Please debunk evolution for me, really.....

Evolution doesn't say that change is needed at all. Natural selection is when the more efficient survive and reproduce, while the others don't. It doesn't necessarily mean that the less efficient wouldn't have survived if the better one didn't come alo, it just means that it survives for a less amount of time, or just has a greater chance of being killed.

Take the moth example...... A population of white moths is constantly suppressed by birds eating them since they are so visible against the brown trees. However, a mutation occurs and a moth has black splodges on its wings instead of being purely white. This moth blends in with the trees better, and survives long enough to reproduce. For ease of explanation, let's say that the trait is dominant. When the baby moth is born, it is splodgy too. It then, in turn, continues to reproduce, and so on. Eventually, the majority of the moth population has splodges on its wings because they tend to survive longer.

Now, the moth population still existed without the change in genetics, but this changed made it prosper further. I'm sorry if this didn't fully answer you, I didn't really understand all of what you were trying to say in the first post.

Let me reword this in a less complex way for you.

There are rules to evolution that in the scientific community are held up to the highest standard for all stretches of life, but when coming to humans these rules are simply overlooked due to popular belief. It is no better than religion. Years beyond years science has proven itself wrong over and over, through pioneers of science, who question the way of normal thinking. Granted the old days were more religious based. But even science states all things are ever changing, so why not its laws? The simply truth is, is that there are no set-laws technically in science because new developments and discoveries everyday set things back, or support other things more than what we use to believe, or didn't think was possible. As long as we keep underestimating ourselves and our world around us. We'll keep coming up with "theories" (Like the one in question, instead of laws. Like i said....no better than religion.

Yes, and I asked you for evidence that disproves evolution, since you say that it is so contradicting. I fail to see where it contradicts itself.....

Well for one example the missing link scenario. Now again remember why this is called a theory, just like most things in science. Its not proven, its speculated and still being researched today. See because we couldn't find a direct connection we had to assume their was a missing link to make our statement accurate. Many years of digging, and researching we've discovered things that again the scientific community has to say "We believe this is..." as they do for most things now. As for most things when we consider evolution we don't make judgments until we have what we think are all the facts. Like a cat-like creature adapting over the years into another cat-like creature. Or types of aquatic creatures developing what they need to grow along with the changing environment. Now those are general statements with in evolution. Backed and supported right? Now ask yourself this question. What grounds do we have to say that the human evolutionary chain is actually connected to the primates? Now ofcourse your going to say because their DNA is very similar. Well ofcourse, because when it comes down to it there are several species in all walks life that have similar or close DNA to each other, yet they aren't considered direct links. Only cousins. In MOST aspects of evolution a creature that is directly linked to one another dies out because of the evolutionary call to change (natural selection) or whatever you want to call it. If a primate needed to stand on its two legs...they wouldn't say "No bob, I think that's for squares...you go ahead and do that..we will stay here" (if they are to be DIRECT links as science says anyways....<this would be unreasonable> Not counting the perfect English ofcourse...

Still not following yet? Ok simpler version. Environment changes thus creatures change, and branch off in different directions based on what they need to survive. Right? Developing the needed traits to progress. So why would one aspect of these creature not move at all? They would have to become something according to the theory of evolution right? So that's where we assume there is a missing link. Sure data points to there being something missing, but honestly we know so little about our own world, and its inhabitants that we've spent most of our time on it discovering things, and we still haven't even put a dent in it. So to make ABSOLUTE statements is simply wanting to believe. Like i said, no better than religion. Infact, you've made it a religion. I haven't even taken a stand on the subject to say whether i believe it or not. I'm only dissecting the problem. If you want my honest opinion. I say that science is still in the "guessing stage". We haven't learned enough to make accurate laws yet, because we still lack understanding of our world - but our arrogance- tells us otherwise. Yes we know billions of things, but there are still (beyond a number of) things to be learned. If you think i'm wrong, then why does EVEN the scientific community disagree with each other? Over all issues none the less? What makes one side right over another? Because you say so, because you have evidence and research to back u up? So does the other side my friend. When it comes down to it, Religion, Science, and just about everything human related has that major flaw. When we discover a little bit about something we always say "This is it! this is what i've been searching for." But sadly we've got along road ahead of us if you want to understand a world billions of times bigger than yourself. Because the world just isn't what you can see on the surface, and touch with your hands. The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that. So now you tell me. What makes you right over all others? Based on your answer you decide if its a believe or a fact. Because even your opponents in this argument will say the same things. So that doesn't work here. You want my side of the argument? I think we dont understand enough to start guessing just yet...that's it.

