Why is evolution even still a debate?

[We Never Know]

its really very simple . it cant be duplicated in the laboratory

Many natural things can't be duplicated in a laboratory. Does that make them false?

 

[Polymath257]

It will remain a debate until anyone ever show a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest without regard to consciousness ort experiment.

But that is already been established multiple times.

The only reason people still 'debate' is that some want to ignore the evidence.

 

[cataway]

evolution is a theory, to become a law it must be duplicated in the laboratory

 

[Polymath257]

This is not strictly true;

Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium

I believe all these "theories" are actually merely hypotheses and they are each more wrong than right. Until experiment shows something it is an hypothesis.

And even those who promote Punctuated Equilibrium as *one mechanism* for evolution do not deny that evolution happened. In fact, the uniformly agree that it did.

 

[We Never Know]

evolution is a theory, to become a law it must be duplicated in the laboratory

Can a god be duplicated in a lab?
How about creating a grown man from dirt or a grown woman from said mans rib..can that be duplicated?

 

[cataway]

Many natural things can't be duplicated in a laboratory. Does that make them false?

not every thing a theory

 

[Polymath257]

evolution is a theory, to become a law it must be duplicated in the laboratory

That is simply not true. The term 'law' is not used in science nearly as much as it was 200 years ago.

But, for example, Hubble's law cannot be duplicated in a lab. Nor can Kepler's law.

 

[We Never Know]

not every thing a theory

The whole universe and everything in it is a theory.

 

[cladking]

And even those who promote Punctuated Equilibrium as *one mechanism* for evolution do not deny that evolution happened. In fact, the uniformly agree that it did.

I don't doubt species change.

I doubt they do so gradually.

I doubt the mechanism is "survival of the fittest".

I doubt that consciousness plays no role.

I doubt our "theory" of "Evolution" will stand the test of time or the test of experiment.

 

[cataway]

Can a god be duplicated in a lab?
How about creating a grown man from dirt or a grown woman from said mans rib..can that be duplicated?

a god ?? yes .a true God ,no

 

[We Never Know]

I don't doubt species change.

I doubt they do so gradually.

I doubt the mechanism is "survival of the fittest".

I doubt that consciousness plays no role.

I doubt our "theory" of "Evolution" will stand the test of time or the test of experiment.

"I don't doubt species change.

I doubt they do so gradually"

How do you think they change?

 

[We Never Know]

a god ?? yes .a true God ,no

?? How do you duplicate a god in a lab?

 

[cataway]

?? How do you duplicate a god in a lab?

anything can be a god ,even your belly

 

[We Never Know]

anything can be a god ,even your belly

Ok?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't doubt species change.

I doubt they do so gradually.

I doubt the mechanism is "survival of the fittest".

I doubt that consciousness plays no role.

I doubt our "theory" of "Evolution" will stand the test of time or the test of experiment.

So, you agree that biological species change over time. That *is* evolution.

What you are concerned about is the *mechanism* of evolution.

We know of several mechanisms that are relevant to evolution: genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.

We know that gradual accumulation of mutations doesn't necessarily correspond to gradual changes in morphology. In fact, we know that saltational change is frequently the result of gradual genetic changes.

So, in that sense, the current theory of evolution *has* withstood the test of time and evidence.

As for consciousness, much more definition is required before that can even be a proposed mechanism.

 

[cataway]

So, you agree that biological species change over time. That *is* evolution.

What you are concerned about is the *mechanism* of evolution.

We know of several mechanisms that are relevant to evolution: genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.

We know that gradual accumulation of mutations doesn't necessarily correspond to gradual changes in morphology. In fact, we know that saltational change is frequently the result of gradual genetic changes.

So, in that sense, the current theory of evolution *has* withstood the test of time and evidence.

As for consciousness, much more definition is required before that can even be a proposed mechanism.

ya might want to lookup gene pooling

 

[YoursTrue]

And no one has shown a god created man from dust.

Stardust perhaps in the 'long run...'?

 

[F1fan]

Depends what you mean by evolution.
No one has shown that we evolved from a single celled organism.

Sperm and eggs are half cells. Seventh grade science.

 

[F1fan]

So you can see why it's still a debate.

Yes, Christians poorly educated on science, and indoctrinated into a false religious alternative.

 

[YoursTrue]

No I can't. One side has evidence, one side has hope.

I don't think the evidence for "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" is really there. Despite fossils. Fossils are there. But the extrapolation from fossil finds to figuring these were genetically induced by natural forces with the branches of the tree of life re: evolution no longer adds up to me. Until there is proof, I no longer agree with what is termed as the Theory of Evolution. I believe what the Bible says. That God created the heavens and the earth. One of the big reasons I do not believe in evoluition any more is that there is no proof. That which is called evidence is not proving that the theory is true.