h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What arguments against evolution? It is a plain fact that living things evolve, and it is borne out by all the evidence, not by some or most. Anybody who professes to doubt it has generally a very evident agenda to promote.

Yup.

Has anybody actually seen "gettingjustice" recently, since this is in fact their thread? Have they been frightened away?

zdt

Looks like a one-issue candidate who tried to post a name-&-shame denuciation but got yikesed in ten minutes flat.

well they know now, that kind of thing dosnt work on hootoo!

Recumbantnman, you took the words right out my mouth. As I was waiting for the page to load with your posting on it, i was mouthing to myself "What arguments against?"

Creationists and there ilk like to paint an image that there is some sort of controversy surrounding evolution, which allows them to come out with glib statements like "well, what with the controversy surrounding evolution and all that..."

New Scientist a few weeks ago had some interesting articles on the matter, but to point out just one of the inconsistenacies with creationism- they seem to believe in a 'God of the gaps'. They will grudgingly concede that bacteria in a petrie dish will eventually evolve resistance to, say penecillin, but anything complicated, like an eye.. oh that was god that designed that!

There is a concept 'Intelligent Design' proponants have created called Irreducable complexity- i.e. if something is made up of parts that the whole organism cannot function without, then it was the 'designer' who made the parts. But as soon as a kindly scintist explains the exact mechanism that could result in, say an eye evolving from a few accidentaly light sensitive cells, they say, 'Oh right then, that was evolution at work, but what about....'and they move onto the next thing

Morons

First I must point out im not a raving creationist meerly someone who looks at things objectivly. Evolution is however still refered to as the THEORY of evolution and has taken some major changes since darwin. there is no way i can exept this holey without further coclusive proof. Its the best explonation we have that dosent mean its right.

This link shows the main arguments againts evolution
http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

The most convincing point is

10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

To any one who views the link you will note that some of the arguments take a very creasinist point of view IGNORE these ones

Heres an even better link. Its a bit heavyer. but less mumbling creationist.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

And for anyone who prefers informed reality to ignorant fantasy, there's:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkdesign.org/
http://www.talkreason.org/

I had a look at the link on post 188 and it is mercifully short, but still not very good.

Quote: "An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated."

This kind of argument has been dealt with long ago by Dawkins and others. What use is half an eye? Ask a partially-sighted person.

Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected, since a mutation that gives even a very slight advantage will immediately rush through a swift development, honed to advanced design in relatively few generations.

But I really don't want to get into this argument again. See F1702939?thread=382620&skip=50 where Gnomon puts it straight.

And since this was originally about spiritualism rather than creationism, there's:
http://skepdic.com/
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.randi.org/

Im not saying i agree either the arguments that are put forward. but the evidence for evolution (not simple natural selection) is still based on interprotaion of evidence in a certain way.

I have herd the arguments wich show us the that if evolution took place that there would not be a contiuas progression of fossils fine. this hardly proves the hole thing. as man we have seen very little evidence aroud us (maybe because evolution takes thousands if not millons of years). We have seen bacteria develop immunaties. We have seen moths change colour thogh there were always dark (moths as far as we know they just became ubundent in industrial revolution)and we have seen elephant tusks shrink. non of these are major changes. and unless the human race lasts a lot longer we will not be abble to say for sure.

As it is the theory of evollution is a theory and should be treated as such. Not just say you beleive it hole hartedly butt look for evidence witch catogoricly proves or disproves evolution. Im not against teching it in schools as long as it is portrade as a theory. Im not against people beleiving it (as I sorght of do) but I am against people going round and using it as fact.

Just take some cynecism with it

"interprotaion of evidence in a certain way"

That would be in the way which is consistent with all the other evidence of reality from completely separate lines of investigation. The way which has demonstrated its validity and usefulness by turning up all these cross-discipline agreements in a manner which invalid or random interpretation would not do. The way which has made predictions of future observations which were subsequently shown to be accurate. The way which produced all the advanced technology you rely on in your modern life. The way which continues to indicate where more advances can/should be made.

So no reason to regard it as the best interpretation at all.

I think science is the best way of explaining most things. But I still think it's miraculous the matter evolved to be conscious of itself out of primal matter. Not to mention the fact of matter itself appearing. Richard Dawkins who wrote "The Selfish Gene" said he finds the science of things to be full of wonder; I kind of agree with him!

It's 'only' a theory afterall:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

You've opened a can o' worms here, archShade!

Sorry I was just trying to point out that its almost impossible to prove/disprove anything (including evolution). Thats all.

I'll agree with you there. We don't even know if the universe exists. It doesn't make sense to me that it does, because after all, it can't have come from nothing, yet it can't have been around forever either. Can it?

The mind boggles.

this could get overly philisophical. like how do i know this isnt in my head. the only answear i can give is im not screwed up enogh to invent cheer.