Shop More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 31, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 639

Tell me your detest/disagreement/objection in evolution theory, and I will try to answer it.

:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I am a scientist, and I know a basic understanding of evolution theory. So if you have any objections/disagreement/things-that-don't-make-sense-according-to-you, you could write them here, and I will try to answer them.

No dirty words, slandering, etc please.

and also, trolls are welcomed only if they are amusing :D
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconhastsmak:
hastsmak Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2013   General Artist
Babylonia
Reply
:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
??
Reply
:iconhastsmak:
hastsmak Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2013   General Artist
[link]

something like that
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013
Things that don't make sense? hmk. Why hasn't Religious martyrism not been selected out of the species right now?
Reply
:iconkimsy2358:
kimsy2358 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013
Why don't these dip shits belive it?
Reply
:iconkillianseraphim:
KillianSeraphim Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Student General Artist
Why is Intelligent Design not seriously pursued as a theory, when evolution, as a theory, explains how life progressed, not how life originated?
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The origins of life is abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.

ID is pursued as a theory by people like this, [link] and [link] , however they consistently fail to establish scientific credibility (mostly since, per their own admission, "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well" (also add alchemy or divination or palmistry)). It sums up that by admitting supernatural causation, they throw out the falsifiability criteria out of science. At that point, ID has exited the practice of science, it is just philosophical wanking to justify one's own preconceived ideas.

Therefore most ID argumentation remains mostly a "battle of the negative" (rather than proving ID right, they try and prove evolution wrong, which of course is a false dichotomy), and a political fight (see misc. legislature proposals on the topic at hand).
Reply
:iconkillianseraphim:
KillianSeraphim Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Student General Artist
So how solid is the abiogenesis theory in comparison?
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
you mean in comparison to creationism? rock solid.

For one, it actually is a scientific theory, meaning among others it is falsifiable and relies on natural explanations to natural phenomenons. For another one, experiments have actually been conducted that support its different threads...more that can be said for any of the ill-conceived attempts to recast religious beliefs into pseudo-science.

At the end, that is indeed what remains, that is a bad idea to try to cast religious beliefs, that should exist on Faith alone, into scientific theories. It leads to masquerading one's religion under a false mantel of pseudo-science to attempt to give it some legitimacy. Religion ought not to desire to claim its legitimacy through such methods. It is pointless and debases religion.

VE.
Reply
:iconkillianseraphim:
KillianSeraphim Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Student General Artist
I wasn't speaking of creationism with that question. I have my own issues with that hypothesis. I was simply referring to the idea that something with intelligence triggered life on earth, and looking at scientific fact from a standpoint of order, rather than chaos. I'm not saying religion should have a place in the scientific community, nor am I saying that any particular "god" brought about the process, or is manipulating the process.

I mean as an idea for the worlds origin, if one where to look solely at the information at present, there is as much speculation behind the abiogenesis theory as behind the biogenesis theory, as it seems no one in the scientific community, that I've seen anyway, has a solid answer behind the creation of the first cell, where evolution starts.
Reply
Add a Comment: