1. I can remember many students back in 10th grade maths, who thought there were flaws in basic algebra and asked but why is 'x' or any other letter assumed to be a number? How can a letter and a number be the same? Like those students did not understand the concepts of algebra and the assumptions that are necessary for the science to progress, you too do not understand(or choose to pretend not to) understand the concepts behind the theory of evolution. Not understanding something is a poor way of disproving it.
- Do you have a link to this observation? And even IF that were to be the case, natural selection occurs as a response mechanism to an organism's needs to adapt to a given environment. If that environment were to change, possibly so would the mutations and adaptations as every ecological niche demands different adaptations to survive in the given environment.
- That, i'm afraid is a lie. This is the definition of species:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
And Darwin's finches were classified as different species on that very basis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
There have been occasions, where divergent branches of the same genus have been able to interbreed(provided the divergence was not that pronounced) and produce offspring, but the new 'hybrid' was often found to be infertile.
- I believe you are referring to peppered moths. Seeing as how the dark colored moths camouflaged themselves against the bark of trees and helped to increase the ratio of their offspring who survive from predatory birds, its safe to say they were 'selected' for this and the benefit of this phenotype fits the theory of evolution model perfectly.
- No, it clearly demonstrates that organisms have similarities at the molecular(DNA) level, again exactly as evolution predicts. To simply state that common DNA implies common design without common ancestry is false and is the real circular reasoning you accuse me of, because what you fail to realize is that as a believer in God you HAVE to believe that he made ALL things, including non living things. So why is'nt there DNA in rocks, water, or on the surface of the moon? So no, common DNA between all living things cannot be used as evidence of a common designer(i'm a believer in God, btw but this argument of yours is false).
2. That's not helpful. Why don't you label physicists who 'believe' in gravity as 'other gravitationalists'? Again, you fail to give any reason why all professors of the science of biology would abandon all forms of rational thought and scrutiny with respect to just one theory.
Or perhaps if there are atheist scientists who don't believe in evolution you might have a stronger case lol.
Seems like I struck a nerve, not only have you claimed I don't understand what I am talking about you also state that I am lying... (Considering that a quick google search with the words "Darwins finches" and "interbreeding" will allay any resolution of my untruthfulness. Considering this I'm going to assume that your post here was a knee-jerk reaction.
1. Claiming arbitrarily that someone doesn't understand is a VERY weak argument and basically shows when you are "scrapping the bottom of the barrel". Considering that if I didn't understand then my lecturers would have been able to correct my mistake and yet were unable to do so, one admitting she didn't know and another admitting the problem was real but didn't really care undermines your claim here. I know fully well what I am talking about, and it is because I do understand is because I do not believe in evolution.
- clearly you "don't understand" what I am getting at. Yes it is claimed that environmental pressures push selection, now tell me what environmental pressure will be constant enough for 10000 or so years for the trait to fix? If the environmental pressures fluctuate, so to do the traits meaning there is not enough time for fixation, therefore implying no evolution. This is an observed trait of the environment, the seasons is proof of that. Therefore what proof do you have that traits can fixate despite these fluctiations?
This mentions the change back to normal status
This is a PEER REVIEWED article citing that Darwins finches can interbreed
- As I mentioned earlier this is no lie, just do a simple google search. May I suggest you do a bit of research outside of wikipedia since we don't really view wikipedia as very creditable here, (it can be changed by anyone). You do see here that whilst the identification of species is to do with breeding (which is the mechanism of passing on genetic information), evolutionists will now attempt to change this concept, (claim it is wrong or incomplete etc), AFTER this contradiction is found. This is a prime example of an ad hoc hypothesis and clearly demonstrates how evolution is pseudo-science and is no more intellectual as a coffee cup.
- Again you do not understand what I am getting at... I know that it is claimed that they are selected for or against etc. As I said you can select for any and all colours yet that trait will do nothing for that organism to become something else. It is an arbitrary change which has no impact on its actual phenotype.... please read (and perhaps re-read) what I write before responding, your claim here had nothing to do with what I had written.
- Did I mention common DNA infers common design? Did you read what I wrote at all?
I wrote that the underlying assumption used for the DNA analysis, ie- the assumption that evolution occured hence we can allow for the addition of gaps to align the sequences, means that use of that "evidence" as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning, since you had to assume evolution was true initially to come to the evidence.
2. Your claims here have nothing to do with what was discussed. I was discussing in that point how peer review in and of itself is not creditable when it comes to claims associated with worldviews. However because I am feeling nice, and I actually read your posts (well at least this one) I will answer.
The underlying reason why many scientists believe in evolution is simply because of the indoctrination that occurs at school / university. Honestly I am a third year student at Uni and the amount of pressure they put on people to assume that evolution is "true" is staggering. We had one lecturer state about 20 times over that "evolution is true"... Yet ironically the semester earlier we were told that in Science you can never claim something as true since there is always the potential for falsification at a later date... (therefore proving that even scientists are biased since this guy believed in evolution so strongly that he was willing to do so against the basic tenets of science itself).