Well yes, it is the theory of evolution... We also have the theory of gravity.



If we are not sure of something, isn't it logical to assume that we just haven't found the answer yet? That's why it is called "missing", because we haven't yet found it. Also, it's more like "We hypothesize this is..." because theories can only be accepted by the scientific community if they are based on evidence. However, here is an example of a transitional form if you would like one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archa ... Detail.jpg



We are not making a judgment, it is an idea. An idea supported by empirical evidence for that matter. It is known that we don't have all of the facts, we never will about anything. But that's the beauty of a theory, it can constantly be expanded upon as new knowledge is discovered.



Well yes, that is why so many people are convinced that we evolved from apes. Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), while we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Now you may ask, what happened to that extra pair? Well, it fused to make one chromosome. This is hypothesized because Chromosome 2 (C2) is almost identical to a pair of chromosomes in the bonobo, our closest relative. C2 also has remnants of a second centromere, while every other chromosome has only 1, and no remaining fragments of a second. In addition, C2 has extra telomeres. In chromosomes, telomeres are generally found only at the ends of a chromosome. However, it has been found that C2 has additional telomere sequencing towards the middle of the chromosome.

You say that there are several species with similar DNA to ours, so why choose apes? That is because they have DNA that is the most similar to ours. There are many other species with close common ancestors, and we hypothesize as to how they evolved too. It was recently discovered that crocodiles and birds have the same lung structure and breathing system. This one-way breathing system that they have helps them to survive in areas of low oxygen, which explains why dinosaurs dominated the Jurassic period and further confirms that they both evolved from dinosaurs.



This just tells me that you ave no understanding of natural selection, and thus evolution at all. Animals used to no have the ability of bipedal locomotion. This was a more recent progression in evolution. Also, sometimes evolution is necessary to survive, and sometimes it just gives one species an advantage over the other.

Apes could survive as they were (and are now), but walking on two legs gives an animal a huge edge over animals in the Savannah of Africa. For one, you could see over the tall grass to communicate better and recognize threats sooner. Secondly, you now have hands instead of only feet, and you can use these hands to carry infants, food, etc. You also have a great field of vision in general.



Oh, I'm following. Please, go on....



Wrong, actually. Evolution basically says, "Survival of the fittest". "Fit" here, means biologically fit. As in, "whoever reproduces the most and survives long enough to actually do so passes on their genes to future generations." If the apes that we evolved from continued to survive and reproduce, then their genes would continue to be passed on.



True, but I don't see your point. That's like saying, "Well our data points to there being gravity, but just don't know enough about the universe to actually think that there is gravity." By your logic, every single theory that has ever been thought up (Evolution, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, etc...) should not be accepted in society because "we know so little".



Once again, evolution is a theory, not a law..... No one is making absolute statements about it's truth. You even pointed this out yourself. Evolution is not a religion, because it is based on facts. To believe in a religion, you must have faith. Those that believe evolution to be true do not need faith, we have empirical data.



So you don't take any established scientific laws as the truth? Try walking into a university and saying that you don't believe in the Law of Conservation of Mass. It's called a law for a reason, and that reason is the ability to create repeatable experiments that yield data to overwhelmingly support it.



Actually 93% of the members of the National Science Academy agree that evolution is true. That means, here, about 12 out of every 13 scientists agree. As for what makes one side right, you said it yourself, evidence. The only true opponents of evolution are creationists and advocates of intelligent design, who just brings us back to the argument of whether or not god exists.

So if you have evidence against evolution, please present it to me.



Like I said, no guessing is being done. There is evidence to back up the claims made by scientists. If they made claims without evidence, then they wouldn't be scientists.

Since evolution is still a theory, there is no absolute proof that I am right, and you are wrong. Now to decide if it's a belief or a fact? It's obviously not a fact yet (though many would contest), or else it would be the law of evolution. It is not a fact in the same way that gravity's existence is not a fact, yet it is accepted and considered when doing things throughout society, is it not?

lol after reading that long statement i only have a few things to say back to you.

Forgive me for not extended what i said even further and elaborating on it but you wasted your breath as though u were trying to prove something to me that I wasn't seeing. And to take one large aspect of things "by my logic" (according to you) Yes people are making judgments because there are people out there, believe it or not that look to science as ground laws, or truth. Just as some people do to religion. Just because you don't, doesn't mean you can say no one is making those judgments.


