What are the dumbest attempts to find fault in the theory of evolution you've heard?

In fact, there is more evidence to support Evolutionary Law than there is to support Newton's second law.

If you don't know what the 2nd law is - learn it on your own damn time.

Think about it - Newton's law studies tons of interactions and makes an assumption about ALL possible interactions ever to occur (basically). That's a pretty big assumption.

Evolution makes no assumption. Evolution is a result of knowledge, not an assumption about the real world.

No one said "I made up this wild hypothesis called evolution, let's go test it." Strong evidence was discovered and THEN the theory came. And we've proven it with every new species, closing in on the gap of FINITE species in existance.

However newton's law makes an inference to the INFINITE amount of possible reactions.

In short, it's quite a bigger leap to accept newton's law than to accept Evolutionary Law!!!
 
I prefer Darwin`s theory!

Hi
I read somewhere that according to the Bible, the world is old more than 6000 years. Right?
That is the basic data for the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
If the Gentlemen - the prophets - were connected to God, who is said to be omniscient, why were they wrong in their assessment of the age of the universe, which is said to be between 12 and 15 billion years old?
And here in my homeland, when there was talk of evolution there were some people _ especially the clergies- who said that ok it you want your ancestors to be chimps, good for you.
We prefer Adam and Eve.
Althoug, the evolution theory, is not proved, but compared with the Basic data of the religions, I prefer Darwin`s theory of evolution. It is more convincing.
thanks
 
hey look, doc. some are even offering up their own dumbest attempts. i bet you didn't expect that.
how do you argue with people who say such things when you've seen video of it happening (there was a thing with an island and some iguanas)? i can't understand how people can just up & not believe it. it's like saying you don't believe in gravity because you can't see it.
it's lack of education i decided. anyone who is properly taught all about evolution could never refute it. i had a student (i'm a ta) who is practically in a cult he's so involved in his church- after 4 years of studying pre-med, he totally changed his focus from trying to disprove evolution to using it to prove the glory of god because he couldn't argue against it.
 
Robert Winston, "And sometimes it seems to me from the huge correspondence I get from them, the creationists seem to be protesting so vigorously that they appear as if they are trying to convince themselves."
Click to expand...

from the book 'human instinct'
 
:) Fools! :)

Both Creationists and evolutionists!

I hate the word evolution! It implies that the whole population of a species all of a sudden changed! This is wrong. So, natural selection is the best way to describe it, but I might add, that even 'Natualists' have a faith. A faith in adaptation. So, this is why I claim both are fools.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that according to the Bible, the world is old more than 6000 years. Right?
That is the basic data for the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
If the Gentlemen - the prophets - were connected to God, who is said to be omniscient, why were they wrong in their assessment of the age of the universe, which is said to be between 12 and 15 billion years old?
Click to expand...
If you read that bible, you'll see that this god created the heavens and the earth, then he created light...
How do you measure a year without light? who's to say that this god didn't create the earth and
then by the time he created light, billions of years had passed...

Food for thought ;)
 
the ultimate irony

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that natural selection will wipe out the very characteristic that allows us to have this oh-so-erudite conversation about that very topic - the overly large and inefficient human brain.

After all, any feature that leads an organism to foul it's own nest with pollution, and to create technologies capable of destroying the very planet that spawned it...

The ultimate appendix, the organ that has enabled Homo Sapiens to sow the seeds of his own self-destruction, the human brain.
 
Originally posted by norad
:) Fools! :)

Both Creationists and evolutionists!

I hate the word evolution! It implies that the whole population of a species all of a sudden changed! This is wrong. So, natural selection is the best way to describe it, but I might add, that even 'Natualists' have a faith. A faith in adaptation. So, this is why I claim both are fools.
Click to expand...

Quite true, Darwin only used the word evolution once, and referred to the process of descent with modification. And Evolution actually started with the meaning the development of an organism. That only changed in the present meaning roughly around the time of Darwin. I think evolution was a bit a leftover from the preformatists. The embryo was already formed in the egg and just needed to unfold, or evolve.

The first one to use evolution in its modern meaning was I think Herbert Spencer and he meant "progression toward greater complexity and interaction with outer forces rather then playing out of internal programmes.'

that is a plagiarized quote btw. It seems that we are eager to ban plagiarism in sciforums according to the feedback topic. I can't be bothered from which source it is.


(haha. Its evolutionary developmental biology by brian hall of course).
 
Originally posted by kavahead
So...if I turn out the light my watch will stop?
Click to expand...
your watch doesn't measure time so it wont stop, it will keep counting,
then again it depends greatly on your definition of time
If time is just counting off by 1's in a rhythimcal pattern...
 
