Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from Max E. Pad:

BTW for stu, and everyone elses sake, i fully admit i was wrong on the fainting goats. I didnt know they were domesticated.
More...
Gabfly gave an erudite and more thorough explanation. His patience in doing so and you, admitting you were wrong, should perhaps be recognized too.

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Now please prove my stupidity as it pertains to neanderthals losing the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could.
More...
For one thing, wouldn't you think it an obvious evolutionary divergence from the other great apes if nothing else?

There is overwhelmingly a tremendous advantage in being able to get food at ground level and so, in simplistic evolutionary terms anyway, that was simply going to happen within tree living primates that initially ran there for safety, wasn't it?

Adaptation to the environment, step by step over generations of evolution into distinct species, upright, moving faster on the ground, adapting further abilities to out run all other ground species over long distances.

Not so much losing an ability as you suggest, but rather gaining beneficial ones which result in survival by natural selection.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Has anyone observed life evolving from non life, first hand?
More...
The building blocks of life are observed emerging from inorganic matter.
If the building blocks are considered to be life itself, then your suggestion is doomed.
If the building blocks of life are themselves considered not life, the building blocks of life obviously become life which is again life from 'non life', so your argument is doomed.

Whether that's what did actually happen or whether a combination of different things, is a different matter.

Or of course you can ignore the observations you say you require and just plumb straight for the unobserved magic God beasty of the skies approach.
Which strangely it seems you prefer to favor.
 
You prove your STUpidity with almost every post you make.

It's not about proving gravity exists. It's about finding theories that account for all observations and don't conflict. For example, current theories don't explain the flyby anomaly and it's well known that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Finally, theories and laws are not the same thing -- especially how dimwits like you use the terms. Look into it if it's still possible for you to learn.
Quote from STUpid:

Ok Mr Angry keep your wig on. Now you're just making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

Gravity obviously exists... that's a start, but how do you prove it's gravity existing , and not pixies pushing down on things existing, or Intelligent Falling existing, so not a law, not a proof of what exists. Just your own personal fantasies embodied by the name gravity?

You say you were talking about ' theories versus laws'
Well theories are laws, laws are theories. The laws of physics are scientific empirical tests via the scientific method, which are theories that have never failed.
You dummy.
More...
 
How odd.
Nobody bothered to address Darwins Finches, nor explain away the comparative immutability of some species via their genes, nor even address the fact that women are provably developing narrower hips, even over a short space of time.

Darwin explained, if not proved, that to-sexual selection.

Seriously-how many of you actually read all of Darwin's work?
 
Quote from acronym:

How odd.
Nobody bothered to address Darwins Finches, nor explain away the comparative immutability of some species via their genes, nor even address the fact that women are provably developing narrower hips, even over a short space of time.

Darwin explained, if not proved, that to-sexual selection.

Seriously-how many of you actually read all of Darwin's work?
More...

so what are you saying darwin stands for.
if you point is that things change over time, not many will disagree with you.

if you are saying life evolved from non life... you are outside science.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U6QYDdgP9eg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3OwSARYTK7w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_W._Szostak#Awards_and_honors
More...

Great video.... full of straw man arguments...

but do you see how your video concedes my point in the first minute.
The point I have been making to you and stu about evolution and the origin of life.

Atheists on ET have been acting like they know life evolved by random chance.

Now your video concedes the that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Which is not a surprise because we are still looking for a pathway from life to non life according to the man whose research is quoted in the video. In 2009, he stated we are still looking for a pathway from life to non life.

I am glad you are getting on board with real science.

Finally the argument about the mud is just so full of goo.

For years we have been hearing about the origin of life out of the primordial goo. Even Star Trek TNG had a final episode about it. To act like that is a creationist straw man is very insincere and makes that authors of those videos untrustworthy.
 
Quote from as678:

Pick up a college biology textbook and study it for about a year. All the holes will be explained to you in detail beyond reasonable doubt. ;)

It just takes time and effort to understand these things. Mental capacity helps, but you're a trader, you should have that already.
More...

LOL That's how a belief system is built. They start off in grammar school and tell you "the teacher is smarter so she must be right" and they continue on with it... oh, and, don't forget to never question the teacher, you won't get a good grade!!
 
Quote from jem:

Great video.... full of straw man arguments...

but do you see how your video concedes my point in the first minute.
The point I have been making to you and stu about evolution and the origin of life.

Atheists on ET have been acting like they know life evolved by random chance.

Now your video concedes the that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Which is not a surprise because we are still looking for a pathway from life to non life according to the man whose research is quoted in the video. In 2009, he stated we are still looking for a pathway from life to non life.

I am glad you are getting on board with real science.

Finally the argument about the mud is just so full of goo.

For years we have been hearing about the origin of life out of the primordial goo. Even Star Trek TNG had a final episode about it. To act like that is a creationist straw man is very insincere and makes that authors of those videos untrustworthy.
More...

correction... we are still looking for a pathway from non life to life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top