Kalatium:


Evolution deals with man's origin, religion is involved

Another advertisement of ignorance. Evolution does not deal with man's origin, evolution deals with the origin of species.

wirinet:

Another advertisement of ignorance. Evolution does not deal with man's origin, evolution deals with the origin of species.

MY mistake! Origin of species
Is man not a specie?

wirinet:


This does not merit a response, it show you have no idea of science or how scientific principles work.



Evolution will only continue to be controversial to ignorant black African who have been completely brainwashed into worshipping the gods of their conquerors. In the west and more enlightened societies, even 10 yr olds understand and accept evolution as a fact.

I am not trying to prove creationism, I have not seen any undisputable fact in evolution

Until evolutionists can develop an undisputable fact about evolution, the theory will continue to be controversial because we have not seen any evolution in action

taurus25:
I tire o

Creationism is not science because science can't explain the supernatural. But their are insufficient evidence for evolution

wirinet:


This does not merit a response, it show you have no idea of science or how scientific principles work.



Evolution will only continue to be controversial to ignorant black African who have been completely brainwashed into worshipping the gods of their conquerors. In the west and more enlightened societies, even 10 yr olds understand and accept evolution as a fact.

africa is usually the last to ''catch-up''..

Kalatium:

Creationism is not science

True

because science can't explain the supernatural

There's no concrete evidence to suggest that theres actually a supernatural. Most "supernatural" events that are subjected to rigourus study and scrutiny, have been observed to be mere ununderstood natural phenomena.

But their are insufficient evidence for evolution

This is false!

It is true that in the past some people lack understanding of the natural thinking it is supernatural. Eg people thought diseases were caused by witches and demons but science proof it was micro organism.

But it is worthy of note that not all situation happens this way, some are supernatural, unexplained by science. E.g in a video I watched "in 2012, scientist were surprised that a baby was born without brain. They predicted that the baby will die in a short time but in 2014 the baby celebrated his 2 yrs birthday".

wirinet:


This does not merit a response, it show you have no idea of science or how scientific principles work.



Evolution will only continue to be controversial to ignorant black African who have been completely brainwashed into worshipping the gods of their conquerors. In the west and more enlightened societies, even 10 yr olds understand and accept evolution as a fact.

More like indoctrination of 10yr olds on the theory of evolution. If you teach them young enough it usually registers....lol Atheist deception 101

Wilgrea7:


yes Sir. after i made this post i actually did some research on evolution and creation.. i must say... i don't totally disagree with evolution .

I believe in micro evolution(small changes over time). it happens and it has been happening. but I've not seen any basis or proof for macro evolution(large changes over small period of time). i believe in creation. the created species can evolve (micro evolution) over a specific period of time due to environment and climatic factors.. but saying our complex universe came from a mistake... a bang of nothing... I've not seen any proof whatsoever.. if u have u can share.. I'm ready to learn

I agree with you here

Evolution is no longer a debate I dunno why you are bothering with creationists. Let them continue to wallow in their pseudo scientific claims that have been refuted every time. But will they listen ooh no. They will be looking at "scientists" like

Micheal behe( the nigga that coined the irreducible complexity in the divine comedy "intelligent design" This term had been thoroughly dealt with by evolutionists plus his most famous work "darwins black box" has also been negatively reviewed in scientific journals. At least he's even making an effort.
lets look at the other "scientists"
Kent hovind(claims to have four doctorates in education theology and biblical ministry with an honorary degree in divinity. Taught math and science for fifteen years in a high school. This one is the one that annoys me the most because despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers) *facepalm*
Adnan oktar( this one studied philosophyj
Ray comfort ( no tertiary education)
Kirk cameron( washed up child actor)
Ken ham(public school science teacher)
And yet they argue against evolution like they have a clue. Micheal behe does sha he's even the most reasonable out of them all. But he is still a psuedo scientist
Intelligent design
The comedy of science

jonbellion:
Evolution is no longer a debate I dunno why you are bothering with creationists. Let them continue to wallow in their pseudo scientific claims that have been refuted every time. But will they listen ooh no. They will be looking at "scientists" like

Micheal behe( the nigga that coined the irreducible complexity in the divine comedy "intelligent design" This term had been thoroughly dealt with by evolutionists plus his most famous work "darwins black box" has also been negatively reviewed in scientific journals. At least he's even making an effort.
lets look at the other "scientists"
Kent hovind(claims to have four doctorates in education theology and biblical ministry with an honorary degree in divinity. Taught math and science for fifteen years in a high school. This one is the one that annoys me the most because despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers) *facepalm*
Adnan oktar( this one studied philosophyj
Ray comfort ( no tertiary education)
Kirk cameron( washed up child actor)

Ken ham(public school science teacher)
And yet they argue against evolution like they have a clue. Micheal behe does sha he's even the most reasonable out of them all. But he is still a psuedo scientist
Intelligent design
The comedy of science

You are right, many creationist are not well informed in science but that doesn't change the fact about evolution. Although many assertion they make may be unintelligent but looking deep at what they say, truly evolution has not yet answer many of their questions like the possibility of abiogenesis , macroevolution, etc.

