gorilla999 - the original uploader of this vid censors his comments section! bloody funny, really. anyone who disagrees with his is blocked. Insecure much??? Well, I guess it is a favorite tactic of the religious - it worked to keep Galileo out of public knowledge for a while...
Whoa, is this guy serious?? That's not even an argument. The evolution-devolution thing is just a stupid play of words. It happens at times. Fish evolve into land vertebrates, and some evolve back into dolphins. I dont see the problem with reverse evolution. And yes, i can easily believe that humans would devolve back into an ape-like animal. If at some point we no longer have enough food available to sustain our large brains, there would be selection for dumber, more efficient 'humans'.
reversion is actually very common in nature de-evolving would mean the bats got worse at surviving do u think that is happening here? or have they found a better way to hunt a way which was used in their evolutionary past
I think what he was saying was that bats have developed behavioural traits that resemble shrews, not that they have physically lost their wings and become shrews.
You are a retard... fish left the sea, evolving as amphibians, through reptiles, to mammals. Some of these mammals evolved into whales and returned to the sea and evolved fins and tails from limbs and hands. Reverse evolution is not possible? Evolution is always forward in terms of an organism's ability to survive the process of natural selection. Your attempt here is so fundamentally weak intellectually. It is really sad that you are such an embarrassment to humanity.
typical. how incredibally stupid. tell me, how did that "debunk" evolution? this is just getting sad. hopefully this is satire or this would be very, very sad, indeed.
Bat's don't de-evolve, they don't turn back into screws - they re-evolve the same hunting hunting techniques their ancestors had abandoned, because it's now more advantageous for one reason or another. (Perhaps there is less competition for food on the ground?)
Much like whales didn't turn into back into fish when they found an advantage by returning to water, and ants found an advantage by scurrying on the ground, unlike their flying ancestors.
Please tell me this is satire. You can not be as stupid as this video makes you out to be. Here is proof of evolution. This dudes still got the thought process of an ape haha
Well either something did it, or it happened on it's own. If you want to call it a magic man in the sky then in absence of any logical explanation, the illogical; no matter how illogical, is true. Evolution can not explain the origin of life, the man in the sky can. But since that doesn't bode well for the theory, evolutionists just say it's a different field, you can reverse engineer an engine to determine how it works, evolution reaches a point where it can not be reversed and becomes faith.
Nor was the theory of evolution propsed to explain the origin of life. it explains biodiversity. Abiogensis is an hypothesis that explains the origin of life and it is not nearly so well established in evidence and fact as evolution. However, "god diid it then" is an argument from ignorance and therefore not very convincing because as knowledge expands there is les and less need for the "god did it" explanation.
You start by attempting to view the evidence in the light most favorable to there being a 100% naturalistic explanation, needed or not does not prove what actually happened. Evolution is based on the bio genesis being completely natural, what is life? would amino acids forming proteins be evolution? or the formation of DNA? there is no evidence an outside source did not create life, there is no direct evidence that it did, it's all how one looks at the information. it's just a belief many hold.
It's foolish to think that evolution is going in any direction. The point he was making by saying that it was going in reverse is that we know the ancestors of those bats were shrew-like creatures... this species of bat happens to have become inclined to hunting in the same way its ancestors did.
This does not disprove evolution in any way.
Also, I like how you're making appeals to authority here... authority which you would otherwise totally deny.
Theory of evolution is a solid theory based on facts, get over it.
But let's amuse ourselves: Let's say evolution is complitely wrong. Let' say there's no way that genetic changes and natural selection cannot possibly explain the variety of lifeforms on earth.
Now, does that mean Magic Man in the sky must have done it?
Disproving evolution won't prove your fairytales to be accurate.
better yet, you can spend eternity with Dawkins complimenting how smart he was and worship him in the fire....Atheism offers nothing for the afterlife, my religious book does.
You correct me by saying what I said was a statement of faith, then you go ahead and make an equally certain-sounding claim to the contrary. Do you even pay attention when you write?
The Bible is the widest read book ever and all time best seller, apparently a lot of people find it useful. No one will be reading Dawkins 2000 years from now.