And for your comment about, survival of the fittest...you totally ignored my side of the argument. Yes, true thats what its called and thats how its acts, but thats not what i was saying. Please reread before we continue this conversation.

Yes, there are people that take scientific theories as truths, but this is different from a religious belief. To be a part of a religion, you need blind faith. It is not humanly possible to prove the existence of god, and it has been stated by many Christians. You need faith, and that is why religious people "have faith". If someone takes a scientific theory as fact, they are doing it because they believe that there is enough documented evidence for them to believe said theory as a truth. One day, we may have the available technology to prove things like evolution, yet we will never be able to prove a deity that exists outside of time and space.

I did read you comments about survival of the fittest, and I understood it quite well. You said that we assume that there is a missing link because apes not evolving contradicts the theory of evolution. However, I explained how there is no contradiction, and you just agreed. It is assumed that there is a missing link between humans and apes, yet it is only because there is a gap in the fossil record during the time period where the homo genus was believed to have evolved.

"Assumed"


think about that word...



And i'm sorry but people do look at science as a religion sometimes. Just because you don't doesn't mean people don't. There are times where science is no better than religion. Now i can't go bashing the entire scientific structure now can I? I mean without science, we'd never have hit the age of reason, nor implied any discoveries, and probably be one heck of a Cult-like world (more than we are now) But what I'm saying is that there are scientist that think evolution is BS, there are scientist that stand by it. Just as there are those who oppose global warming, and those who stand by that. Each side offering a large amount of evidence to back up what they state to be accurate. Both sides believing the other is wrong. Just like religious differences. Where the Muslim tells the christian this is wrong, or the christian tells the Jew how to do this, and the Jew tells people they cant do that....etc.etc. The list goes on in on. When it comes down to it, people will always believe what they want to believe regardless of reason or sensibility. Even Science has those flaws, and to a certain extent we all do, even me. Your right, Evolution is a theory, not a law, but you inside interpret is as a truth. Think of it more or less of speculation that is being tested thats not finished. When you get to the end of the road, who knows what the results will be? You can only give it a educated guess, and as mankind has learned before, guessing can only get you so far.

Now it you that does not understand what I am saying... I said "assumed" because there is no way to know whether or not something actually exists until you find it. I can't say that unicorns don't exists, but it is "assumed" that they don't based on evidence.

Also, you brought up the argument that "there are scientists that think evolution is BS". 93% of scientists in America agree with the theory of evolution, while 7% don't. That is in America keep in mind, the most religious country that is considered a world power. Throughout the rest of the civilized world, the number that disagree with it is bound to be lower. That means that an overwhelming majority of scientists support the Theory of Evolution, yet you still claim that is disputed among scientists. However, I can guarantee that at least 6% out the 7% that don't agree with Evolution disagree for religious reasons.

Now, when different religions believe the other to be wrong, that is based on the belief that their religion is right. There is no evidence for their specific god existing, yet they still believe their doctrines because of their blind faith. This is not the same, in any way, as a disagreement among the scientific community. For your point to be valid, it has to supported by evidence. The people that oppose evolution have no evidence of intelligent design, as a judge even ruled that it is simply another form of creationism.

And no, don't start making assumptions about me. I don't think of evolution as an absolute truth, as I stated previously. It is a theory that can be built upon, or even disproved by further evidence. As of now, it has the most weight as a theory, so I will support it. If someone can come up with better theory, that has more evidence, I will gladly consider it.

lol if your going to back up your argument with statistics you've totally just through a wrench into this whole thing. 43% of statistics are made up on the spot...no wait 90%....no i'm sure it was 57%...


It goes as simple as this, everyone believes what they want to believe based on what they think they may or may not know. You should know as well as everyone else that the mass majority isn't "always" right. So you can't judge it on saying...oh well alot of people believe it in. Well alot of people believe in god, alot of people believe in animal spirits, alot of people believe spirits don't exist...everyone has their own idea, or outlook on life..and honestly how can we be the ones to judge when u can see how well science has been used for the purpose of national defense, and war. Great technology, used to just aim weapons at eachother...so if thats the mass directions heading not all, but the mass. Then excuse me if I don't follow the crowd and happen to think "you know what, they just might...just might, possible, be wrong." But no, thinking outside the standard limits is a 'no no' in america today isn't it?