Kalatium:


You are right, many creationist are not well informed in science but that doesn't change the fact about evolution. Although many assertion they make may be unintelligent but looking deep at what they say, truly evolution has not yet answer many of their questions like the possibility of abiogenesis , macroevolution, etc.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, evolution already assumes life before it makes any claim.

Furthermore, macroevolution has been proven many times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Part 5 is the key point. Although, all the other parts are important.

"I don't know why Evolution cannot just start another human race"......................Jezuuz faking Qwist!!! See stupidity in action ohh!!! Admit it!!! Uou are a disgrace to the educational system!!! You must have heard of a magazine called "Complete Football"!!! You should become the Editor-in-Chief of a similar version titled, "Complete Foolball"!!!

CoolUsername:


The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, evolution already assumes life before it makes any claim.

Furthermore, macroevolution has been proven many times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Part 5 is the key point. Although, all the other parts are important.

The link is not working

Kalatium:


The link is not working

Maybe you can try the link tomorrow. The side seems to be down for now. I still have another link that shows several examples of speciation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C3743329933

EDIT: I did some digging and found a mirror archive site for TalkOrigins.org:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

It still stands, part 5 is the area of concentration but you should read everything if you have the time.

Know that it's not only religious affiliates that do not support evolution, other atheist and scientists disagree with evolution. It still remains the most controversial theory in science.


Last year, on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, Darwin's stock soared higher than Apple's. It's 2010—time for a market adjustment.
The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection "the single best idea anyone has ever had." I'm inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people. I don't mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.
Take, for example, the philosopher Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University and the cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson. In What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), these self-described atheists argue that the theory of natural selection is "fatally flawed." Their book, which I reviewed for The Philadelphia Inquirer, is, well, fatally flawed. For example, they air familiar debates over how large a role contingency plays in evolution; whether natural selection operates primarily at the level of genes; why certain clusters of genes persist unchanged for eons. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini wrap up the discussion of each debate with the same kicker: natural selection must be wrong.
But saying debates over contingency, levels of selection and gene conservation disprove
evolutionary theory is like saying debates over the formation of Saturn's rings disprove heliocentrism. If you're going to shoot the king, the old saying goes, you had better kill him. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini don't even wound Darwin. What Darwin Got Wrong nonetheless serves as a useful reminder of more coherent complaints about natural selection.
I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.
Other critics object to Darwinism for precisely the opposite reason. They fear that evolutionary theory, even when buttressed by modern genetics and molecular biology, does not make reality probable enough. Reality seems too precarious, too much a product of blind luck. No one has worked harder to solve the improbability problem than the biologist Richard Dawkins. Ironically, Dawkins has also revealed how deep and possibly intractable the problem is.
In Climbing Mount Improbable (W. W. Norton, 1997) Dawkins emphasizes that the vast majority of variants of a given species fail to propagate; there are many more ways to be a loser in the game of life than to be a success. Surely that is true of life as a whole. Of all the imaginable possible histories of life, what is the likelihood that it would persist for billions of years, long enough to produce toads, baboons and Glenn Beck?
Dawkins also notes that "nature, unlike humans with brains, has no foresight." Each individual organism pursues its short-term interests regardless of the long-term consequences for life as a whole or even for other members of the species. Given this fact, it is all too easy to imagine scenarios in which one species—a bacterium or virus, perhaps—runs amok and destroys all life on Earth.
If our past was improbable, our future might be as well. Recognizing this implication of evolutionary theory, some scientists have proposed alternative mechanisms to make life more robust. For example, biochemists such as Ilya Prigogine and Stuart Kauffman (cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini) have postulated "self-organization" forces that made the origin of life and its subsequent history highly probable.
Other theorists have proposed that natural selection may favor not just genes or individuals but populations, species, even entire ecosystems. The most extreme version of this group-selection concept is Gaia theory, which holds that all of life somehow conspires to ensure its continued survival. Self-organization and Gaia are flawed theories that have won few adherents, but that doesn't mean that the problem they address doesn't exist.
Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
Is it possible that some future genius will discover an alternative that supplants Darwinism as our framework for understanding life? Will we ever look back on Darwin as brilliant but wrong?

