The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[Jumi]

When someone ignorant of a branch of science calls a whole field stupid, you can only shake your head. Well the same is of course true of other things. Some people like their straw men too much whether they're created from some science or religion, it does lower ones capabilities to reason were one to buy into any straw man.

 

[Jumi]

Of course there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and thus the need for creationist propaganda due to the fact that evolution so strongly conflicts with core Christian beliefs.

Although I voted your post as a winner for the "mathematical proof" point... of course one must not forget that evolution doesn't conflict with theistic evolution and the Christian core beliefs might more accurately represent a segment of Christians, not nearly close to being the "whole of Christianity". For example take Catholicism the largest Christian denomination, where the highest authority accepts evolution(and also the BB) since 1996 and most of European protestantism where evolution is accepted fact.

 

[leroy]

Yet still they deny evolution until they are blue in the face.

I am taking it you have read the words but do not comprehend the implications.

Fyi the definition distinctly specifies change in genes from generation to generation (ancestry) natural selection and mutation which you appear not to have read.

And where does "random" come into it. Oh right it's a creationist stew man.

You have just misrepresented it while claiming not to misrepresent it.

Yes the evolution of the universe, technology, life etc. Different meanings meaning the same thing, i.e. change happens

Ok so you don't claim that organisms evolved mainly e by a process of random mutations and natural selection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so you don't claim that organisms evolved mainly e by a process of random mutations and natural selection?

If you really want a response you should not use misleading terminology. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok so you don't claim that organisms evolved mainly e by a process of random mutations and natural selection?

No, but rather, mutations brought on by environmental conditions. If there is a cause then there is nothing random about them

 

[We Never Know]

No, but rather, mutations brought on by environmental conditions. If there is a cause then there is nothing random about them

The environment doesn't bring on the mutations. Mutations happen regardless of environment, making them random. Changing environments only aide which mutations natural selection selects upon.

 

[Segev Moran]

They are not comparative claims, one has a multitude of verified evidence, the other is guesswork

I disagree.
One has a multitude of what you accept as evidence, the other has another type of evidence you probably don't accept.
I accept both.
I cannot argue evolution is wrong and i cannot argue God is false.
I have see evidence for both.

 

[ChristineM]

The environment doesn't bring on the mutations. Mutations happen regardless of environment, making them random. Changing environments only aide which mutations natural selection selects upon.

Evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

I disagree.
One has a multitude of what you accept as evidence, the other has another type of evidence you probably don't accept.
I accept both.
I cannot argue evolution is wrong and i cannot argue God is false.
I have see evidence for both.

The evidence for evolution can be independently verified, some is being observed, some like dna simply cannot be refuted with making oneself look foolish

The evidence for god is as anecdotal, cannot be verified or observed

 

[ratiocinator]

Evidence?

He's given you the standard theory, mutations are often copying errors or other (for all practical purposes) random events. If you think they are caused by the environment in some systematic way, it's up to you to give evidence because you are making a new claim that doesn't form part of the current theory.

See: Evolution 101 - Mutations.

 

[ratiocinator]

I disagree.
One has a multitude of what you accept as evidence, the other has another type of evidence you probably don't accept.
I accept both.
I cannot argue evolution is wrong and i cannot argue God is false.
I have see evidence for both.

There is no equivalence. Evolution (like all scientific theories) leads us to expect certain objective, observable evidence and rules out us seeing other, objective and observable things. Its evidence is intersubjectively verifiable (aside from practical considerations, it doesn't depend who makes the observations or what they believe). The same is not true for any evidence for god(s) - at least, unless you have something I've never heard of before...

 

[We Never Know]

Evidence?

100+ mutations with every birth no matter the environment.
You're implying environments bring forth the needed mutation. That's wrong.
Fur for cold weather for example. The mutation(s) already existed and natural selection selected upon it when the environment changed.
You can use Google for your research.

 

[ChristineM]

He's given you the standard theory, mutations are often copying errors or other (for all practical purposes) random events. If you think they are caused by the environment in some systematic way, it's up to you to give evidence because you are making a new claim that doesn't form part of the current theory.

See: Evolution 101 - Mutations.

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

Are mutations truly random?

 

[ChristineM]

100+ mutations with every birth no matter the environment.
You're implying environments bring forth the needed mutation. That's wrong.
Fur for cold weather for example. The mutation(s) already existed and natural selection selected upon it when the environment changed.
You can use Google for your research.

I did, latest research
Are mutations truly random?

 

[We Never Know]

Evidence?

100+ mutations with every birth no matter the environment.
You're implying environments bring forth the needed mutation. That's wrong.
Fur for cold weather for example. The mutation(s) already existed and natural selection selected upon it when the environment changed.
You can use Google fo

I did, latest research
Are mutations truly random?

That's talking about DNA hot spots, locations of mutations. Also from your link "The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist linkurl:Maud Tenaillon;http://moulon.inra.fr/pages_pers/tenaillon/ of the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research. "I think it could be a good explanation for [mutational] hotspots." But, she cautioned, the support for this hypothesis so far falls solely on a somewhat incomplete theoretical model.

 

[We Never Know]

I did, latest research
Are mutations truly random?

Peer reviewed?

 

[ChristineM]

100+ mutations with every birth no matter the environment.
You're implying environments bring forth the needed mutation. That's wrong.
Fur for cold weather for example. The mutation(s) already existed and natural selection selected upon it when the environment changed.
You can use Google fo


That's talking about DNA hot spots, locations of mutations. Also from your link "The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist linkurl:Maud Tenaillon;http://moulon.inra.fr/pages_pers/tenaillon/ of the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research. "I think it could be a good explanation for [mutational] hotspots." But, she cautioned, the support for this hypothesis so far falls solely on a somewhat incomplete theoretical model.

So far, early days

 

[We Never Know]

So far, early days

You cannot promote ideas as fact. There's all kinds of research out there, new and old. You found one you didn't understand and thought it supported your claim of mutations being non-random.

 

[ChristineM]

Peer reviewed?

It was published 2 weeks ago. What do you think?

 

[We Never Know]

It was published 2 weeks ago. What do you think?

No. It's incomplete. Just because something is published online doesn't make it peer reviewed.