"A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."
The term "evolution" describes the basis for the process by which speciation occurs. Speciation is described as biologically isolated breeding organisms. The process by which this occurs is very slow and can only be demonstrated through creatures with very high metabolism rates. These creatures do exist and this process has been demonstrated.
To argue the process by means of pointing at flaws in the understanding of the process isn't a reasonable stance. If in fact, you had a theory for a new process by which this could occur then you would develop that theory and offer it in place of the current understanding of evolution. You would account for all of the evidence that supports evolution and explain how it has been misinterpreted by describing the actual processes that are creating this evidence.
Anything else is just trolling.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I love the frequent argument that you can't observe evolution, therefore God is the answer and evolution didn't happen. By that logic, the next time an investigation into a heinous crime is solved, I'll say, "You didn't see it happen, so let this suspect free!" And when he kills again, you can thank the brilliant logic of Ken Ham and his supporters.
Pointing at flaws is definitely acceptable. One of the things Noam Chomsky did when challenging the idea that language is learned, was raise an objection for the poverty of the stimulus.
As your quote suggests, a scientific theory stands until proven wrong. Pointing at flaws is how theories are proven wrong.
True, but how many 'flaws' are actually flaws, and not just the accuser not understanding the concept they're trying to debunk? Pretty much every argument against evolution I've ever seen is either bad logic or misinformation.
"As your quote suggests, a scientific theory stands until proven wrong. Pointing at flaws is how theories are proven wrong."
No it isn't, and again this just shows an execrable and laughably simplistic grasp of science and it's methods. Firstly science doesn't prove things it evidences them, and the weight of evidence determines how reliable a claim is. Species evolution is as well evidenced as any theory science has, and scientific theories are the pinnacle any scientific idea can reach. To falsify an entire theory like evolution with evidence converging from multiple fields of science would be almost unthinkable. In over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny, and I'm not talking about conjecture on an internet forum that has no scientific basis whatsoever, not one piece of evidence has been scientifically validated that does not support species evolution by natural selection.
You're not questioning it at all, you're simply making wild ill informed claims, and demanding answers on an atheist forum rather from scientists who have expertise in the subject, that's laughable. Your bias comes from your a priori belief in the superstition of creationism, and of course this would remain hokum even if species evolution were reversed entirely tomorrow. Nor does confidence in the scientific process and it's demonstrated success amount to faith, as creationists try to claim, though why they would be so stupid as to denigrate faith is odd, it's all they have after themselves after all.
Flaws which culminate in another theory excepted, as per the implication. You have not succeeded in providing that, only in trolling.
Presenting a replacement theory is by no means necessary. If a theory is flawed then it's flawed. It doesn't matter what comes after, or what came before.
There are too many supporting systems. Try to understand; pointing at a single concept which you view as a flaw does not negate the theory. You must culminate an entire system of flaws which reduce to your own theory.
Still trolling.
All flaws must be accounted for at some point. No matter how small.
"
All flaws must be accounted for at some point. No matter how small."
Evolution is not flawed, if it were then scientists would be publishing those flaws and it would be revised. No scientists think it is flawed other those whack-job creationists who prefer hokum superstition to facts.
But until you have a list of them that all point in the same direction and account for all of the evidence, this one flaw only exists in your head, just like your god.
Understand what you're doing yet John, or should I mention it again?
Mention it again.
If someone can disprove evolution with evidence, then do so and claim your Nobel.
To be honest I don't even think that's how the Nobel Prize works. Goes to show the lack of scientific awareness around here.
"
If someone can disprove evolution with evidence, then do so and claim your Nobel."
"To be honest I don't even think that's how the Nobel Prize works. Goes to show the lack of scientific awareness around here."
You really don't think that someone falsifying an entire scientific theory that is the backbone of the entire field of biology, not to mention all medical research would not get a Nobel prize? This kind of asinine stupidity is why creationists are ridiculed.
John
Let me rephrase it. If you can disprove evolution, then have your own theory proven correct, then you claim your nobel.
Evolution is a FACT plain and simple. DNA PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a fact. Now the arguments I have seen that attempt to discredit evolution are indeed flawed. They present pseudo-science or some other hairbrained nonsense. You can't deny the DNA evidence.