Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah - but Harrier can refute the theory of evolution - which cannot stand on its "own two feet" - because it is complete nonsense.
He will make this clear once you answer the questions that you have been avoiding for almost a whole week:
Why do you think that there is observable evidence for evolution?
What is your definition of evolution?
Please answer in your own words.
C'mon - you obviously feel strongly about this, so why won't you just defend your position by answering these very simple questions?
Quit dodging and deflecting - it only erodes your credibility - which is nil to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
As you have now promised to provide your evidence to refute the theory of evolution if I answer your 2 questions specifically, I'll bite.
Simply speaking, evolution is the heritable changes in the gene pool of populations through successive generations. Just to clarify, a population evolves, not an individual organism. There are several mechanisms for these changes in allele frequencies in populations - natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, gene flow etc
Why do I think there is observable evidence for evolution? Because scientists have observed changes in the gene pool of populations through successive generations. In modern times, this can be tested with DNA analysis.
An obvious example is Richard Lenski's 25 year experiment with E. coli. Almost 60,000 generations have been observed from the populations starting in 12 different environments and the genetic changes have been recorded from samples that have been frozen every 500 generations. One particularly interesting evolutionary change was one strain in an aerobic environment, evolving the ability to be able to use citric acid as a carbon source.
Changes over much longer periods of time and many more generations of different populations can also be observed and tested using DNA analysis, fossils, comparative anatomy etc.
Okay. I answered your questions specifically.
So will you now specifically answer the questions that I asked you first? Or are you going to keep dodging and deflecting and demand I answer even more of your questions when you kept refusing to answer mine?
In your own words please:
1. What do you think evolution is?
2. What scientific evidence can you present that can refute the Theory of Evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
You are describing natural selection and microevolution - the occurrence of which no one seriously disputes.
The Lenski study does not provide observable evidence of evolution.
At the end of those 60,000 generations, the E Coli bacteria were still E Coli bacteria.
You asked me to define what 'evolution' is in my own words. I did. There is no difference in the process of evolution between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. It's the same process -heritable changes in the gene pool of populations through successive generations.
You asked me why I believe that there is observable evidence of evolution. I answered the question and gave one specific example (Lenksi's study).
You are admitting that evolution occurs and that no one seriously disputes it. So how are you then claiming that the Lenksi study does not provide observable evidence of evolution, when it clearly showed what you term: 'natural selection and microevolution'?
I answered your questions. Are you now reneging on your promise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Ah - but Harrier can refute the theory of evolution ...
He will make this clear once you answer the questions
You haven't provided ANY scientific evidence to refute the Theory of Evolution in your response.
This is the question you have been dodging and deflecting throughout this thread. (and for years on these forums)
"What scientific evidence can you provide that can refute the Theory of Evolution?"
No one has been able to come up with any evidence to refute or disprove the Theory of Evolution in 150 years. What makes you think you can?
Well how can that possibly be any sort of theory then?
Quote:
Do you dispute that humans have intervened in the evolution of dogs, cats, farm animals, etc.?
Of course not. I'm just confused since selective breeding can produce quite a diversity of breeds as dogs in a mere thousands of years, yet folks can't seem to grasp given hundreds of millions of years how an organism can turn out.
The material presented is in the book. I do not have to restate it.
HistorianDude has so far been completely unable to refute it despite having the same access to the info as everyone else.
Didn't he refute it many pages ago by pointing out that it's a self-published book, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Until a specific idea from the book is mentioned, I feel that treatment is rather appropriate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
