Where did you study science?

Not being able to see evolution is something i never understood. When i look at nature i can see evolution in things like whales, penguins, flying squirrels, trees that have houses for ants. Its like right in front of our nosees.

Yeah its just a theory is pretty weak, especially without one of your own.

Only once you've accepted it - if you're trying to deny it, these things are just as likely to be used to show how unlikely evolution is (witness the eye example above). "What are the chances of flying squirrels happening purely by chance?...A part of a wing is valueless to an organism - it's all or nothing!...If you can't produce the entire chain of development from primordial sludge to ants in trees, then you're just guessing!"

I still doesn't see how people cant see evolution in nature. But in truth i am guessing. I dont know anything about evolutionary biology. So i have to guess what i see is what i see and i have to guess scientist are right.

I suspect that's the difference - they are beginning from the premise that scientists are wrong.

It ‘just couldn’t have happened’ is such a lazy thought to have. Especially when it’s a stand-alone conclusion based on a hunch which you refuse to investigate.

It’s easy, after we’ve evolved so far, to look back and think ‘naaaaaah, no way we evolved from that’. Instead, why not read the work of people who have actually investigated this? It’s fascinating! Put simply, evolution is the perpetuation of beneficial mutations. If 2 populations of the same species become genetically isolated, each population will pass around their own set of random mutations within their own population. As the 2 populations occupy different niches, the respective value of particular mutations differs. So while the mutations are the same between the 2 populations (i.e random), they are not exposed to the same selection pressure. Over thousands, millions, billions of years, this results in the biodiversity we see today.

Try and shed your prejudice against scientists and evolution and look at it for what it is; an honest, evidence based theory explaining how the worlds biodiversity arose. There is a reason pretty much everyone who rejects evolution doesn’t understand how it works.

No one’s born knowing how life arose, or understanding evolution - it has to be investigated and learned. Declaring a theory implausible on gut instinct is ultimately just a refusal to find a real answer. Don’t be so lazy (or if you must be, at least refrain from forming a strong opinion of your own).

Grunching and responding to original OP only.

I am always so amused by this line of reasoning. I can't explain how it all happened, therefore the god of your religion must be the answer. Just so, so brilliant.

that just made me start giggling.

I think the guy's having fun playing ignorant.

IT for sure was not a short time span,
more like 4-5 billion years to evolve which is an incredibly very long time 5,000,000,000 YEARS

god (allah) or w/e mighty creator however " magically" created this earth in like 5 days 2000 years ago according to the bible ....
lolz

Opposition to Darwinian therory is, i wouldn't say widespread, but there's a consistent group of people, among mathematicians, among physicists, and among some very good speculative biologists, who simple don't accept it, don't even regard it as a scientific theory in any reasonable sense.

Citing crackpots as authority. I missed that strategy.

What are their objections? What is the response to them?

crackpots? Only if they don't agree with the prevailing view.

I wondered why this thread got so big. I figured it must be due to some previously untapped area of worthwhile discussion.

lol me

Do you not feel some combination of shame and/or embarassment when you bring 18th century science to a 21st century debate?

There are more scientists named "Steve" than there are scientists in the entire world who are opposed to evolution. It's such a minority viewpoint that it could pretty much be written off as statistically insignificant.

No, being a crackpot is about the methods they use to justify their positions. If they read tarot cards and cite that as evidence for evolution they are crackpots too.

This isn't very hard.

Here's a fun video that was linked to in another thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsbBT118Rbw

Last I checked mathematicians and physicists werent people we went to when discussing evolution. I hope you dont go to the mechanic to get a hair cut.

As for the "very good speculative biologists". You've been asked before, where did you study science? How can you evaluate whether or not they are "very good". Sounds like a good case of confirmation bias to me.

If you study evolution theory you will quickly discover that your objections to it are very quickly and easily resolved. If you cant or wont study it for any reason then please accept the conclusions of the 99.9999% of people that do study it.

Well if Darwin was right, where are all the fossils showing these gradual changes? The fossil record really doesn't support much of anything.

How about you admit you were wrong in 1 area of discussion before quickly jumping to another? People are putting in a lot of time answering your questions, the least you can do is acknowledge their answers and either admit that you were wrong or form some sort of rebuttal before jumping to the next topic.

Fossilization is very rare (You read that, right? When you researched the responses to this objection?) Those few we do have are consistent with the theory of evolution providing some kind of confirmation. Although this is a weak form of evidence it nonetheless supports the theory of evolution, it doesn't contradict it.

Evolution doesn't predict we will see millions of intermediate fossils, so pointing out that they aren't there isn't falsifying the theory. "If God is so loving, how come Earth isn't a paradise?" - you see?

This is what makes me think he isn't genuine in his professed anti-evolution. Most creationists are much more bulldog-like and more clever in phrasing their objections. He also jumps from one to the other, almost like he's working down some 'top ten reasons evolution is wrong' list. I don't see any point in engaging with demoneyez, but hopefully someone lurking who does have genuine doubts about evolution will at least realise that these parodies of counterarguments all have reasonable answers.

I'll admit rize, you're correct on that point, and i thank everyone for taking the time to post answers to my question.