Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[Valjean]

OK, but where are the tests that prove/demonstrate/evidence/manifest the process of evolution by natural selection?

Millions! Whole libraries full. Whole industries based on it.
We've shown you the evidence, we've linked to studies, demonstrations and explanations. Go to a bookstore and pick up any scientific journal. Go to the library and check out some basic, middle-school level, life-science textbooks.

You are one who will not see. We're wasting our time responding to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Millions! Whole libraries full. Whole industries based on it.
We've shown you the evidence, we've linked to studies, demonstrations and explanations. Go to a bookstore and pick up any scientific journal. Go to the library and check out some basic, middle-school level, life-science textbooks.

You are one who will not see. We're wasting our time responding to you.

Now it's millions. OK. Yet not one do you present. OK.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now it's millions. OK. Yet not one do you present. OK.

Why don't you ever listen? They have been presented to you. All you had was denial.

 

[Valjean]

OK. YT. If your questions are serious, and you really do want to understand evolution, you will spend several hours perusing this site. If you can't be bothered, your endless questions and arguments are bogus.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. YT. If your questions are serious, and you really do want to understand evolution, you will spend several hours perusing this site. If you can't be bothered, your endless questions and arguments are bogus.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

I'll look at it IF you will answer questions when I don't understand something, since you recommended it. OK?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. YT. If your questions are serious, and you really do want to understand evolution, you will spend several hours perusing this site. If you can't be bothered, your endless questions and arguments are bogus.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

P.S. It's not understanding evolution. It's believing that life came about by natural selection first from abiogenesis and then moving on to more complex organisms that I question. I can understand evolution to an extent. But I do not believe it any more. Meantime, I'll look at the site if you will answer questions in your own words, with your own understanding, ok? In other words, not a link to another vast summation if you know what I mean but in your own words with your own understanding. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. It's not understanding evolution. It's believing that life came about by natural selection first from abiogenesis and then moving on to more complex organisms that I question. I can understand evolution to an extent. But I do not believe it any more. Meantime, I'll look at the site if you will answer questions in your own words, with your own understanding, ok? In other words, not a link to another vast summation if you know what I mean but in your own words with your own understanding. Thank you.

Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. Even creationists believe in a form of abiogenesis. Why even bring it up?

 

[Valjean]

I'll look at it IF you will answer questions when I don't understand something, since you recommended it. OK?

Don't just look at it. Read the relevant sections carefully. I'll answer questions, if others don't beat me to it.
If you spent as much time reading about evolution or abiogenesis as you do posting about them, you'd be an expert, by now.

P.S. It's not understanding evolution. It's believing that life came about by natural selection first from abiogenesis and then moving on to more complex organisms that I question. I can understand evolution to an extent. But I do not believe it any more. Meantime, I'll look at the site if you will answer questions in your own words, with your own understanding, ok? In other words, not a link to another vast summation if you know what I mean but in your own words with your own understanding. Thank you.

You're doing it again. Life didn't come about by natural selection, and natural selection does not depend on abiogenesis. How many times have we explained this? How is it possible for something to be explained so many times without anything sinking in?

 

[Valjean]

Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. Even creationists believe in a form of abiogenesis. Why even bring it up?

We all believe in abiogenesis, it's just a question of how: chemistry, or magic?

 

[ratiocinator]

Now it's millions. OK. Yet not one do you present. OK.

I'm sure I've given you all this before and you either ignored it or just said it was all wrong without any justification, but just a few examples at various different levels of detail...

Genesis and the Genome (PDF)

Introduction | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Introduction: While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and...

nap.nationalacademies.org

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - BioLogos

We who accept Descent should admit that there are some observations that can be explained equally well by Design. But there are other observations which seem to clearly favor Descent.

biologos.org

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - BioLogos

biologos.org

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...

journals.plos.org

 

[ratiocinator]

Regardless of how the diagram is formulated, it's conjecture.

This is clearly a statement of blind faith because if it was formulated on the basis of strong evidence (which it was) then it isn't conjecture. Saying it's conjecture regardless of how it was formulated can only be blind faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think several of us have pointed out this obvious parallel that refutes the reasoning used to dismiss common ancestry.

Many, many, many times.

 

[shunyadragon]

Now it's millions. OK. Yet not one do you present. OK.

Many references have been provided over the years, and simply a minimal effort on the internet can easily provide thousands of more. A little education would help on your part I present references on this cite on a regular basis and you fail to respond.

 

[Audie]

P.S. It's not understanding evolution. It's believing that life came about by natural selection first from abiogenesis and then moving on to more complex organisms that I question. I can understand evolution to an extent. But I do not believe it any more. Meantime, I'll look at the site if you will answer questions in your own words, with your own understanding, ok? In other words, not a link to another vast summation if you know what I mean but in your own words with your own understanding. Thank you.

My heavenly days!!!!

After all this time you STILL don't
understand ToE is no more about or dependent
on "Origin" ( aboo) than tatting, or auto mechanics
are?

How is that even possible?

 

[shunyadragon]

Now it's millions. OK. Yet not one do you present. OK.

Actually on thread list right below this on you can reference many scientific references that support evolution here:

Online Reference: FAQs and tutorials on the Theory of Evolution

Thanks to Quaxotic for the idea, and to Painted Wolf for the footwork. TALKORIGINS.ORG Links: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

www.religiousforums.com

Have you ever looked?.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Actually on thread list right below this on you can reference many scientific references that support evolution here:

Online Reference: FAQs and tutorials on the Theory of Evolution

Thanks to Quaxotic for the idea, and to Painted Wolf for the footwork. TALKORIGINS.ORG Links: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

www.religiousforums.com

Have you ever looked?.

I have read about the evolution myth.
It was weird.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read about the evolution myth.
It was weird.

Too bad you don't understand it. If you did you would realize that your beliefs are mythical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have read about the evolution myth.
It was weird.

Can you explain what you think the science says?

 

[Audie]

OK. YT. If your questions are serious, and you really do want to understand evolution, you will spend several hours perusing this site. If you can't be bothered, your endless questions and arguments are bogus.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Bogus or trollilng

 

[shunyadragon]

Not just believers against ToE (Theory of Evolution), but scientists, too.

75 Theses Against Evolution

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

Seventy-five Theses

I could not do any better coming up with 75 false statements concerning the sciences of evolution.

An unbelievably active imagination!