There are a number of topics in which scientists disagree. Evolution is hardly 'proven'. We certainly can't recreate macro evolution.

 

1. Is evolution complete? Evolution has no purpose or objective. It can't be complete, or unfinished. Is evolution still occurring? Yes. Evolution is a change in the gene pool over time Given the vast number of species on earth and the pace with which believers claim evolution has taken (5-7 million years for humans), we should see hundreds if not thousands of species in 'transitional' forms. Why do we not see that. 99.9 percent of them are extinct. If you want to see some of them, go to any natural history museum. If you want to just look them up on the internet, here is a link. Why do we all appear to be in what I would call 'final form'? Seeing as how you would call us in "final form" it is apparent that you don't understand to begin with. I suppose that, to you, we appear in final form because evolution works over long periods of time, much longer than you have been alive. It could also be due to the fact that you appear incapable of observing things which are in museums and all over the internet. Why aren't there transitional species out there for us to observe? Asking the same question twice doesn't make it a better question.

 

 

My answers in Bold.

For those who believe in evolution where did man evolve from?

 

6. Evolutions can't even prove how single cell organisms in the beginning suddenly (in evolutionary terms) converted to huge numbers of multi-cell organisms in the Cambrian period. I actually learned about that reading a book by noted evolutionist Stephen Gould. He acknowledged that there was no evolutionary explanation for such change in too short a period of time.

 

Another thing I got from reading Gould is that evolutionists can't fully explained how we got vertebrates from invertebrates. How did invertebrates (hard shelled essentially) convert to vertebrates (spines)?

 

 

 

 

Since you admire Gould, let's let him answer

"Professor Gould says creationists have unwittingly misinterpreted or deliberately misquoted his work in a manner that would otherwise be laughable, were it not for the impact it can have on the teaching of science in schools.

 

"Such inane and basically harmless perorations may boil the blood but creationist attempts to use punctuated equilibrium in their campaigns for suppressing the teaching of evolution raise genuine worries," Professor Gould said." (Source)

 

4. The second law of thermodynamics says that all systems move in the direction of disorganization, the opposite of what would have to happen for evolution to be true. Now certain scientists will point to the energy source that is the sun as a cure all. Meaning since we have a heat/energy source, basically anything is possible. But it's not really possible without a mechanical advantage, which hasn't been found or proven.

 

You have stated the 2nd law incorrectly. It should state "In all closed systems...." If a system is closed, it has no energy source, so it would be difficult or impossible for live to evolve from simple to complex, as complex requires more energy. It would be difficult to life exist at all in a closed system, as the energy is finite. Use it all up, everything dies. The fact that you are alive is a clue that there is something wrong with your argument, besides the fact that you misstated, in a crucial way, the 2nd law.

 

The good news is that the earth is not a closed system. As you alluded, the sun provides us with all the energy we need to sustain life and fuel evolution.

 

I also italicized the part where you "predicted" that the response would be that the sun makes "anything possible." It does make life possible, that is true. It doesn't make "anything possible" If it made anything possible, I would expect to see a halfway good question from you.

The arrogant know it all attitude in this thread makes it unreadable.

Great post BT in #59.

 

The understanding is anything from complete.

 

 

I like the mathematical formula for #4: S2 > S1. Entropy increases - always. Nature does not make order out of disorder.

 

#5 is great point as well. Random changes in genetics are mutations that are usually prevented from reproducing. Nature does not positively select mutations to go forward.

Evolution is now settled, at this given point, at this time, there is no longer debate within the scientific community.

 

Edit. Science isn't static. So, yeah, on any issue, at any time, scientists could come to differing conclusions. So they keep at it, and learn more, and eventually reach a consensus. That is where evolution is now. And like I said in a previous post, If anyone could disprove it, they are guaranteed a nobel prize.

 

I asked this question in a previous post and since you seem to have all the answers I will directly ask you:

 

For those that believe in evolution, what or where did man evolve from?

Monkey fish-frogs.

 

I asked this question in a previous post and since you seem to have all the answers I will directly ask you:

 

For those that believe in evolution, what or where did man evolve from?

 

Human Family Tree | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

So we evolved from a primate? Is this your belief and do you ascribe to this tree? Also is evolution a ongoing event?

Please don't act like this is a 50/50 argument about the affect humans have on the environment. Human neglect caught the Cuyahoga River on fire, and human attention fixed the problem, thanks, weirdly enough, to Richard Nixon.

 

Do you burn styrofoam for heating fuel?

 

I think it's known we affect the environment , the dispute is to what length or how much. I think both sides exaggerate their position. My stance has always been purely economics. Things like carbon trading etc... hurt the poor.

 

We all want a clean environment but we should also worry about jobs.

So we evolved from a primate? Is this your belief and do you ascribe to this tree? Also is evolution a ongoing event?

 

What does ascribe to this tree mean?

I also love topics about science because it's a topic 99.9% of America has no real understanding. We all reference studies that most of use truely can't break down or understand . It's a topic that has become purely political and it's the one topic that shouldn't be.

 

Do some conservatives take extreme views to fit an opinion , yep. Do liberals do the same , yep.

 

One thing that always worries me about science , is the same thing that worries me about a lot of topics. The influence of money. In this case grants looking for specific answers.

 

That's why I stick to topics I understand such as economics , which is a science. But liberals always seem to dispute economic fact , even thought they are the Champions of science.

The nature of science is to gather evidence to understand the universe. We do not have perfect or complete evidence, so our understanding changes when new evidence is discovered. We know the acceleration of gravity on earth is 9.8m/s^2, but we have a lot less evidence of how gravity works at the extremes, like at a black hole for instance. It's the same thing for evolution.

 

The problem with this debate over creationism is that religion is not and cannot be science. Faith is a belief in something that you do not have observable evidence for. Creationism attempts to present itself as a science that can prove the truth of Christianity. It cannot, by definition.

 

One can both accept the understandings of science and have faith. I don't understand why the faithful see them as either/or and thus try to make their beliefs "scientific."

The nature of science is to gather evidence to understand the universe. We do not have perfect or complete evidence, so our understanding changes when new evidence is discovered. We know the acceleration of gravity on earth is 9.8m/s^2, but we have a lot less evidence of how gravity works at the extremes, like at a black hole for instance. It's the same thing for evolution.

 

The problem with this debate over creationism is that religion is not and cannot be science. Faith is a belief in something that you do not have observable evidence for. Creationism attempts to present itself as a science that can prove the truth of Christianity. It cannot, by definition.

 

One can both accept the understandings of science and have faith. I don't understand why the faithful see them as either/or and thus try to make their beliefs "scientific."

As usual, you said it better than I could have. And this is where I'm at as well.