I was responding to a remark that the Bible was "cheap". Popularity does not equal correctness, but the point is there are two competing ideas and a lot of smart people line up on both sides. creationism is very unpopular right now, the theory of evolution evolves to be whatever it has to be to stand up to scrutiny, and it can not be proven false by it's nature, it takes too long to observe. I am not saying the Bible is true because a lot of people read it, it's a small piece of a big puzzle.
no, it is whatever you think it is for it to be wrong. There is the fundamental difference. This is nothing but strawman fallacy. Posting up a false representation of your target to knock it down. But all you knocked down was a poser, and not the actual target. If you understood just the fundamental facets of science, you would understand this. however, it's apparent, you do not.
any evidence found is examined with a completely naturalistic premise. God is not considered a possibility and a solution is arrived from that preconceived idea. The theory has been revised many times since Darwin, science should update itself, fine. Any time something doesn't work the way it's supposed to, the theory is modified from only a naturalistic vantage, nothing else is considered, much of these things can not be tested but to keep the idea coherent it needs to have some answer,
"God is not considered a possibility and a solution is arrived from that preconceived idea."
That is partly because the explanation "god did it" doesn't really explain anything because it doesn't expalin how and partly becasue the god hypothesis is untestable and nonfalsifiable.
Many years ago bacteria were untestable, just because something is outside of our limited grasp for the moment does not categorically mean it can not be true. You can't test a random bio-genesis either, but it is the inevitable conclusion of evolution. It all boils down to something or nothing, i have faith in something-god. Atheists have faith in their untestable theory that the universe and life all began with no outside force. Both require faith or believing the untestable.
"to keep the idea coherent it needs to have some answer"
You appaear to be crticising modifying ideas based on new data, but that is precisely how science is suppoesed to work. otherwise it would be just dogma held on faith and as more evidence of error accumulated the sillier it would sound, like the Genesis explanations for rainbows and languages.
well according to scripture the first rain fall was the flood, therefore the first visible rainbow would have occurred at that time, genesis explains what it means, not how or why it works.
NO NO revise the theory all you want, that's a good thing. However knowing the number of prior mistakes how can one be certain the current theory is completely accurate? You can't. certainly you may believe it is mostly accurate, others disagree and neither is testable at the core.
Darn straight it only looks at a natural premise. Why? because it wouldn't be called science if it did anything else. Science only can deal with that which is MEASURABLE and FALSIFIABLE not understanding this is to not understand the most fundamental of facets behind science. God is not measurable, nor is he falsifiable, so he and any supernatural works are outside of science. hence the name "SUPERnatural". please educate yourself.
Evolution isn't going in any particular direction. There is no plan, no final design in mind. It's about variation and selection of that variation which is better adapted for a particular environment. Eyes become useless in caves where light never penetrates, since eyes play no part, they can degrade through subsequent generations or ... ahem "devolve".
We find creatures WITH eyes, but are blind. Evolution explains that, but does an Intelligent designer?
That is not a gain of any genetic information, having eyes that could theoretically be used, even thought they never are would be a neutral trait, it neither hurts nor harms the animal, natural selection can not select out a trait that had no advantage, disadvantage or any bearing on the life of the animal. The blind fish would have no reproductive advantage compared to those with functional but useless eyes in that there is no light for them to see.
There are other mechanisms at play here. While you're correct that a trait that doesn't effect fitness can't be selected for, it doesn't mean it stays around either. Since eyes (and body markings) mean nothing in a lightless environment, any variations which degrade that trait can linger on in a population and spread. Eventually the degradation becomes so bad the eyes are useless.
Evolution isn't about things getting "better" (how we might judge), it's simply what ensures reproductive success.
I understand that, humans have existed on earth for how long? Yet skin cancer still seems to be a major problem, our skin has not adapted to the suns rays that have been present since the beginning, surely that trait would be useful, we don't have many useless traits that we may expect. Ostriches are flightless but their wings do them no harm so they are not selected out, perhaps the species was at one time smaller and drifter to larger and unable to fly. I can go with that, that's reasonable.