No dumb questions, only dumb answers.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I've heard so many hilariously stupid attempts to debunk evolution, here are but a few;

Why has evolution stopped happening now?
Hey yeah, last week iguanas were the same as they are this week, whats going on?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Answer us Dr Lou Natic, why is this the case, answer intelligently if you believe in the concept so strongly. I shall repeat the question.

LASH WEEK IGUANAS WERE THE SAME AS THEY ARE THIS WEEK, WHATs GOING ON?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
A new one I heard just today;
Why are humans the only animal with human intelligence?
Hmmm, good point, I wonder why elephants don't have HUMAN intelligence? They have elephant intelligence for some reason, clearly evolution doesn't make sense:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Fine that one is poorly worded.....kindda like how many last suppers did Jesus have?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
And of course;
If humans evolved from apes, and there are still apes, why aren't there half ape half human animals?
:mad:
Click to expand...

Actually that's an excellent question. Evolution is very slow and subtle, so how do we explain the obvious large gaps and differences between apes and human.

SMART ANSWERS PLEASE, and please show the names associated with the so called dumb quotes, or you'll be charged by No! for stealing people's quotes and plagerising.
 
It's basically that people don't want to know, as it conflicts with their existing belief system. For instance, a non-idiot co-worker of mine argues "why are there still apes then?" which is of course, retarded, yet I know him to be a highly intelligent man. i presume that he has a comfort zone within his religious beliefs (as he was someone annoyed when I asked him) that doesn't enjoy the prod of reason, as it is already comfortable so quit fucking with it damn you person asking questions. I really like him, so I wouldn't want to take his comfort from him. I'm not sure if he thinks creationism should be taught or what. He sends his kids to sunday school, etc.

I find myself conflicted, as I have determined that ultimately relationships are more important than facts.. that is until those facts get in the way of the relationship? I dunno. I agree with Xev, cull the fuckards, but at the same time I care about some of the fuckards and do not want to see them hurt. Such contradiction. LOL. There's no escaping it, to be human is to be hypocritical. Well, I suppose you have the option of being alone. Personally, I'd rather be nominally hypocritical than alone. Yeah I suppose hypocracy comes in degrees. Blah. Pardon.
 
evolution can easily be reconciled with most religions. you just have to know how to work the religious doctrines. if you don't, most can be argued by saying something like: "how dare you question the methods of god?? if he/she/they chose evolution as his/her/their means for creation, it is not your place to criticize!"
besides that, a lot of religions do embrace science. point out a few you know of that openly welcome evolution and selection as god's work.
 
Re: No dumb questions, only dumb answers.

/LASH WEEK IGUANAS WERE THE SAME AS THEY ARE THIS WEEK, WHATs GOING ON?

They didn't mutate. Maybe they did and we didn't notice yet. Maybe the uber-iguana was born last week and is gather all the iguana forces for a conquest to rule the world.

/Fine that one is poorly worded.....kindda like how many last suppers did Jesus have?

Did Jesus exist?

/Evolution is very slow and subtle, so how do we explain the obvious large gaps and differences between apes and human.

Millions of years, several links in the chain between them. I'm not sure exactly the names, but like neandrotol, homo-habilus, blah blah. Here's a stinking link.
 
Personally, I don't have any problems with evolution. I see it, I understand it and it makes sense. Things adapt, they change in respect to the environment, etc.

The Theory of Evolution on the other hand, it seems to me, is almost like a "B" movie, one that is slightly entertaining the first time through and then the more you view it, the more you want to throw a brick through the TV screen.

I see a theory out there which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. Not an impossible scenario.

On the other hand we have a larger theory which states that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source (LUCA....last universal common ancestor) which itself came from an inorganic form.

This theory and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla.

Those who adhere to Universal Darwinsm, are adhering to a philosophy and not so much science IMHO.

Okay, now go ahead and hurl excrement at me.:cool:
 
Originally posted by Bridge
Okay, now go ahead and hurl excrement at me.:cool:
Click to expand...

Your argument is exactly why I see a necessity for a "life force" as part of physics.

Meh, maybe it's just a subset of chemistry, but still. Seems like if certain conditions are met, a pov emerges. That don't seem like yer typical chemistry to me. Even bacterium? satisfy the condition of a pov, though its extremely simple, they have the simplest form of perception. Okay I'll shutup.
 
What's a pov? Point of view?

Don't shut up. Go on. I see a life force as necessary also. Maybe not from the same perspective as you but nonetheless we can discuss this without fear of proselytizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top