Evolution is wrong

[IamRAMBO24]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

[BigBoss]

Iramble24/7

[DeuceWallaces]

Nope, you're wrong.

[DonD13]

[IamRAMBO24]

Nope, you're wrong.

Prove it Douchewallace. Just because you say I am wrong doesn't mean I am wrong. I just refuted Darwin's two strongest points (the points you learn in school). Now it is your turn to prove I am wrong. That's how an argument works.

[Milbuck]

I'm guessing you just read an article summarizing Darwin's work, and decided to pick it apart because you think you could. I don't know why you're basing your entire critique of evolution on Darwin's work (you're also wrong), as if there hasn't been massive advancements in the understanding of the topic, observable/testable evidence, etc. I don't think you understand the scope of evolutionary study.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm guessing you just read an article summarizing Darwin's work, and decided to pick it apart because you think you could. I don't know why you're basing your entire critique of evolution on Darwin's work (you're also wrong), as if there hasn't been massive advancements in the understanding of the topic, observable/testable evidence, etc. I don't think you understand the scope of evolutionary study.

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

[BigBoss]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

[Jud]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

[Milbuck]

I know his entire study. I targeted his strongest points. I don't think there is one shred of evidence a species ever turned into another species while there are many evidence of a species remaining the same after millions of years (crocodile for example).

I like how you just said there are "massive advancements" without actually specifying what those advancements are.

Lmao. Not even gonna bother breaking down your arguments point by point, it just reeks of ignorance. Just look this stuff up and try to understand it.

- Homologous/vestigial structures
- Analogous structures and convergent evolution
- Fossil records
- Biogeography
- Studies on drug-resistance bacteria
- Countless studies on heritable traits, genetic variation, favorable characteristics, etc (Soapberry bugs, finches, so on)

DeuceWallaces' post was right on the money. You cannot and will not prove Evolution wrong no matter how hard you try. You might as well try to disprove gravity while you're at it.

[Overdrive]

I am not a creationist. I don't care about taking sides. I only seek the truth, and the truth has lead me to believe Darwin is wrong.

1. Darwin believes a species can evolve into another species given the right environment, so for example, a bear can evolve into a whale if the conditions are such he has to be a whale to survive. He gave one example of long beak birds vs short beaks on the Galapagos island, which he believes was isolated from the rest of the world. From this he concluded the long beaks died out when they could no longer break down the seeds for food. First of all, the island isn't that far away from South America and birds have been known to migrate longer distances to look for food. The long beaks didn't die out; they just went somewhere else. Second, even if long beaks happen to evolve into short beaks only, that is just a small variation in phenotype and holds no evidence towards say one completely different species to another. He also used moths changing color to avoid predators as evidence of adaptation, again, this is a small change in variation and who is to say the ones with lighter wings didn't simply get eaten? This is huge considering it is such a small change in variation; Darwin is talking about a bear turning into a whale and he can't even prove simple animals of the same species taking on new variations.

2. The species most resilient to the environment and the strongest aren't necessarily the ones that will win out. The most dominant specie on earth is the homo sapien. Humans aren't built for the environment: they have no fur to keep them warm, they are weak compare to apes, bears, big cats, etc., they can't see in the dark nor do they have the quickness and sensitivity in hearing as other carnivores. They are dominant because they are intelligent. it has nothing to do with adaptibility nor strength. They don't need to adapt to the conditions of the environment: they can live in any climate because they have the know how to alter the environment according to their needs. They are evolving based on intelligence. The best ideas in science and philosophy will evolve humanity to a better state.

It's weak ass guys like Hawkins and Einstein that's going to take humanity to the next phase in evolution, not Arnold or Vin Diesel.
If the ice cap melts, humans aren't going to evolve into fish like creatures in order to survive.

Cognitive advancement is also part of evolution - that's why mankind is the most highly evolved species, but not most specialized. You think you proofed a book full of inductive and deductive evidences wrong by typing out two paragraph?

What you anti evolution guys don't get is that a bear doesn't turn a whale because he's bathing - it would take millions of years..and it wouldn't be a whale, but a ocean bear or whatever.

[IamRAMBO24]

The Galapagos is about 2-3,000 miles from South America. Birds can travel farther than that. The long beaks didn't die out. When food is scarce, they will migrate to other places to find food. Animals do this all the time. There is evidence of this. No animal stays in one place and dies. Darwin simply made the wrong assumption.

[Milbuck]

Cognitive advancement is also part of evolution - that's why mankind is the most highly evolved species, but not most specialized. You think you proofed a book full of inductive and deductive evidences wrong by typing out two paragraph?

What you anti evolution guys don't get is that a bear doesn't turn a whale because he's bathing - it would take millions of years..and it wouldn't be a whale, but a ocean bear or whatever.

But if I can't see a bear physically turn into a whale before my own eyes, how can I be sure evolution exists?

[CeltsGarlic]

Imma let you finish, but arent you an idiot who cant write his own arguments?

[DonD13]

Rambo, my friend, i want to know Darwin as good as you, can you please link me to the part where he says that a bear can turn into a whale?