Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution Scientifically Debunked

Okay. So what? No one claims that faith is the result of scientific proof.

In regards to the opening statement, two words, Poppycock, balderdash.

In other words, be it logical or not, someone can believe whatever they like.

Jag, serious question. Do you really believe that anyone who accepts evolution is an atheist?

Winner winner chicken dinner

DBT,

Yes, after all we live in America................one can believe ANYTHING...............without fear of being pilloried, put in the stocks, subjected to the rack, or burned with hot irons until they recant.................at least I think we can.

Jag,

I believe there's something out there,that belief doesn't conflict with my understanding of evolution as a couple of others here have pointed out. My understanding of evolution (science, pretty well documented in some folks' world) does conflict with a book written and passed down before "science" was even cogently expressed as an idea. Folks back then observed flies on mud and concluded they were spouted from the dirt. And other now proven silly ideas.

That "something" I believe is out there...................not sure where/when it became a "HE". Pretty sure it was just the language of the times used to express that idea, just as in many cases in most Latin languages the male pronoun "el" (il in Italian") is used when identifying something gender neutral. "He" was good term for many, for a long long time, but for me it doesn't necessarily mean that what I believe is out there has a dick and balls. "Something" saved me from a miserable life and allowed me to get to Medicare age (which was a very unlikely possibility at one time) , please don't tell me it was some All Powerful Dude.

I've got to put together a Costco order, use an Amazon gift card for a drill battery, and do a few other things. I'm not gonna have time to watch the "fun" video today either I think, then there's maybe a recycling run to town, the bank, maybe lunch with some friends, or maybe a I just take a nap so I can stay up late and watch hockey.

Take care and try not to get so worked up.

OH, are you sure Trump is a "believer"? Hopefully he's matured and his non-believer actions like grabbing a handful of puzzy when he wants are all in the past.

Geno

I saw the errors immediately, but sadly there are many seeing agreement with their positions only. So it must be true.

This thread entertains me...

Your question demonstrates a profound misunderstanding. Evolution occurs at the population level.

The “serious scientific video” presented in the OP is a cesspool of ignorance, fallacies, unsupported assertions and even a quote mine from Darwin. So let’s pull on our rubber boots and wade on in.

For the sake of clarity there follows a definition of evolution as understood by scientists, but not necessarily by those who obtained degrees in Truthology from Christian Tech.

Evolution (ToE): Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. (Aron Ra)



Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. (Aron Ra)

So, of course evolution is not a law. It is both a fact and a theory.

Fact: A point of data which is either not in dispute, or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. (Aron Ra)

Google: “observed instances of speciation” and you can find hundreds of peer-reviewed papers.



Correct. A scientific theory can never become a law because laws are included within theories.

Theory: A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. (Aron Ra)



Correct. And no sane scientist believes that the ToE makes such an absurd assertion. The author has neglected to quote any scientist, paper or textbook. This is a common Creationist lie lifted from Ray Comfort videos.



Natural selection is the recognition that members of a population that are well-suited to their environment have greater reproductive success, on average, than those that are not so well-suited. The author gives no clue of the nature of a “DNA limit” or what it has to do with natural selection. And, unusually for a scientific argument, gave no citation.



Vacuous drivel. Since DNA is not a species, of course, it cannot be changed into another species.



Citation needed. Who said the coelacanth had half-formed (whatever that means) legs and primitive lungs. How does its existence prove evolution wrong? The modern coelacanth is in the same taxonomic Order as the various fossil species but not even in the same taxonomic Family. To show the distance in this relationship in a way the author might understand: dogs, cats, bears, seals and weasels are in the same taxonomic Order.

“A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.
Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”
-Quoted from the Young Earth Creationist website, WasDarwinRight.com.



Another assertion extracted from the seventh planet. If he could demonstrate any such thing he is guaranteed a Nobel Prize. Guess he doesn’t need a million bucks.



If the author uses Ben Stein’s material he should give him credit. Maybe they can get together and discuss their vapid misunderstanding of abiogenesis (look it up).



The Second Law says that in a closed system, one from which matter and energy cannot enter or exit, the amount of energy available to do work cannot increase. Perhaps the author exists in a closed system where knowledge and understanding cannot enter.



Another assertion without evidence or explanation.



There are no chromosomes in DNA. Chromosomes are composed of DNA.

Ever hear of polyploidy?
“Polyploidy
J.S. Heslop-Harrison, in Encyclopedia of Genetics, 2001
Polyploidy in Evolution
Polyploidy, involving the presence of multiple copies of identical or similar chromosome sets in one species, is an important feature of species evolution in the plant, animal, and fungal kingdoms. Polyploidy is widely considered to be an enabling force in evolution. Because chromosome sets are duplicated in polyploids, heterozygosity may be fixed, and random mutation or factors modulating gene expression may be buffered (unlike a diploid), so new genes and gene functions may evolve, leaving the original function in the other chromosome set.
Polyploidy is seen in many angiosperm plant species, and the related diploid species can be readily identified. More than 50% of all plants are obvious polyploids, while detailed studies are showing that many other species are crypto- or paleopolyploids.”

And it’s not just plants, as you can find with a 5 minute internet search.
Bedbugs have 29-47 chromosomes
domestic sheep 52-53
Asian wild ass 51-52
Equis hemionus kulan 54-55
Donkeys 62
Horses 64
Mules 63
There are many more examples.

The author of the video kindly presented in the OP is clearly full of beans and has no clue about science. He has merely repeated Creationist claims that have already been refuted thousands of times and provided nothing in the way of evidence.

Nicely done.

That's good wswolf.

only a few hundred posts since 2009...................perhaps you'd consider joining our "discussions" more frequently?

Geno

If only logic and fact could pierce that void...

HAHAHAHAHA HOLY CRAP I almost missed this masterpiece...

Jag finds another ridiculous video... posts it thinking it supports his claim.... doesnt realize his video source is satire..

Then goes on a multi post rant about everyone who disagrees with him being democraps, stupid idiots and how he is way smarter than him.

Please lord, I pray to you... give dr jagoff the power to quit being so dumb and dysfunctional. He is taking this internet forum stuff way too seriously. Hes also clearly abusing some substance, otherwise if he was in fact a medical doctor of some sort as he claims, he really couldnt be this stupid.

Lord I ask of you to cure him of his issues.... as he has made it clear they wont evolve out of him anytime soon.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAGAGA seriously man, your great entertainment... not only the grumpiest [bleep] Ive ever seen on the net, the most outspoken moron at that too!

It is entertaining in a way. Poor Jag.

Good post, Wolf.

In logic this is called "elephant hurling". You through a lot out and hope something sticks.

If you're going to ridicule someone for intelligence, you could at least use "you're" instead of "your" in "you great entertainment". You're entertaining to me.

Still waiting for someone to explain how the first bird that was born as a DNA defect and of one sex happened to be across the pond of another with the same DNA defect changing making it a bird but of the opposite sex so they could propagate.

How many more thousands of years will be required for eskimos to be covered in long hair?

Thanks for that.... however am I the one ridiculing people for intelligence here or is it Dr Jagoff? The evidence is overwhelming that its not I...