Do you believe in human evolution?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87
Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Two different thoughts on this:

I'd say the odds are even more ridiculous, using that kind of logic, that we haven't already discovered some bizzare life form on another planet that evolved with the set of conditions available to them.

How many other planets have we actually discovered?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

"Why did life evolve at all?

Why not?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by guyinrubbersuit

We've discovered hundreds of planets and many, if not all are the size or even larger than Jupiter.

Wow! Hundreds out of a estimated 30 Billion (and that's just earth-like planets in our galaxy)! Well that's me convinced that there is no life out there.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

If we are from monkeys, then why not all the monkeys evolve? If Darwin's theory that the sudden-changing environment will 'force' monkeys and other forms of archaic life to evolve, then why do we still find living ancient life these days like bacteries? Remember that the changing environment affects ALL Earth.

This confuses the hell out of me. It's well known that we didn't evolve from monkeys, but that we merely shared a common ancestor. Who still thinks we evolved from monkeys?

Quote:

Secondly, scientists claimed that fossils are more than proof that evolution theory is correct indeed. What actually happened now is the fossils proved that the fact that some creatures which were believed to have evolved from any previous forms is NOT to be quite true. Ex: we believe that reptiles, amphibies, birds, and mammals all comes from fishes which came to the land and evolved so it could survived. If this is true, then a fossil showing this transformation must be found.

There are many transitional fossils

Quote:

Even Darwin write in his 'Origin Of Species' about things that can make his theory ruin into pieces. He even claimed in his dying bed that his theory was merely an imagination, and he believed that GOD created all.

The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views.

The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Is this what you were looking for?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Stop letting other people do every single bit of talking for you.

It's called backing up your claims. In some institutions (for example universities) it's actually encouraged.

Quote:

It's an extremely poor way to participate in any sort of debate, and it just makes you look stupid.

If backing up your views with academic evidence is stupid then what is intelligent?

Quote:

Posting a book or some scholarly article is not debating, it's just slapping something up in a lame attempt to make you look intelligent.

I was merely presenting you with some evidence of new genetic information. Why are you getting so worked up and making childish ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issues brought up by the paper? If I were debating with someone over masculinity in John Woo films and they showed me an article about it, I would focus my attention on the article rather than attacking the person for not coming up with an entire theory on their own without any outside influences.

So are you actually going to make a case against the article or continue to cover your ears while blasting people for bringing it to your attention?

FELIPE NO

And yet you still have not actually done made any critique of the scientific articles that profess to offer evidence for macro-evolution. Why not?

So far you have asked for evidence of macro-evolution and new genetic information, only to ignore it when it is presented to you and instead have chosen to attack the people who have given it to you.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

I'm not debating with a lazy person.

I'm not asking you to debate with me, but with the evidences presented. So can you actually critique the examples, yes or no, and if you can what is your reasoning for not doing so other than the fact that you don't like the person who posted them?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Ulysses

Some causes of genetic mutation:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units...mutationbg.cfm

It's pointless. Unless you did all the research and wrote up the paper yourself he'll disregard it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Ulysses

It was more of a retort to lurker actually, who for some reason appeared to pour scorn on the very notion that the radioactive substances we are exposed to and eat on a regular basis somehow would not affect our DNA. Yes, we do consume them; that's the basis of carbon dating in all living things.

You regularly eat radioactive substances?

How ya doing, buddy?