"our skin has not adapted to the suns rays that have been present since the beginning"
What happens to your skin when you're exposed to sunlight (UV)? Black people have less chance of getting skin cancer because of melanin. Now if our populations were getting wiped clean from skin cancer, we'd see pale skin people go before dark skinned. Are white people being eradicated? No.
Would it be useful? Sure but it's not as easy as that.
And funny you should mention cancer - lovely thing god built in.
@MasonsAreAbomination I dont know if this is entirely true, but ive heard or read somewhere that radiation has become more damaging due to us damaging the ozone layer. Also, clearly animals and humans do adapt to sunlight, since african people have far more melanin to block the sunrays than kaukasian people.
LOL! Of course, if you went into *any* detail, you'd have to admit that David Attenborough didn't say what you claimed he said.
I must say I take some comfort in the fact that it's a Brit demonstrating such ignorance of science and poor listening skills. All too often it's one of my fellow Americans who display such things when it comes to this topic.
No, the conclusion is already known, the question is, how do we interpret this from a completely naturalistic view? I am saying it is possible that sometimes the 100% naturalistic explanation that precludes anything else is not always correct. OK it happened, now how? On it's own or from an outside unknown source, the on it's own does not satisfy my personal opinion, and yours may be different you are entitled to believe what you like, i think there are things science can't explain.
"I am saying it is possible that sometimes the 100% naturalistic explanation that precludes anything else is not always correct."
First, your claim has changed. Initially, you asserted that evolution had been debunked. Now you've taken it down to saying it merely being "POSSIBLE that SOMETIMES the 100% naturalistic explanation [is incorrect]" (emphasis mine). Second, if you believe there is a superior explanation of the facts and other data, then it is incumbent upon *you* to provide...
...that explanation and to demonstrate how it comports better with the evidence than the scientific explanation. You haven't done that here. Rather, you've merely asserted -- and falsely -- that the National Geographic Society debunked evolution. It's done nothing of the kind, and you haven't provided even a shred of argument for why it should.
Evolution can't be true because it's not how God the holy mighty Jeebus 3000 said it happened in Genesis. You need to get rid of your unbelief that Satan has sold you. The one true God loves you but you must love him back cuz that nigga is fucking crazy!
the facts constantly change, and of course "science updates itself" but they changes always keep the constant of evolution and work all the evidence around that to make it fit.
No science has gotten it wrong before, we only know this because it has been proven so. As information expands errors are corrected. Here we have a theory that is hard to test directly and disprove, it takes too long. We can speculate based on what we know, but that is subject to revision. I understand evolution, i just don't think it's a viable theory for how we got where we are from where we came from. we see few neutral variations which natural selection can not remove, why?
"Here we have a theory that is hard to test directly and disprove"
You don't prove or disprove them, you find a theory which explains the observations better and makes more accurate predictions. The Theory of Evolution explains so much all ready, if anything would come to succeed it, it would look similar. In 150 years, not only has it not been overturned - it's been strengthened.
"we see few neutral variations which natural selection can not remove, why?"
Please show me where science has gotten it wrong. There have been people who have used Science incorrectly to make scientific claims. But a subsection(if you will) of the Scientific Method known as peer review will ultimately halt human bias/error. Science has self-correcting mechanism built in to it, which makes it a reliable, and unbiased tool for all of us. To date every field of biological science independently supports Evolution. Damn this 500-word limitation! :O)
If you educate yourself with an honest study of the independent fields of science including [Paleontology, Biology, Molecular biology, Biochemistry] as they relates to Evolution; even a brief introduction to archeology would not hurt.; then you will see that Darwins theory of Evolution is completely unblemished, and is a verifiable fact. Even the mapping of the human genome(DNA) which had the possibility of destroying the theory of Evolution; in fact verifies it even more.
"I understand evolution, i just don't think it's a viable theory for how we got where we are from where we came from." The theory of Evolution only addresses how life changes over time based on the environment, nothing more.
"we see few neutral variations which natural selection can not remove, why?" I need clarification here. Are you referring to irreducible complexity? :O)
gorilla999 - the original uploader of this vid censors his comments section! bloody funny, really. anyone who disagrees with his is blocked. Insecure much??? Well, I guess it is a favorite tactic of the religious - it worked to keep Galileo out of public knowledge for a while...