CoolUsername:


Maybe you can try the link tomorrow. The side seems to be down for now. I still have another link that shows several examples of speciation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C3743329933

EDIT: I did some digging and found a mirror archive site for TalkOrigins.org:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

It still stands, part 5 is the area of concentration but you should read everything if you have the time.

I have read it, Great article about speciation and evidence of macroevolution, but the problem is I didn't see evidence of a species changing into another different species. Microevolution show change In size of animals, color of skin but the species did not change. It is undeniable that there is no direct evidence for evolution. Accept it or not.

Kalatium:
Microevolution show change In size of animals, color of skin but the species did not change.

How do you define species?

Seun:
How do you define species?

Thesame way you will define species

Kalatium:


I have read it, Great article about speciation and evidence of macroevolution, but the problem is I didn't see evidence of a species changing into another different species. Microevolution show change In size of animals, color of skin but the species did not change. It is undeniable that there is no direct evidence for evolution. Accept it or not.

No, no, no. Part 5 clearly gives examines of examples of animals in reproductive isolating toward one another, which is sympatric speciation. It also covers ring species. The article then gives a further link for observed cases of it which has several examples of it. I told you to focus on part 5. The least you could have done was follow through with it.

If evolutionists can finally provide direct evidence for evolution then we will stop debating and evolution theory will no longer be controversial. Period

CoolUsername:


No, no, no. Part 5 clearly gives examines of examples of animals in reproductive isolating toward one another, which is sympatric speciation. It also covers ring species. The article then gives a further link for observed cases of it which has several examples of it. I told you to focus on part 5. The least you could have done was follow through with it.

But I have not seen any direct evidence of one species evolving into another.

Evolution explains more about the phenomena of life than all of the religious leaders. Darwin over 150 years ago demonstrated that the so called inspired writers of the Bible and Quran knew nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature. He showed that the Bible was born out of ignorance and fear, he destroyed the foundation of Religion, there is nothing left other than faith.
Now Christians have come up with creationism which is not science, is not peer reviewed they produce no empirical evidence. It is laughed at in any respectable scientific circle and most Christians in the West acknowledge evolution as fact

Pls o did bedbugs evolved and are they going to ever evolved to stop sucking blood before they cause aneamia in human beings

SirShifty:
Evolution explains more about the phenomena of life than all of the religious leaders. Darwin over 150 years ago demonstrated that the so called inspired writers of the Bible and Quran knew nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature. He showed that the Bible was born out of ignorance and fear, he destroyed the foundation of Religion, there is nothing left other than faith.
Now Christians have come up with creationism which is not science, is not peer reviewed they produce no empirical evidence. It is laughed at in any respectable scientific circle and most Christians in the West acknowledge evolution as fact

That's where you get it wrong. Where is the prove that most Christian in the West acknowledge evolution?.. According to pew centre most people(apart) from Christian do not accept evolution

akindlesfarm:
Pls o did bedbugs evolved and are they going to ever evolved to stop sucking blood before they cause aneamia in human beings

Your question don't deserve an answer

Kalatium:
The same way you will define species

"a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."

Kalatium:
If evolutionists can finally provide direct evidence for evolution then we will stop debating and evolution theory will no longer be controversial. Period

Can you give some examples of the kind of direct evidence of evolution that would convince you that the theory of evolution is true?

Kalatium:

That's where you get it wrong. Where is the prove that most Christian in the West acknowledge evolution?.. According to pew centre most people(apart) from Christian do not accept evolution

I don't know how you interpreted the data, but yes most Christians in the US and Western Europe accept evolution, they tend to believe in a theistic form of evolution in which God starts the process which is different from creationist, 6000 year old concept

Kalatium:

That's where you get it wrong. Where is the prove that most Christian in the West acknowledge evolution?.. According to pew centre most people(apart) from Christian do not accept evolution

We can extrapolate based on the percentage of Christians in the population of these countries excluding Turkey

Kalatium:

But I have not seen any direct evidence of one species evolving into another.

what kinda direct evidence do you need?

Kalatium:

MY mistake! Origin of species
Is man not a specie?

So you accept man as a specie, but you reject the "origin of species"?
So what specie is man?
Do you also accept man is in the Hominidae family?