What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

[Heyo]

Yeah I didn't calculate it.

At first I even wrote "a few miles" and figured that it had to be a lot less and then edited it.
I was still too optimistic it seems.

Humans and big numbers ...
That's why it is so ridiculous when YEC try to argue that radiometric dating is imprecise. The error factor is one million. No relativisation is going to bring the numbers even close to their myths. Only outright denial of science helps that level of ignorance.

 

[Astrophile]

Exactly, it's not random. It can't be. The complex structures that exist, all of which have to exist together in order to function, present in living cells, takes randomness out of the equation. Biochemistry is a science, conducted by humans, but doesn't explain the phenomenon. It can explain the physics around a cellular membrane being constructed of phospholipid bilayers but isn't an explanation for how the engineering occurred without an engineer.

Does biochemistry, or anything else, explain how the engineer occurred, or in what sense the engineer can be said to be alive? For example does the engineer have cell membranes constructed of phospholipid bilayers, and, if so, how were they constructed?

 

[Audie]

Blind faith.


Quote mining, and from a very old source to boot. Also in a news article, about a conference, not a peer reviewed science paper.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear. No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microcvolution is totally decoupled from macrocvolulion: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

The issues with which participants wrestled fell into three major areas: the tempo of evolution, the mode of evolutionary change, and the constraints on the physical form of new organisms."

-- Evolutionary Theory under Fire on JSTOR
​

You should also refer to this, (that I gave before): Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles that compares the types of mutation in the human population and those between humans and chimpanzees, and finds the same pattern.


Sounds like you don't understand natural selection.

Or honest quotatoon

 

[gnostic]

Not answered the poll because it's not quite black and white. It's the best explanation there is but it may be modified if new evidence comes to light.

Ok you edited the poll, i can answer now

You’re right.

Since Darwin’s and Wallace’s time, Evolution have been modified multiple times, to allow for alternative mechanisms to the original mechanism, Natural Selection, like

• Mutations,
• Genetic Drift,
• Gene Flow,
• Genetic Hitchhiking

These later aren’t meant to replace Darwin’s Natural Selection, but to explain and demonstrate there are more than one ways for evolution to occur.

Natural Selection itself have also modified, to correct any errors Darwin and Wallace have made, as well as expanding and improving Natural Selection, because of other fields in biology, including

• replacing Darwin’s genetics (eg pangenesis) with Mendel’s genetics,
• molecular biology,
• biochemistry,
• DNA testing,
• taxonomy have been updated and improved (eg taxonomic “clade”),
• Biostraigraphy, and paleontology, as well as multiple dating methods have all been discovered, updated or improved,
• etc

Abiogenesis is currently a working hypothesis, that may well be a new and separate field, added to already very broad life sciences.

Evolution can still be updated in the future, all depending on if new evidence are found.