Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Tattva]

[br]Posted on: March 29, 2008, 03:09:27 PM_________________________________________________
millions of years? Are you sure? hahaha. Prove it! lets get that evidence of yours! (scientific please and not buddhism)

what evidence? that there is a million years or evidence for microevolution? stay on topic we are discussing evolution not the age of the earth.

[rdyteves]

guys i think tsakto by c mr. ho chia sa kad2 na fact about genetic chances na it's almost like impossible but come to think of it, it's like hitting a bullseye from a kilometer with a pin needle...sounds impossible?right but imagine hitting that bullseye for 65million years everyday!!! im sure naa jud tsamba ana dba? tsamba or divine intervention?

[Tattva]

guys naa i think tsakto by c mr. ho chia sa akd2 na fact na the genetic chances na it's almost like impossible but come to think of it, it's like hitting a bullseye from a kilometer with pin...sounds impossible?right but imagine hitting that bullseye for 65million years everyday!!! im sure naa jud tsamba ana dba? tsamba or divine intervention?

Whats impossible? The evidence is there, to say that its impossbile would mean that you reject the evidence.

Any proponents of creationism would always say that its impossible as a graceful way of ignoring the evidence because these people have no Scientific mechanism to refute the evidence. Their alternative version is a Creator Desgner w/c Science never detected.

[Hellblazer]

is it truly impossible? or still doable?

[Tattva]

i know that there are other threads that discuss about evolution but i am making another one because the other thread is filled with stuff that has nothing to do with real evolution.

i am asking that if anyone would like to give any refutation pls do so but do it within the right context.

This is strictly for Evolution by Common Descent and not about origins. why not "Origins"? because this particular type of evolution does not deal with speculations but on observable data.




Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.




Quoted from talkorigins.org


I quoted that to give an authoritative statement for the topic on hand.


NOTE: The article said that microevolution is a fact and is accepted even by the most tough critics of evolution. What is being challenged is macroevolution. So if you are interested to join this discussion fell free to do so but if you dont agree with evolution and have some problems with it,i suggest that you begin your discussion by stating "what macroevolution is?" because so far the Critics of evolution have no concrete definition of what macroevolution is. Also you need to consider this questions too; would you consider a horse offspring with features that of a zebra,giraffe, and a horse macroevolution? Would you consider fossils of sea creatures considered as whale but have found to have some sort of a limb or even legs as macroevolution? would you consider two white parents giving birth to a black-skinned offspring macroevolution? IF not then define what is macroevolution?


Microevolution is a fact,the changes going on in the molecular level can produce a different kind. whats my evidence? lets discuss it. but i need a clear definition of macroevolution first.

[Tattva]

what do you think of this creature...a pciture is provided in this link.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13218557/


copy paste it if it wont work.

[Hellblazer]

so evolution is definitely true.

[Tattva]

Creationists wanting to refute the evidence of microevolution to support macroevolution would say that minimal changes in microevolution do not imply LARGE CHANGES("macroevolution- a term used by creationist but lacks concrete definiton).


why? According to them that minimal changes only apply to variation within kind. Meaning that a horse can never be something else but a horse.


But these conclusions are based on false assumptions because microevolution is just one of the 29+ evidence for evolution. Other evidence includes fossil record, patterns of similarities and differences between living species, and genetic comparisons. Gathering all the DATA from those evidence will give us a clear picture of evolution on a grand scale. Then CREATIONISTS fail to give a genetic mechanism limiting changes.


Unsay pasabot ani?

walay mechanism or any scientific data nga mo limit sa changes meaning any changes is possible including from one kind to another kind.

walay instruction sa atong GENES nga ni ingun nga oi dili ra ktuob imong change ha,dili naka puede mo change into another kind kutob ra ka sa iro. NO,there is no INSTRUCTIONS from our genes nga mo LIMIT sa changes. So any changes is possible. Mao ng ang claim sa mga creationist nga limited ang change within sa kind is a conclusion based on FALSE ASSUMPTION. If anyone wants to contest this by all means give your Scientific mechanism stating limitations in genetic variation.


I still have a lot to say but lets give our friends here a chance to say something.

[Tattva]

so evolution is definitely true.

Yes according to Biology by virtue of Common Descent.


This is evolution based on Biology not biology based on evolution.

[Hellblazer]

something.