reply to post by dodadoom
I will gladly answer the ignorant, even if they are so purposely. At least one or two of you who want to deny ignorance will learn something. Funny
how creationists try and pick apart a theory published in 1859, as opposed to the 150 years of refinement and revision.
Im going to adress the issue of "conspiracy of evolution"
*Warning*, in his arguments against evolution you WILL see alot of "I disagree with it, therefore it is wrong. No, I don't have any evidence."
The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought
Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research. Evolutionary theory can work with just about any model of the origin of life on Earth. Therefore,
how life originated is not strictly a question about evolution.
cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this
Chance didnt make a cell, not like it poofed into existance ready. The idea that a functioning cell arose directly from nonliving material is just
wrong. It evolved into one. The types of cells that exist today are the result of BILLIONS of years of incrementally increasing complexity.
Individual organelles of the cell came together at different times, adding functions along the way. Life did not begin with cells. Cells are an
evolutionary advance. (The beginning is thought to have been self-replicating molecules)
His ideas about information inside the cell.
Darwin did not think the cell was as simple as people claim he did. Many scientists had been investigating them while Darwin was still alive;
Schneider published the first images of chromsomes in 1873 and Flemming published quite detailed pictures of cells in 1882, both while Darwin was
still alive, so he would have known about these things.
In fact Darwin himself published in 1882, the last year of his life, an article on microscopy of plants, describing chloroplasts and how they move in
His failure to see the limits of variation of species
Lies - species getting differentiated has been observed both in the fossil record and in the lab. As an example, sheep are a separate species (can no
longer be interbred) with a mouflon, which they were descended from.
His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.
He openly said he didnt have an explanation. Whats the problem? Does anyone realy expect him to to have an answer for something which wasn't really
understood until after his death?
His theory of homology
You're saying he's obviously wrong because he think similarities between species is evidence for evolution, while you say they are similar because
god was lazy. I dont think i need to say more on this one :\
His theory of human beings evolving from apes.
Saying "I disagree with that" is not an argument, unless you can show why you think it was wrong. Also, both apes and humans evolved from an
ape-like ancestor, humans didn't evolve from modern apes.
His theory of the tree of life. (no one has ever observed speciation)
What utter BULL.. more dishonsesty. Speciation has been observed! Sheep cant even mate with Mouflon
His rejection of biblical creation by God
"I disagree with Darwin, therefore he was wrong. No, I don't need any evidence to support my views."
Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?
That creationism and evolution be given equal weight in education was “rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies
are brought by storks”.
This article is pure trolling.