Why Darwinism is wrong

What's stopping you? Maturity is the process by which we learn to accept the outcomes that we cannot change, and learn to find our place within the reality that we have, not the one we wish we had.Honestly where do people get this idea that, if they don't like the conclusions the evidence necessitates, they can simply jump to different ones? Who honestly thinks that's an ok way to think?

Oh, don't get me wrong. There's plenty of purpose - there's exactly as much purpose as you think there is. "Accident" as in, not the intended outcome? Who is there in the first place to do the intending?This is what I was talking about. You don't like the influence randomness has on the universe, so you assume that it has less influence than it appears. You just pick the conclusion you want and leap to it, never mind the evidence.By what rationale is that justifiable? Just jumping to conclusions? What kind of person thinks that's a better idea then arriving at a conclusion via evidence?

That non-deterministic processes, not divine guidance, have shaped the outcome of events. What you will or won't believe isn't really the issue. What I still don't understand is why you think that its better to go with the conclusion that you like rather than the conclusion that best fits the evidence. And the evidence is, the world is the result of processes that have acted without any design or purpose.

Which is just like saying that the coin must land heads, or else it will land tails.Some species survive. Some do not. Actually most do not. That's pretty much it. No, the evidence is that we can explain the outcome of all the events by recourse to nothing more than natural law. Unless what your saying is that the only thing the divine presence is willing or able to do is that which was going to happen anyway according to the laws of physics?How impressive is that? Not very. A change in allele frequencies in populations over time. I don't believe it. I don't have to. It's the model that explains the most evidence. The only foundation is evidence.

Yes, exactly. In cases where there's the possibility of other outcomes, those outcomes happen to.It's really hard to see what your point is, here. Things happen. Apparently, they happen in exactly the way they would according to the laws of physics. If God is somehow making certain things happen, the only things he's making happen are the things that would have happened, anyway. You'll pardon me if I'm not impressed. It is if you aren't plaged by a compulsive need to eliminate all uncertainty. I'm comfortable with a certain degree of tentativity in my conclusions, and therefore, evidence is enough. What's your problem? I'm pretty sure that I just said that I didn't believe evolution, that I simply accepted it provisionally because currently its the best model that explains the evidence.What about that is a "vehement assertion" to you? I don't see how I could be any less vehement about it. Yeah, it actually pretty much does. Here, I can easily demonstrate it. Here are two zygotes:One of these will develop into a human, and the other will develop into a starfish. I'll leave it to you to try to tell which is which. Every multicellular organism starts out in this state, but every species winds up somewhere completely different.How is this possible? The only thing that determines whether or not these single cell will develop into starfish or into humans is the content of its genetics; in other words, the alleles that it has.Hence, any process that changes alleles, changes genetics, is going to change species. Is going to result in new species from old ones. Microevolution, macroevolution - all the same exact thing. Changing allele frequencies over time. Sure they do. Where else would all the new species come from? They're not being beamed down to earth by aliens or God, I can tell you that.

No, not like anyone. Not everybody's like you, NewGuy. We're not all so pathologically terrified of the idea of tentativity. Some of us have no problem with our knowledge representing simply the best conclusions we're able to come to with what we know right now. Yes, thank you, Miriam-Webster. I don't see in what way my statement was "strong." In fact, I'd say that "evolution is simply the best model we have right now that explains all the evidence" is about the weakest statement you could make that still supports evolution. 10 is bigger than 1. That doesn't mean they're not both numbers.It's farther to walk to the movie theatre than to the grocery store. That doesn't mean that going to a movie is "macro-walking" and popping down for some tomato juice and a bag of flour is "micro-walking." Micro and macroevolution are the same thing over different amounts of time. Quite the opposite. Experiments have demonstrated the fundamental accuracy of the evolutionary model in all respects, including common ancestry. Indeed. The genetic makeup of all organisms permits them to become, eventually, any other organism with a genetic makeup; that is, all known organisms. There are no fundamental barriers or separations between the genetic makeups of any organisms, a powerful indication of common ancestry. To the contrary, the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection have been repeatedly demostrated to change genetic makeups. That's how I defined evolution, remember? As the process that results in changes in allele frequencies over time - changes in genetic makeups.