Digdigs2 1 year ago
Whoa, is this guy serious?? That's not even an argument. The evolution-devolution thing is just a stupid play of words. It happens at times. Fish evolve into land vertebrates, and some evolve back into dolphins. I dont see the problem with reverse evolution. And yes, i can easily believe that humans would devolve back into an ape-like animal. If at some point we no longer have enough food available to sustain our large brains, there would be selection for dumber, more efficient 'humans'.
thesharft 1 year ago
reversion is actually very common in nature de-evolving would mean the bats got worse at surviving do u think that is happening here? or have they found a better way to hunt a way which was used in their evolutionary past
TheOrionStar 1 year ago
I think what he was saying was that bats have developed behavioural traits that resemble shrews, not that they have physically lost their wings and become shrews.
Nigeman 1 year ago
You are a complete idiot. That clip does not remotely imply that evolution is not real.
probotvideo 1 year ago
You are a retard... fish left the sea, evolving as amphibians, through reptiles, to mammals. Some of these mammals evolved into whales and returned to the sea and evolved fins and tails from limbs and hands. Reverse evolution is not possible? Evolution is always forward in terms of an organism's ability to survive the process of natural selection. Your attempt here is so fundamentally weak intellectually. It is really sad that you are such an embarrassment to humanity.
mpfield1966 2 years ago
Completely correct, that dude was a fuckn retard at best
TheVince0909 2 years ago
@mpfield1966
It is very sad that you just said retarded thing.
freak777power 11 months ago
What's the ROOT word of Evolution and Devolution? Evolve. Anyway you could Decreate this video?
You are proof that devolution is possible.
addadhdnarc 2 years ago
typical. how incredibally stupid. tell me, how did that "debunk" evolution? this is just getting sad. hopefully this is satire or this would be very, very sad, indeed.
suril22 3 years ago 2
Bat's don't de-evolve, they don't turn back into screws - they re-evolve the same hunting hunting techniques their ancestors had abandoned, because it's now more advantageous for one reason or another. (Perhaps there is less competition for food on the ground?)
Much like whales didn't turn into back into fish when they found an advantage by returning to water, and ants found an advantage by scurrying on the ground, unlike their flying ancestors.
Elkrim 3 years ago 3
Screws??? You mean Shrews. LOL
777Sonshine777 2 years ago
He said evolution does not normally go in reverse. He didn't say ANYTHING about evolution being untrue.
Are you retarded or just stupid?
lowcomedy 3 years ago 4
Fail.
katey1dog 3 years ago
Please tell me this is satire. You can not be as stupid as this video makes you out to be. Here is proof of evolution. This dudes still got the thought process of an ape haha
Munro1Man 3 years ago
Is this a joke?
peehead99 3 years ago
haha 1 star 19 votes
get a clue jigaboo
BabieshatetheBible 3 years ago 2
Well either something did it, or it happened on it's own. If you want to call it a magic man in the sky then in absence of any logical explanation, the illogical; no matter how illogical, is true. Evolution can not explain the origin of life, the man in the sky can. But since that doesn't bode well for the theory, evolutionists just say it's a different field, you can reverse engineer an engine to determine how it works, evolution reaches a point where it can not be reversed and becomes faith.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"Evolution can not explain the origin of life"
Nor was the theory of evolution propsed to explain the origin of life. it explains biodiversity. Abiogensis is an hypothesis that explains the origin of life and it is not nearly so well established in evidence and fact as evolution. However, "god diid it then" is an argument from ignorance and therefore not very convincing because as knowledge expands there is les and less need for the "god did it" explanation.
clairewaldorf2 3 years ago
You start by attempting to view the evidence in the light most favorable to there being a 100% naturalistic explanation, needed or not does not prove what actually happened. Evolution is based on the bio genesis being completely natural, what is life? would amino acids forming proteins be evolution? or the formation of DNA? there is no evidence an outside source did not create life, there is no direct evidence that it did, it's all how one looks at the information. it's just a belief many hold.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
It's foolish to think that evolution is going in any direction. The point he was making by saying that it was going in reverse is that we know the ancestors of those bats were shrew-like creatures... this species of bat happens to have become inclined to hunting in the same way its ancestors did.
