Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[The Grand Nudger]

You can start the evolutionary clock at any arbitrary moment you choose. You needn't know the hour or minute or circumstances of abiogenesis to have a discussion about what's happened -since-.

"Basically the same thing" can be said about you relative to your ancestors, -or indeed all life (and I'm not certain it satisfies as a compelling criticism of evolutionary theory). You don't think that sharks show "drastic" signs of evolution, wide speciation? There are over 400 known species........ For comparison, there are only 7 known species in the hominid (both numbers are for current species, btw) family to which you belong. Seems like sharks have been fairly busy - but as you said...they've had alot of time.

[Alex K]

So you are, in fact, not arguing against Darwinian evolution at all. You're aware of that, right? You're arguing that abiogenesis is impossible (where have I read that phrase before....), and I don't accept your argument for it. A self replicating molecule does not need to be conscious and goal oriented.

As far as your premises are concerned, I don't consider 1 to be so evident, and 2 sounds nonsensical, strangely worded at least.

Your line of argument in the beginning, which you later duscard: "A has not been proven scientifically, therefore A cannot be true" is not valid. But were you really going to deny speciation?

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was arguing that a self-replicationg molecule needs to be conscious and goal oriented. That's not what I meant. I was simply referring to the origin of that single molecule and how the molecule came into existence in the first place.

I truly don't know, but chance sounds plausible, considering how big the universe is.We already observe that chemistry has the habit of organizing itself in simple self replicating patterns.

[Exian]

Evolution isn't necessarily driven by time, but rather external pressures. It just takes time to rack up all the changes. If there is no need for change, there won't be change, or very little.

[Rob216]

The issue I have with it is that there is not (at least to my knowledge) any particular animal that has gone through the drastic biological changes that have occurred in the homosapien lineage.

Whales???

You just quoted one of the animal lineages with the smallest superficial change, that's not an argument, that's just bias.

Ok so give me a better example that is comparable to the lineage of humans. I'm seriously not on here just to argue. I sincerely want to acquire new knowledge so please enlighten me.

[robvalue]

I suggest doing a lot of research, it's the only way to further understanding in such a complex subject.

[DarkHorse]

My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.

Then it must also stand to reason that since there's never been any scientific proof that god exists, he must not exist.

Also, hasn't this topic cropped up a hundred times already?

[Alex K]

Whales???

You just quoted one of the animal lineages with the smallest superficial change, that's not an argument, that's just bias.

Ok so give me a better example that is comparable to the lineage of humans. I'm seriously not on here just to argue. I sincerely want to acquire new knowledge so please enlighten me.

Whales???

If that isn't radical biological change, I don't know what is. And it only took a few million years, too.
(asking for a lineage which is specifically like that of humans is not a sensible criterion for anything. You could just as well argue that you are the chosen one bc. no one else has your fingerprints)

[Rob216]

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was arguing that a self-replicationg molecule needs to be conscious and goal oriented. That's not what I meant. I was simply referring to the origin of that single molecule and how the molecule came into existence in the first place.

I truly don't know, but chance sounds plausible, considering how big the universe is.We already observe that chemistry has the habit of organizing itself in simple self replicating patterns.

Ah I hate when "chance" is brought up as an explanation. To me it has the same annoying affect as saying "this happened because God did it". I know you weren't trying to provoke but that's where my mind goes to when that's brought up. Obviously we don't know everything which is why we have these debates right? lol so yea I'm annoyed that I don't know everything. So that means that I'm not thr chosen one right? lol

---

My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.

Then it must also stand to reason that since there's never been any scientific proof that god exists, he must not exist.

Also, hasn't this topic cropped up a hundred times already?

1. Ok I wasn't arguing that God existed but this wasn't meant to be a religious debate and 2. If you are bored with this topic then why didn't you just ignore it?

[Aoi Magi]

Whales?

[Exian]

Read "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Or maybe just google Tiktaalik for a good transitional specimen. However; reading the book gives you a better idea of the predictive power of evolution.

I also recommend "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Both books are easy and quick reads.