But this must obviously be false. Where else would all the new species be coming from? Incorrect. The nature of genetics is that populations that are split off from their parent population eventually develop into their own new species.One species turns into another. It must. Where else are all these new species coming from? The likelyhood of a successful mutation occuring, or the likelyhood of a given mutation being successful? You'll have to be more specific. Also you'll have to define exactly the environment and mutation we're talking about; a mutation that doubles the amount of hair on a mammal's body is a beneficial one in the Arctic but a detrimental one in the Sahara. Not so; in fact it is their claims and research that support evolution, not contradict it. Quite the contrary. All evolutionists agree that experimentation has confirmed the fundamental accuracy of the evolutionary model, and that new species come from old ones. (Where else are all the new species coming from?) If random mutation and natural selection are present then macroevolution, which is simply microevolution continuing over time, is inevitable. It cannot be stopped except by the extinction of that population. No, what I've said proves evolution on all scales. There's no difference between evolution on a small scale and on a large scale. That's the problem, though. You don't listen. I tell you what is true and you assert lies.

But that's not the definition of species. Moreover, as a definition, it's hardly useful to a creationist. The decendant of an organism could easily lack the majority of traits and qualities its ancestors posessed; under your definition you would be forced to consider it a new species, and thus, have proved that the new species come from the old ones. Since speciation is defined as "the arising of a new species", it would be impossible for this to happen "within a species". It's simply incoherent and impossible. If speciation is occuring then that means there are new species, and where else would they come from if not the old ones? HIV resistance in certain, mutually related humans. Absolutely incorrect. The proper definition of "mutation" is merely a genetic sequence possessed by an organism that was not inhereted from either parent's somatic genome. The only one skewing the definition is you.

What about my facts did you not find solid? Do you dispute that we observe new species? If not, where do you think those new species come from? Where could they come from, if not the old species?If you have no rebuttal to my arguments, that's fine, but by no means will I allow you to tell lies about me. The facts support evolution, that much is obvious. The best you have in countermeasure is sophistry, and apparently even that is insufficient to hold up your end of the discussion.

Do you see that big number over there, under my username and avatar? About 8000 or so? That's not my batting average or my credit rating; that's the number of posts I've posted here in about 3 years.In other words I've been a part of this debate for a long, long time. A geologic age by internet standards. So I think I know pretty well what creation is. Almost certainly I know better than you do. Absolutely incorrect. The evidence supports evolution, though you're correct to say that it doesn't support creation. That is why evolution is an accepted scientific theory and creation is a fringe theory supported by cranks and by the ignorant.Evolution is the proper scientific conclusion from the evidence; creation is not. That is the primary difference between those two positions, and the explanation for why evolution enjoys such broad support among scientists of every faith and persuasion.

Right, but they're wrong. (What did you expect?) "No one knows anything?" Where did you get such a stupid idea? Just because we don't know everything, we know nothing? Why do I get the feeling that that doesn't stop you from going to doctors, taking medicines, eating food, and, oh, can't forget, using a computer?Moreover, the evidence of evolution predates the theory of evolution. How did the people who came up with evolution trim and fit evidence "into" a theory they hadn't come up with yet?You've got it completely backwards. The theory is based on the evidence; only in creationism is the evidence cherry-picked according to the theories.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-07-2005 05:25 PM

Only because creationists rely on evolutionists for information and research. If they actually bothered to do any work they might be right once in a while. But not being 100% sure doesn't mean we don't know anything. Those phrases don't mean the same thing, so why did you use them like that? That's what? It's a public forum; I'll reply to whomever I chose.

You know what? Somehow I've become very familiar with creationist models and positions - better than most of their proponents, in fact - without actually becoming a creationist.So I think you can familiarize yourself with modern evolutionary models with no risk to your mortal soul, ok? Shouldn't you have at least half an idea about the position you're arguing against?

There's plenty of non-Darwinian models that are not creationist. Lamarkian evolution, for instance.