that theories are the basis of much of science......that is an amazing statement.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Einstein believed in intelligent design. I am surprised you chose to use him for an example since you claim to be much more intelligent than anyone who believes in intelligent design.

fascinating- meanwhile I was responding to the idiot who said that 'theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves- once again:

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Oh wait- that would be you.

Why is it fascinating to you? It's not fascinating to me. Einstein was intelligent. Unlike you, he didn't have to try to prove his intelligence over and over on a forum.

 

[Hollie]

Learning a Short Example

Is it reasonable to say that research has shown that, in the wild, natural selection of traits in any direction is so uncommon that it may not exist?

Yes. The American Naturalist published the largest analysis of the degree to which selection of changes of specific physical traits in an animal group affects their fitness--as measured by survival, mating success, and offspring. It tabulated 63 prior field studies covering 62 species and over 2,500 estimates of selection. Significance was obtained using statistical analysis and not opinions. The highest median correlation of trait selection to fitness was a low 16 percent. This means 84 percent of changes were not explained by selection. Directional and stabilizing selection were no more likely to happen than non-directional and disruptive selection. In studies with species sample sizes greater than 1,000, the correlation of selection to survival was essentially negligible.12

Pulling It All Together

When constructing arguments for design, it is important to know why the only other explanation for intelligent design--natural selection--does not work. Research shows that environmental changes are just as random as mutations. But limits are necessary to the amount of luck allowed into science--otherwise, it degenerates into magic. Claims of unquantifiable emergent properties or lawfulness are equally mystical. Nevertheless, evolutionists claim reproductive abilities were not designed, but emerged by natural selection's powers to blindly see traits and lawfully save them with no final purpose to build complexity.

Christians must categorically push back the invalid claim that environments select organisms or even traits. This fallacy is essential to perpetuating evolutionary theory. No natural explanation exists for how creatures originally reproduced varieties of traits. It is not survival of the fittest, it is really survival of the "fitted." Creatures came designed with innate abilities to diversify, multiply, and fill environments.

The Institute for Creation Research

Wow. The ICR.

Honestly, I really can't think of a more dishonest cabal of charlatans and hucksters.

 

[Syriusly]

Species gradually evolve.

No, what you're describing is adaptation, nothing more.

Evolution is one mans theory, nothing more. There is no proof.

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

 

[the_human_being]

No, what you're describing is adaptation, nothing more.

Evolution is one mans theory, nothing more. There is no proof.

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

I see. You are a student of Hollie's Theory of Tornado Evolution. It was all about cars and junk yards or something.

 

[Syriusly]

The Earth came from space dust coalescing over eons. Meteors and comets added lots of iron and water.

Lots of good shows on TV explaining the latest theories.

Theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves.

Wow......considering that theories are the basis of much of science......that is an amazing statement.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Einstein believed in intelligent design. I am surprised you chose to use him for an example since you claim to be much more intelligent than anyone who believes in intelligent design.

fascinating- meanwhile I was responding to the idiot who said that 'theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves- once again:

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

Oh wait- that would be you.

Why is it fascinating to you? It's not fascinating to me. Einstein was intelligent. Unlike you, he didn't have to try to prove his intelligence over and over on a forum.

LOL......you mean like you are trying to do?

You and I are participating in a 'discussion' of sorts. You have some wierd hard on about atheists.

You made the bizarre claim that 'theories are worth very little to people who can think for themselves- so I pointed out what is probably the single most important theory in the last 200 years- Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

That theory has been hugely important to millions of people- who can think for themselves- thereby demonstrating that your claim is just laughably wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

I see. You are a student of Hollie's Theory of Tornado Evolution. It was all about cars and junk yards or something.

You are reduced to making stuff up about me? LOL....

I don't need to know how life began- maybe some mystical god did create the first life and let it keep going- we are unlikely to ever completely resolve something that there can be no fossil record of, but as I said

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works

 

[Hollie]

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

I see. You are a student of Hollie's Theory of Tornado Evolution. It was all about cars and junk yards or something.

Ah. I see you're still trying to backstroke on one of the nonsense claims coming out of your creation ministries.

Have you considered that being ignorant regarding the evolutionary science makes you a poor candidate to argue against it?

 

[007]

No, what you're describing is adaptation, nothing more.

Evolution is one mans theory, nothing more. There is no proof.

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

No, you don't have proof at all of evolution. You may have observed adaptation, or mutation, but there is no such thing as evolution.

And without being able to quantify the origins of life, your entire claim of evolution and natural selection or rendered moot. You can't have one without proof of the other.

Now I realize you people will never give up trying to push these theories off as fact, but thankfully there are those of us that are intelligent enough to know you're simply pushing a whole load of garbage.

 

[007]

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

I see. You are a student of Hollie's Theory of Tornado Evolution. It was all about cars and junk yards or something.

Ah. I see you're still trying to backstroke on one of the nonsense claims coming out of your creation ministries.

Have you considered that being ignorant regarding the evolutionary science makes you a poor candidate to argue against it?

Irony alert.

 

[Hollie]

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

No, you don't have proof at all of evolution. You may have observed adaptation, or mutation, but there is no such thing as evolution.

And without being able to quantify the origins of life, your entire claim of evolution and natural selection or rendered moot. You can't have one without proof of the other.

Now I realize you people will never give up trying to push these theories off as fact, but thankfully there are those of us that are intelligent enough to know you're simply pushing a whole load of garbage.

You're intelligent enough to cut and paste from the ICR.

You just refuted your own claim to being intelligent.

 

[Syriusly]

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

No, you don't have proof at all of evolution. You may have observed adaptation, or mutation, but there is no such thing as evolution.
.

Whatever dude- believe in whatever fairy dust you want to.

Adaption over time is evolution. You can deny it and you can deny that the Earth is spherical.

Not my problem.

 

[Hollie]

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

I see. You are a student of Hollie's Theory of Tornado Evolution. It was all about cars and junk yards or something.

Ah. I see you're still trying to backstroke on one of the nonsense claims coming out of your creation ministries.

Have you considered that being ignorant regarding the evolutionary science makes you a poor candidate to argue against it?

Irony alert.

The irony is that I gave you a comprehensive description of the relevant science community and its acceptance of the there and science of evolution. You couldn't accept that because it clashes with your fundamentalist views.

 

[Hollie]

The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

"Natural selection" is also a theory, based only in supposition.

To say life on earth was born out of "chance" is wackier than to say it was created by a higher intelligence.

Natural selection is also a theory, based upon the facts as we know them.

Has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It has everything to do with the origins of life. .

Not at all.

If you see a car driving to you from down the road, you don't need to know where the car started driving in order to observe that the car is indeed moving.

We have the genetic and paleo evidence to show that evolution is happening.

Evolution does not require knowing how the first cell divided in order to know how evolution actually works.

No, you don't have proof at all of evolution. You may have observed adaptation, or mutation, but there is no such thing as evolution.

And without being able to quantify the origins of life, your entire claim of evolution and natural selection or rendered moot. You can't have one without proof of the other.

Now I realize you people will never give up trying to push these theories off as fact, but thankfully there are those of us that are intelligent enough to know you're simply pushing a whole load of garbage.

The following might be helpful for you.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution