Evolution is one of the few scientific theories that a lot of people openly reject. I have come to know that this is usually a result of ignorance, misinformation or intellectual dishonestly.

So, I am curious to know, is there any real scientific evidence that 'disproves' evolution or are there any of its assertions not supported by scientific evidence? If there is, make it known.

(Please keep comments as brief as possible and cite sources to support any assertions)

44 views with no reply at 4: 00 ...you and the theory are so dumb that even people who follow you and viewed it ignored you ... evolved ape ( you shouldn't find this offensive tho

Anyways lemme think of one

1 Why did man evolve into super intelligent beings while the other animals were left far far behind.

2. If animals evolve to adapt to their environment and survive in it .

a. why do fishes living in the same aquatic habitat look vastly different with distinct features , sea creatures too . n/b they experience the same atmospheric conditions (same with other animals) .Since evolutionis modification of physical features.

b. why do life forms die naturally . Hasn't the aim of evolution failed

c. pathogens like viruses , fungi came from that one single cell right. Why did nature evolve pathogens that prevent the survival of its life forms

3. how sensible does this sound to you . A single cell evolving into super -complex species , organs , systems with specified complex functions

4. Why do single cells presumably involved in evolution , still exist today
,
5. Do you accept the "fact" that in two billion years time , single cells could evolve into new creatures ; man with new physical features

6. Looking at cosmic evolution , explain the nature of forces and why do they exist fully on earth . Simply m how come these forces are felt differently

7. Where did the first cell come from

KingEbukasBlog:
44 views with no reply at 4: 00 ...you and the theory are so dumb that even people who follow you and viewed it ignored you ... evolved ape ( you shouldn't find this offensive tho

Anyways lemme think of one

1 Why did man evolve into super intelligent beings while the other animals were left far far behind.

2. If animals evolve to adapt to their environment and survive in it .

a. why do fishes living in the same aquatic habitat look vastly different with distinct features , sea creatures too . n/b they experience the same atmospheric conditions (same with other animals) .Since evolutionis modification of physical features.

b. why do life forms die naturally . Hasn't the aim of evolution failed

c. pathogens like viruses , fungi came from that one single cell right. Why did nature evolve pathogens that prevent the survival of its life forms

3. how sensible does this sound to you . A single cell evolving into super -complex species , organs , systems with specified complex functions

4. Why do single cells presumably involved in evolution , still exist today
,
5. Do you accept the "fact" that in two billion years time , single cells could evolve into new creatures ; man with new physical features

6. Looking at cosmic evolution , explain the nature of forces and why do they exist fully on earth . Simply m how come these forces are felt differently

7. Where did the first cell come from

Your reply speaks volumes about your education. You even struggle with basic reading and comprehension. *face palm*

So, I am curious to know, is there any real scientific evidence that 'disproves' evolution or are there any of its assertions not supported by scientific evidence? If there is, make it known.

Come back when you learn to read(and count).

DProDG:


Your reply speaks volumes about your education. You even struggle with basic reading and comprehension. *face palm*

Come back when you learn to read(and count).

I couldn't answer the questions because I dont know , would have been an honourable response .

anyways ... its nice knowing you

KingEbukasBlog:
44 views with no reply at 4: 00 ... you and the theory are so dumb that even people who follow you and viewed it ignored you ... evolved ape ( you shouldn't find this offensive tho

First off,I know you're trolling(as always)...

Your response alone shows that your comment is driven not by any sort of intellectual basis but by your preference and ignorance on the subject....

Anyways lemme think of one

Let's see

1 Why did man evolve into super intelligent beings while the other animals were left far far behind.

intelligence isn't the goal of evolution....it's survival...homo sapiens and other species used whatever they could to survive...

So with opposable thumbs,a bipedal skeletal structure and a host of other changes, we made use of those changes the only way they could be used....to manipulate the environment...

2. If animals evolve to adapt to their environment and survive in it .

You could say that but more accurately...

Animals are shaped by environmental pressures(natural selection)...those that can't adapt die or are less likely to procure offspring, those that do...pass on those traits that were necessary for survival...

a. why do fishes living in the same aquatic habitat [b] look vastly different with [b] distinct features , sea creatures too . n/b they experience the same atmospheric conditions (same with other animals) Since evolutionis modification of physical features.

Did you ever study Agriculture in school?... Well if you did you should have known that fishes don't all live in the same aquatic habitat (fresh water/salt water habitats with estuarine habitats I think)...

Also not all sea creatures are fishes, some are mammals....

And to say that being exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"(this is laughable because an "atmospheric condition" is constricted to land and/or gas bodies)

That said,environmental conditions do not produce homologous structures because each organism has to respond to those conditions differently....

An easy example is this, twins may be exposed to the same environmental conditions but their physical, mental and/or emotional response would differ sufficiently for you to determine that they're distinct in little but noticeable ways....let those changes go through the years and you have a wide distinction with which to recognize them apart...

b. why do life forms die naturally . Hasn't the aim of evolution failed

And what aim might that be?....to survive doesn't equate to immortality...this is a straw man fallacy...

c. pathogens like viruses , fungi came from that one single cell right. Why did nature evolve pathogens that prevent the survival of its life forms

Viruses don't originate from cells....they merely are non-living crystallized pieces of genetic code that hijack living cells to reproduce...their reproduction may interfere with the organism or may simply integrate itself into it's dna causing no effect and may even be useful....note this study that demonstrated that http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7529/full/nature13960.html )

Furthermore it doesn't matter if viruses and other pathogens help, harm or are indifferent to you because "nature" is not an anthropomorphic entity that should express any opinion towards you...

3. how sensible does this sound to you . A single cell evolving into super -complex species , organs , systems with specified complex functions

What's sensible or not is of no use to tell the truth of things..evidence and inquiry have often made the things we comforted not sensible to be sensible today....(primitives once thought it's not sensible to think the earth isn't flat)

And most embarrassingly ignorant of you is that, single cells really do form organs, systems,etc by mitosis....or have you forgotten basic biology?

4. Why do single cells presumably involved in evolution , still exist today

You can't have life without cells-basic biology...

Life evolves and to do that it needs it's building blocks-cells...

And evolution works with the most adaptable structure....so what's more adaptable than a cell that would be sufficient enough to cause cells to be selected against?

5. Do you accept the "fact" that in two billion years time , single cells could evolve into new creatures ; man with new physical features

Evolution is simply defined as "change over time" or biologically speaking the descent of reproductive populations through change...

That being said you should know that all life changes(evolves)....And every creature is basically a new unique one that's still under a parent genera..

6. Looking at cosmic evolution , explain the nature of forces and why do they exist fully on earth . Simply m how come these forces are felt differently

So in a topic of biological evolution you jump to astronomy?

Like I said earlier evolution means "change over time", so many fields(biology, meteorology, geology, etc) would have a comprehensive study of the evolution(again, change over time) of one thing or the other...

If you like to see the explanation of forces and why forces act then open a physics textbook....nobody owes you one....you can either stay willfully ignorant or get the education...

Nobody also owes you a "why things exist" just as nobody owes you "why things don't exist"....so you could either investigate that which you can or develop that inquiry into a testable hypothesis...

7. Where did the first cell come from

How is the location of "the first cell" a consideration in disproving evolution?...

Even still I put quotes on that(first cell) because at no point in time did a cell become "the first cell" because there were still precursors to cells then and even today our mitochondria dna in our cells have been traced to a recent(recent in years relative to mankind)population..


Your post is just founded in ignorance of basic knowledge and a mix of fallacies(mainly equivocation, straw-man and arguments from ignorance)....I'd be ashamed of your intelligence if I didn't already know you to be a troll.....

Right now you might have probably just ignored the bulk of my posts and scrolled down to continue trolling so that you'd have an audience for your blunt ignorance....

...

davien:
First off,I know you're trolling(as always)...

Your response alone shows that your comment is driven not by any sort of intellectual basis but by your preference and ignorance on the subject....


Let's see

intelligence isn't the goal of evolution....it's survival...homo sapiens and other species used whatever they could to survive...

So with opposable thumbs,a bipedal skeletal structure and a host of other changes, we made use of those changes the only way they could be used....to manipulate the environment...

You could say that but more accurately...

Animals are shaped by environmental pressures(natural selection)...those that can't adapt die or are less likely to procure offspring, those that do...pass on those traits that were necessary for survival...



