Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
What is the 'it' to which you refer?

edit...Ah, I see

I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
 
I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
So, what, are you saying evolution is by design?
 
well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
What is the 'it' to which you refer?

edit...Ah, I see

I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
the .it.. would be life..something your theory has never shown can occur from the random mixing of chemicals
 

  • I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.

Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything. That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
 
Anyway, evolution is not random, species evolve according to the environment, not a lottery.
 
well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
What is the 'it' to which you refer?

edit...Ah, I see

I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
the .it.. would be life..something your theory has never shown can occur from the random mixing of chemicals

If that were the case (that life can arise from a random mixing of chemicals) that would REFUTE evolution, not prove it. See, this is just another thing about the theory of evolution you do not understand.
 

  • I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.

Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything. That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
you jump from soup to living plants adapting...thats a big leap
 
I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
So, what, are you saying evolution is by design?
clearly.. the entire universe is inteligent

How much intelligence does it take for a comet to respond to the sun by offgasing water and other volatiles?
 

  • I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.

Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything. That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
you jump from soup to living plants adapting...thats a big leap

You assume that the theory of evolution says something about the origin of life. It does not. All explains, and has ever been used to explain is the diversity of life, not its origin. Don't confuse the theory of evolution with other hypotheses that attempt to explain the origins of life.
 
So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?

Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.
 
well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental

It may appear that way to you, and if so, it is only because you don't understand the principles and laws of physics and chemistry. As for random mutations, they may not be as random as was once thought:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones. Image: Wikimedia commons, Jerome Walker, Dennis Myts"The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist Maud Tenaillon.
I am certain that much of the theory will be not as was once thought:
 
So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?

Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.

  • I think you protest my point of view because you don't find my point of view convenient.
 
well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental

It may appear that way to you, and if so, it is only because you don't understand the principles and laws of physics and chemistry. As for random mutations, they may not be as random as was once thought:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones. Image: Wikimedia commons, Jerome Walker, Dennis Myts"The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist Maud Tenaillon.
I am certain that much of the theory will be not as was once thought:

One thing science will never demonstrate is that "god did it". Sorry if this is a disappointment for you. My point about mutations is that for all intents and purposes, they appear to be random. But 100 years of genetic research is today changing our understanding of DNA. That is the nature of scientific investigation. Are we supposed to apologize for making advances in our knowledge? Because I can tell you now that that is not going to happen, ever.
 
So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?

Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.

  • I think you protest my point of view because you don't find my point of view convenient.

Protest would not be the word I would choose to use to describe the fact that I am attempting to show you how ill-informed you are wrt to evolutionary biology. You are arguing from a point of sheer ignorance of science, the scientific method, and even what the evidence is and is not. Perhaps you should try to educate yourself a bit then come back and we can talk some more.
 

Forum List

Back
Top