This does not disprove evolution in any way.
Also, I like how you're making appeals to authority here... authority which you would otherwise totally deny.
Truly, this video is foolish and feeble.
TomConger 3 years ago
Yes i know evolution goes any way it needs to go to fit your preconceived idea. just work the theory around the evidence,
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
Theory of evolution is a solid theory based on facts, get over it.
But let's amuse ourselves: Let's say evolution is complitely wrong. Let' say there's no way that genetic changes and natural selection cannot possibly explain the variety of lifeforms on earth.
Now, does that mean Magic Man in the sky must have done it?
Disproving evolution won't prove your fairytales to be accurate.
StandForScience 3 years ago
I agree with with ProMTH.
You have demonstrated such ignorance of science and poor listening skills.
How embarrassing for you.
BizarreChild 3 years ago 2
Go back and read your Richard Dawkins books, maybe the devil will let you read them in hell.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
Go back and read your religious book, maybe the devil will let you read them in hell.
GuyGuysly 3 years ago
better yet, you can spend eternity with Dawkins complimenting how smart he was and worship him in the fire....Atheism offers nothing for the afterlife, my religious book does.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
It offers nothing for the afterlife because there isn't one.
TomConger 3 years ago
That is a statement of faith, you do not believe in an afterlife, I do, one second after you die, you'll know it was all true.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
You correct me by saying what I said was a statement of faith, then you go ahead and make an equally certain-sounding claim to the contrary. Do you even pay attention when you write?
TomConger 3 years ago
Even better than that, your book isn't the only book that offers the afterlife. It must be cheap if everyone's got it!
GuyGuysly 3 years ago
The Bible is the widest read book ever and all time best seller, apparently a lot of people find it useful. No one will be reading Dawkins 2000 years from now.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
Vox populi arguments really aren't very convincing. if they were, one would have to accept incompatible ideas on the basis of their populartiy.
clairewaldorf2 3 years ago
I was responding to a remark that the Bible was "cheap". Popularity does not equal correctness, but the point is there are two competing ideas and a lot of smart people line up on both sides. creationism is very unpopular right now, the theory of evolution evolves to be whatever it has to be to stand up to scrutiny, and it can not be proven false by it's nature, it takes too long to observe. I am not saying the Bible is true because a lot of people read it, it's a small piece of a big puzzle.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
wow
you know nothing
read a book... evolution is not a one way graduated ladder system...
you really know nothing....
wow
eddygoombah 3 years ago 4
Yes the theory is whatever it needs to be at the moment for it to make sense, a theory that answers no hard questions for fear of being wrong.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
no, it is whatever you think it is for it to be wrong. There is the fundamental difference. This is nothing but strawman fallacy. Posting up a false representation of your target to knock it down. But all you knocked down was a poser, and not the actual target. If you understood just the fundamental facets of science, you would understand this. however, it's apparent, you do not.
eddygoombah 3 years ago
any evidence found is examined with a completely naturalistic premise. God is not considered a possibility and a solution is arrived from that preconceived idea. The theory has been revised many times since Darwin, science should update itself, fine. Any time something doesn't work the way it's supposed to, the theory is modified from only a naturalistic vantage, nothing else is considered, much of these things can not be tested but to keep the idea coherent it needs to have some answer,
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"God is not considered a possibility and a solution is arrived from that preconceived idea."
That is partly because the explanation "god did it" doesn't really explain anything because it doesn't expalin how and partly becasue the god hypothesis is untestable and nonfalsifiable.
clairewaldorf2 3 years ago
Many years ago bacteria were untestable, just because something is outside of our limited grasp for the moment does not categorically mean it can not be true. You can't test a random bio-genesis either, but it is the inevitable conclusion of evolution. It all boils down to something or nothing, i have faith in something-god. Atheists have faith in their untestable theory that the universe and life all began with no outside force. Both require faith or believing the untestable.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"to keep the idea coherent it needs to have some answer"
You appaear to be crticising modifying ideas based on new data, but that is precisely how science is suppoesed to work. otherwise it would be just dogma held on faith and as more evidence of error accumulated the sillier it would sound, like the Genesis explanations for rainbows and languages.
clairewaldorf2 3 years ago
well according to scripture the first rain fall was the flood, therefore the first visible rainbow would have occurred at that time, genesis explains what it means, not how or why it works.
