Evolution is Pish

[Squeamous]

DNA doesn't prove evolution at all, but the scientists will tell you otherwise because they need you to believe in their infallibility. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycock.htm

Fixed.

[NotLettingItGo]

That is truly such an intelligent post.

[Agrajag]

That link actually works.

I take that as absolute and final proof that God exists.

[Agrajag]

That is truly such an intelligent post.

Your citing a fundamentalist website as a source of scientific evidence.

What do you fucking expect.

[NotLettingItGo]

I expect nothing thank you for your inquiry though.

[Squeamous]

[youtube]L-UCo7JQm-A[/youtube]

See where his point falls down is that a whale didn't evolve from a cow, it probably evolved from a small aquatic deer. Easy mistake to make, especially when you don't believe in things your brain wasn't designed to directly fathom....and you're a bit of a waffling knob.

[Squeamous]

People seem to think that evolution works on a mutation taking place as and when required, that there is some sort of environmental trigger and animals change into something better suited to the new environment, based on that change. The whole survival of the fittest thing (which wasn't Darwin's if memory serves)

The real problem is that people think they understand what the evolutionary theories say, based on picking up a snippet somewhere and thinking, yup I understand that. Now I know little or nothing about the subject, but I have read a bit and it's not really what most people perceive it to be.

You're exactly right, and you proved it yourself. What you describe was Lamarck's theory, widely discredited when Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' theory came along. I've lost count of the number of times people have been discussing natural selection with me and actually come out with Lamarck's.

[Agrajag]

People seem to think that evolution works on a mutation taking place as and when required, that there is some sort of environmental trigger and animals change into something better suited to the new environment, based on that change. The whole survival of the fittest thing (which wasn't Darwin's if memory serves)

The real problem is that people think they understand what the evolutionary theories say, based on picking up a snippet somewhere and thinking, yup I understand that. Now I know little or nothing about the subject, but I have read a bit and it's not really what most people perceive it to be.

You're exactly right, and you proved it yourself. What you describe was Lamarck's theory, widely discredited when Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' theory came along. I've lost count of the number of times people have been discussing natural selection with me and actually come out with Lamarck's.

Amn't I right in saying that Darwin didn't speak of "survival of the fittest". That came along later and was the phrase which led to people believing that Darwin's work and that of his contemporaries was fundamentally straightforward and that they understood it.

[NotLettingItGo]

See where his point falls down is that a whale didn't evolve from a cow, it probably evolved from a small aquatic deer. Easy mistake to make, especially when you don't believe in things your brain wasn't designed to directly fathom....and you're a bit of a waffling knob.

Lacking in manners, but at least a better effort to maintain the myth than your previous attempt.

[clocker]

Lacking in manners, but at least a better effort to maintain the myth than your previous attempt.

I would have thought that myth-maintenance would be high on your list of priorities.