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

if you change "some" to all “all genetically surveyed organism” Some requires exceptions, exceptions have not yet been observed definitively... then maybe I could agree to that definition.

As for the issue of biogenisis that would be something for another thread.
 
Originally posted by Neuromancer
if you change "some" to all “all genetically surveyed organism” Some requires exceptions, exceptions have not yet been observed definitively... then maybe I could agree to that definition.

As for the issue of biogenisis that would be something for another thread.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, and with such a definition your have almost totally narrowed down the potential of finding faults", but you were the most moderate in your views to start with and thus your opinion is not a good representative of the evolutionists pool available.
 
Originally posted by Neuromancer
Dam that is pretty dumb,

If you wish you should make a thread specifying good arguments against evolution
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that I'm not an expert or even well studied in biology and am only here because this thread was moved from free thoughts and it mocked or challenged posters to offer dumbest attempts to find faults in a theory. My opinions rely on my general problem solving techniques that could be used to examine any decipline from gibrish to partial differentials. Opening or participtating in other biology threads would imply that I'm interested in the specifics and details relating to the development of the field, and that's not my intention.
 
Being a undergrad biochemist they shun me from their world (paulsamuel mainly, as well spuriousmonkey, but spurious does not claim to be a evolutionary biologist). Oh well to me genetics and SNP mapping means everything I'm sure there is proof in their fields, but I am either to bias or ignorant to consider it definitive.
 
Flores bleats:

at the moment, people working on evolution need to shut the fuck up and work quitely to proof or disprove this theory that may go down in history as one of the most "waste of time" endeavors.

And by the same token, people who believe imaginary gods created the universe should do the same. And when it comes to discussing evolution, those who know nothing about evolution due to their addled beliefs, should do the former.
 
(Q),

lets not use emotional words or put downs, appeal to emotion and authority are not valid arguments.

spookz,

lamarckianisum fine as long as its used to describe artificial subjects, for example: social and technological development run by rules of Lamarckian evolution. But in biology Lamarckian evolution fails to match up to Darwinian evolution when interpreting the evidence.
 
Originally posted by (Q)
And when it comes to discussing evolution, those who know nothing about evolution due to their addled beliefs, should do the former.
Click to expand...

Have you gotten laid lately Q???. You display the symptoms of a sexually deprived individual.

Treatment: Since I'm sure noone will volunteer to do you, I suggest that you do yourself twice a day for the next couple of weeks, and then once a week first thing in the morning for the rest of your life...No need to shower or brush your teeth since you'll be doing it alone.:D
 
A man walks up to a doctor and says: “I have been having sex 8-10 times a day!” Doctor replays: “That’s good!” Man says in return: “Ah but my right hand getting raw.”
Click to expand...

lets stay off the ad hominems here lets not ask who more ignorant or whe need to unload.

Spook,

I'm a undergrad in BioChem even if I was a PHD they would denounce me because Evolutionary Biologist are usually very pompous people, they usually only accept their people as peers and all most bow to them… Almost as bad a taxonomist.

I have been thinking of neuroscience for grade school, think this name better suit my preferences.
 
Originally posted by (Q)
people who believe imaginary gods created the universe
Click to expand...

Thank you Neuromance for perhaps saving the thread from being closed.

Q, it's not an imaginary god, blue eyed grey haired Zeus, that created the universe. I claim the creator of the universe to be the scientific equivalent of a One gigantic black box of unknown components.

http://www.fsonline.net/May2003/Religious/PicturesOfKaaba.htm
The 10 million that happened to be in that picture are all revolving around the black box while mumbeling we are idiots next to the creator, to symbolize how much man knows about the origin and sustenance of the universe:D
 
Originally posted by Neuromancer
I'm a undergrad in BioChem even if I was a PHD they would denounce me because Evolutionary Biologist are usually very pompous people, they usually only accept their people as peers and all most bow to them… Almost as bad a taxonomist.
Click to expand...

really? no wonder brother paul has that haughty attitude. the monkey is cool tho. perhaps its just cos you are a kid

hmm
yah... ultra materialists!
 
One gigantic black box of unknown components.

Is that what Muslims are referring to as Allah?

The 10 million that happened to be in that picture are all revolving around the black box while mumbeling we are idiots next to the creator, to symbolize how much man knows about the origin and sustenance of the universe

All the while imitating a bleating flock of sheep.

The reasonable man need not consider himself an idiot of submission next to his imagination. He lifts his head from the flock and bleats no more.
 
Developmental biologist like spurious are just nerds
nerd.gif


Don't even get me started on biochemists:
chainsaw.gif
 
I migth throw in the fact that I am actually have moved into the field of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) with my research. That makes me almost qualified to make some general statements on evolution as stipulated under article 2003.23-A-354.777 of the UN charter for biological warfare.
 
I have rule of thumb: if refutation of theory of evolution contains the word "Enthropy", it's patented BS. Anti-Evolution crowd likes to use science like words, but unfortunately, it never bothered to learn something beyond the name and superficial definitions. Concept of enthropy is 100% out of grasp refuters; however, with unexplained consistency they LOVE to use that misterious and charming word "Enthropy".
 
gendanken said:
As of now, researchers in Africa and India are intrigued at the rise of elephant males born without tusks. Evolution would have that these are protective measures against poaching but all the creationists and naysayers believe what they want anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued. Any follow-up on this?

I'd like to know how the body 'knows' that 'tusks are being targeted in our population ergo baby's DNA must disclude tusk.'

Pretty cool, if it's true.
 
wouldn't it be more like, the ones that don't have tusks don't die and thus, can reproduce and over time they become more predominant in the population?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top