Did you ever study Agriculture in school?... Well if you did you should have known that fishes don't all live in the same aquatic habitat (fresh water/salt water habitats with estuarine habitats I think)...

Also not all sea creatures are fishes, some are mammals....

And to say that being exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"(this is laughable because an "atmospheric condition" is constricted to land and/or gas bodies)

That said,environmental conditions do not produce homologous structures because each organism has to respond to those conditions differently....

An easy example is this, twins may be exposed to the same environmental conditions but their physical, mental and/or emotional response would differ sufficiently for you to determine that they're distinct in little but noticeable ways....let those changes go through the years and you have a wide distinction with which to recognize them apart...

And what aim might that be?....to survive doesn't equate to immortality...this is a straw man fallacy...

Viruses don't originate from cells....they merely are non-living crystallized pieces of genetic code that hijack living cells to reproduce...their reproduction may interfere with the organism or may simply integrate itself into it's dna causing no effect and may even be useful....note this study that demonstrated that http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7529/full/nature13960.html )

Furthermore it doesn't matter if viruses and other pathogens help, harm or are indifferent to you because "nature" is not an anthropomorphic entity that should express any opinion towards you...

What's sensible or not is of no use to tell the truth of things..evidence and inquiry have often made the things we comforted not sensible to be sensible today....(primitives once thought it's not sensible to think the earth isn't flat)

And most embarrassingly ignorant of you is that, single cells really do form organs, systems,etc by mitosis....or have you forgotten basic biology?

You can't have life without cells-basic biology...

Life evolves and to do that it needs it's building blocks-cells...

And evolution works with the most adaptable structure....so what's more adaptable than a cell that would be sufficient enough to cause cells to be selected against?

Evolution is simply defined as "change over time" or biologically speaking the descent of reproductive populations through change...

That being said you should know that all life changes(evolves)....And every creature is basically a new unique one that's still under a parent genera..


So in a topic of biological evolution you jump to astronomy?

Like I said earlier evolution means "change over time", so many fields(biology, meteorology, geology, etc) would have a comprehensive study of the evolution(again, change over time) of one thing or the other...

If you like to see the explanation of forces and why forces act then open a physics textbook....nobody owes you one....you can either stay willfully ignorant or get the education...

Nobody also owes you a "why things exist" just as nobody owes you "why things don't exist"....so you could either investigate that which you can or develop that inquiry into a testable hypothesis...

How is the location of "the first cell" a consideration in disproving evolution?...

Even still I put quotes on that(first cell) because at no point in time did a cell become "the first cell" because there were still precursors to cells then and even today our mitochondria dna in our cells have been traced to a recent(recent in years relative to mankind)population..


Your post is just founded in ignorance of basic knowledge and a mix of fallacies(mainly equivocation, straw-man and arguments from ignorance)....I'd be ashamed of your intelligence if I didn't already know you to be a troll.....

Right now you might have probably just ignored the bulk of my posts and scrolled down to continue trolling so that you'd have an audience for your blunt ignorance....

davien am not into evolution because its a religion and am a Christian

I didn't ignore your post , I just saw this now honestly .

And "Ignorant" is a strong word you know

ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

And if you call someone who doesn't care or give a fk about evolution ignorant or uneducated , you need to check your sanity

sanity
ˈsanɪti/Submit
noun
the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health.

Spew your jargon somewhere else , evolution is crappy science . Till then

Evolution(macroevolution) is only a foolish proof less historical concept that we rationally reject. There is nothing to bring up against a person's foolish interpretation of historical data.

Here are some foundation questions for evolutionists to start with:

How can evolution explain the following:

1. Ultimate cause of the universe;

2. How life originated;

3. How all the information contained in the DNA originated.

OLAADEGBU:
Here are some foundation questions for evolutionists to start with:

How can evolution explain the following:

1. Ultimate cause of the universe;

2. How life originated;

3. How all the information contained in the DNA originated.

Ignoring the fact that creationists reply straight forward questions with multiple, my main problem with you guys is that you know so little about what you reject, hence "ignorance". Your questions are all strawmen. If you aren't going to answer mine, at least ask questions concerning the theory of evolution.