Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[FearGod]

no you don't it can be studied and observed in medical test such as bacteria and viruses. you are also completly ignoring the genetic and fossil evidence

Those are called genetic drifts and not mutation.

 

[outhouse]

Those are called genetic drifts and not mutation.

False.

 

[Iti oj]

Those are called genetic drifts and not mutation.

actual its adaption. but either way they are all evolutionary proccess and they are predicted by the toe and in regards to the genetic and fossil evidence?

 

[outhouse]

Do you think random mutation is science.

Its called biology. It would be great if you knew something on the subject before commenting.

Comparing gravity which is a fact to the random mutations is indeed a silly one.

Gravity is as fact as evolution, both have been observed.

The gravity is observed and have its laws

As does evolution.

Both gravity abnd evolution have parts we do not fully understand, but we dont place a deity of choice in the gaps of scientific knowledge. That is a mistake man has made far to long.

but you have to go back millions of years to observe random mutations and how orgasim evolved from simple cell to the Argentinosaurus

That is false.

Evolution has been observed in modern times despite its different time scales for different species.

 

[FearGod]

Gravity is a theory, as is evolution. Both conclusions were arrived at using the exact same scientific method. Yet you accept one and reject the other, which doesn't make any sense.

Mutuations can be observed now -we don't have to travel back millions of years to observe them. Have you ever heard of genetics?

How can you observe the tiny changes that have to occur through millions of years.

 

[FearGod]

actual its adaption. but either way they are all evolutionary proccess and they are predicted by the toe and in regards to the genetic and fossil evidence?

i don't agree with you in comparing genetic drift in one population to the mutations which is tiny changes and have a perminant change in the DNA sequence of the gene.

 

[Iti oj]

i don't agree with you in comparing genetic drift in one population to the mutations which is tiny changes and have a perminant change in the DNA sequence of the gene.

the genetic and fossile evidence backs up my claim. also i think your miss using the term genetic drift pehaps some one more educated then i can clarify

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can you observe the tiny changes that have to occur through millions of years.

By studying genetics. By mapping and studying the genomes of various species and comparing them with each other. In this way, you can identify where genetic changes occurred.

Comparative Genomics | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[FearGod]

Or the fossil record...

From the fossil record you can study the random mutations that led to the evolved organism (the fossil).

 

[outhouse]

How can you observe the tiny changes that have to occur through millions of years.

Not all take a million years

different species, bacteria, virus, evolve at different rates.

 

[McBell]

How can you observe the tiny changes that have to occur through millions of years.

Creationism must really be suffering then, seeing as no one observed it...

 

[Iti oj]

From the fossil record you can study the random mutations that led to the evolved organism (the fossil).

the fossil record show morphological progression from one form to another while showing a chronological time frame.
This suggest a level of genetic difference that is confirmed via the genetic evidence.

 

[FearGod]

By studying genetics. By mapping and studying the genomes of various species and comparing them with each other. In this way, you can identify where genetic changes occurred.

Comparative Genomics | Learn Science at Scitable

And why to make assertions of it to be random mutations and not to be intended ones.

Can you tell me by science of geology that tomorrow at 13:55 am an earthquake will strike NY city with scale of 8 .

So when it'll happen and why it happened at one specific time,is't a random or intended one.

That is the point,do you have any evidence that it was random mutation and not intended or programmed ones.

if you have an evidence that it was randomness then i am all ears.

 

[Iti oj]

And why to make assertions of it to be random mutations and not to be intended ones.

Can you tell me by science of geology that tomorrow at 13:55 am an earthquake will strike NY city with scale of 8 .

So when it'll happen and why it happened at one specific time,is't a random or intended one.

That is the point,do you have any evidence that it was rondom mutation and not intended or programmed ones.

if you have an evidence that it was randomness then i am all ears.

perhaps all the "bad" and "failed" mutations?

what would you accept as evidence?

 

[dust1n]

From the fossil record you can study the random mutations that led to the evolved organism (the fossil).

LOL. You can pull DNA out of a 4,000 year fossil if it is in good condition. We can trace humans back about 5,000. The highest distance so far in a fossil for extractable DNA is 17,000 years.

Ancient DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you look at the fossil record, you don't need to look at random mutations. You can look at changes. Before a few thousands years ago, there were no humans, but you can all the other animals, slowly disappear over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#Ancient_DNA_studies

 

[FearGod]

perhaps all the "bad" and "failed" mutations?

what would you accept as evidence?

You are the one to claim it to be randomness and then you have to show your evidence.

 

[dust1n]

Can you tell me by science of geology that tomorrow at 13:55 am an earthquake will strike NY city with scale of 8 .

Can the Qur'an or prayer?

if you have an evidence that it was randomness then i am all ears.

It's random in the sense that there are so many factors into what damage might happen and where in your strand of DNA that happens, and how the mutation took place, because there isn't just one way.

 

[FearGod]

LOL. You can pull DNA out of a 4,000 year fossil if it is in good condition. We can trace humans back about 5,000. The highest distance so far in a fossil for extractable DNA is 17,000 years.

Ancient DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you look at the fossil record, you don't need to look at random mutations. You can look at changes. Before a few thousands years ago, there were no humans, but you can all the other animals, slowly disappear over time.

But what is your evidence that mutations was random and not entended .

 

[WyattDerp]

BS. Stop dodging. You have so much on your plate already! Here's for starters:

Not all take a million years

different species, bacteria, virus, evolve at different rates.

Creationism must really be suffering then, seeing as no one observed it...

 

[Iti oj]

You are the one to claim it to be randomness and then you have to show your evidence.

I'll take that to mean their is no evidence and nothing you show me will be accepted as evidence.

perhaps we can reverse this, you claimed it is designed you have to show me evidence of deisgn...
further more i suggested a start place for evidence which you ignored, please re read my previous post respond to what i suggested and answer my question.