NO NO revise the theory all you want, that's a good thing. However knowing the number of prior mistakes how can one be certain the current theory is completely accurate? You can't. certainly you may believe it is mostly accurate, others disagree and neither is testable at the core.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
Darn straight it only looks at a natural premise. Why? because it wouldn't be called science if it did anything else. Science only can deal with that which is MEASURABLE and FALSIFIABLE not understanding this is to not understand the most fundamental of facets behind science. God is not measurable, nor is he falsifiable, so he and any supernatural works are outside of science. hence the name "SUPERnatural". please educate yourself.
eddygoombah 3 years ago
Mate, you really are a tit.
Evolution isn't going in any particular direction. There is no plan, no final design in mind. It's about variation and selection of that variation which is better adapted for a particular environment. Eyes become useless in caves where light never penetrates, since eyes play no part, they can degrade through subsequent generations or ... ahem "devolve".
We find creatures WITH eyes, but are blind. Evolution explains that, but does an Intelligent designer?
ScottishAtheist 3 years ago 4
That is not a gain of any genetic information, having eyes that could theoretically be used, even thought they never are would be a neutral trait, it neither hurts nor harms the animal, natural selection can not select out a trait that had no advantage, disadvantage or any bearing on the life of the animal. The blind fish would have no reproductive advantage compared to those with functional but useless eyes in that there is no light for them to see.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
There are other mechanisms at play here. While you're correct that a trait that doesn't effect fitness can't be selected for, it doesn't mean it stays around either. Since eyes (and body markings) mean nothing in a lightless environment, any variations which degrade that trait can linger on in a population and spread. Eventually the degradation becomes so bad the eyes are useless.
Evolution isn't about things getting "better" (how we might judge), it's simply what ensures reproductive success.
ScottishAtheist 3 years ago
I understand that, humans have existed on earth for how long? Yet skin cancer still seems to be a major problem, our skin has not adapted to the suns rays that have been present since the beginning, surely that trait would be useful, we don't have many useless traits that we may expect. Ostriches are flightless but their wings do them no harm so they are not selected out, perhaps the species was at one time smaller and drifter to larger and unable to fly. I can go with that, that's reasonable.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"our skin has not adapted to the suns rays that have been present since the beginning"
What happens to your skin when you're exposed to sunlight (UV)? Black people have less chance of getting skin cancer because of melanin. Now if our populations were getting wiped clean from skin cancer, we'd see pale skin people go before dark skinned. Are white people being eradicated? No.
Would it be useful? Sure but it's not as easy as that.
And funny you should mention cancer - lovely thing god built in.
ScottishAtheist 3 years ago
"...we don't have many useless traits that we may expect"
You wouldn't expect those traits, if you actually understood the theory.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
@MasonsAreAbomination I dont know if this is entirely true, but ive heard or read somewhere that radiation has become more damaging due to us damaging the ozone layer. Also, clearly animals and humans do adapt to sunlight, since african people have far more melanin to block the sunrays than kaukasian people.
thesharft 1 year ago
@MasonsAreAbomination There are far less cases of skin cancer in africa, alot of this cancer, is from industrialization and refined foods.
MasonicEyes 1 year ago
"Without going too much into detail...."
LOL! Of course, if you went into *any* detail, you'd have to admit that David Attenborough didn't say what you claimed he said.
I must say I take some comfort in the fact that it's a Brit demonstrating such ignorance of science and poor listening skills. All too often it's one of my fellow Americans who display such things when it comes to this topic.
ProfMTH 3 years ago 8
Apparently bearing false witness doesn't apply to the theory of evolution or its proponents.
BarryLeder 3 years ago
Just pointing out how the theory constantly changes to fit the evidence with no other consideration,
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"Just pointing out how the theory constantly changes to fit the evidence with no other consideration."
Thanks for confirming that you're troubled by an evidence-based approach to the matter.
ProfMTH 3 years ago 3
No, the conclusion is already known, the question is, how do we interpret this from a completely naturalistic view? I am saying it is possible that sometimes the 100% naturalistic explanation that precludes anything else is not always correct. OK it happened, now how? On it's own or from an outside unknown source, the on it's own does not satisfy my personal opinion, and yours may be different you are entitled to believe what you like, i think there are things science can't explain.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"I am saying it is possible that sometimes the 100% naturalistic explanation that precludes anything else is not always correct."
First, your claim has changed. Initially, you asserted that evolution had been debunked. Now you've taken it down to saying it merely being "POSSIBLE that SOMETIMES the 100% naturalistic explanation [is incorrect]" (emphasis mine). Second, if you believe there is a superior explanation of the facts and other data, then it is incumbent upon *you* to provide...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...that explanation and to demonstrate how it comports better with the evidence than the scientific explanation. You haven't done that here. Rather, you've merely asserted -- and falsely -- that the National Geographic Society debunked evolution. It's done nothing of the kind, and you haven't provided even a shred of argument for why it should.
ProfMTH 3 years ago 2
I'll answer for Masonsareabomination ...
Evolution can't be true because it's not how God the holy mighty Jeebus 3000 said it happened in Genesis. You need to get rid of your unbelief that Satan has sold you. The one true God loves you but you must love him back cuz that nigga is fucking crazy!
BabieshatetheBible 3 years ago
Please educate yourself on the fact of Evolution.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago 8
"Please educate yourself on the fact of Evolution."
There's absolutely no chance that will happen.
Desertphile 3 years ago
the facts constantly change, and of course "science updates itself" but they changes always keep the constant of evolution and work all the evidence around that to make it fit.
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
Hello MasonsAreAbomination,
Your assertions about Evolution are skewed. That is why you need to educate yourself on Evolution; and I will add the scientific method as well.
P.S.
Science and/or the Scientific Method are the best tool we have as to revealing the truth about reality; with currently a 100% accuracy rate.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
No science has gotten it wrong before, we only know this because it has been proven so. As information expands errors are corrected. Here we have a theory that is hard to test directly and disprove, it takes too long. We can speculate based on what we know, but that is subject to revision. I understand evolution, i just don't think it's a viable theory for how we got where we are from where we came from. we see few neutral variations which natural selection can not remove, why?
MasonsAreAbomination 3 years ago
"Here we have a theory that is hard to test directly and disprove"
You don't prove or disprove them, you find a theory which explains the observations better and makes more accurate predictions. The Theory of Evolution explains so much all ready, if anything would come to succeed it, it would look similar. In 150 years, not only has it not been overturned - it's been strengthened.
"we see few neutral variations which natural selection can not remove, why?"
What are neutral variations?
ScottishAtheist 3 years ago
Please show me where science has gotten it wrong. There have been people who have used Science incorrectly to make scientific claims. But a subsection(if you will) of the Scientific Method known as peer review will ultimately halt human bias/error. Science has self-correcting mechanism built in to it, which makes it a reliable, and unbiased tool for all of us. To date every field of biological science independently supports Evolution. Damn this 500-word limitation! :O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
Prt2:
If you educate yourself with an honest study of the independent fields of science including [Paleontology, Biology, Molecular biology, Biochemistry] as they relates to Evolution; even a brief introduction to archeology would not hurt.; then you will see that Darwins theory of Evolution is completely unblemished, and is a verifiable fact. Even the mapping of the human genome(DNA) which had the possibility of destroying the theory of Evolution; in fact verifies it even more.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
P.S.
"I understand evolution, i just don't think it's a viable theory for how we got where we are from where we came from." The theory of Evolution only addresses how life changes over time based on the environment, nothing more.
"we see few neutral variations which natural selection can not remove, why?" I need clarification here. Are you referring to irreducible complexity? :O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago