I'm sorry, but at a certain point intelligence does come into play. If you refuse to accept something when given mountains of evidence in support of it and only a small handful of easily refuted claims against, you're either unintelligent or mentally ill. people crusading against evolution fall into the same category as flat-earthers. Mostly delusional, some just plain stupid.
I would say it fits better with delusional...as even exceptionally intelligent people can at times hold delusional beliefs...
NOTE: you have failed repeatedly to address successful and cited refutations to your inane claims. I will not respond to your further. Let the record show that you know virtually nothing of biology and cling to a stagnant dogma steeped in death and intellectual placidity. I never made any comment whatsoever on "ease" (wholly the wrong vocabulary to use when referring to natural processes). You asked me how natural selection was related to early cellular life, and I indicated through the sole trait of self-replication. It boggles my mind how you ask a question, have it answer, then retort by taking the answer out of context. Like I said, there is no accident in this process. There is no intention either. Um... what do you base this on? This strikes me a complete non-sequitur. Do you know anything at all about chemistry? This same analogy can be applied to the formation of organic molecules; "if helium and hydrogen really were fused in the cores of stars into heavier elements, then why didn't they just start off as complex organic molecules?" Here we go! We have directly observed speciation. It's like saying that squares are real Euclidean geometric patterns, but rectangles aren't. It's as simple as gene duplication. How about Arteriosclerosis resistance?
Like so many things in life, it's not always black and white. I'd say it's usually a combination of both.
Speaking of rationality, anyone mind explaining rationally how the natural selection of certain genetic traits disproves theism? The sheer amount of binary thinking on this board is just outstanding.
It absolutely does not! That's one of the most irritating aspect of this "debate"- people crusade against evolution entirely because they feel it undermines their religious beliefs, when in reality, there is no reason one refutes the other. It has certainly never been my intention to use evolution to undermine anyone's religious beliefs, and I would say most biologists would agree.
So let me ask you personally then, what is it exactly that makes you believe that we and every living thing evolved from a single individual cell? And if I may ask, how did this cell come into being? @ to above, just the fact that you say evolution is fact shows how much you truly know.. Macroevolution itself is completely outside the realms of the scientific method.. Also speciation is altering pre-existing information, not adding anything new.. Also just to make it clear, I'm not a fundamental creationsist just because I don't believe in evolution. I doubt evolution due to the extreme lack of evidence..nothing todo with any beliefs.. I mean just look at the fossil layer alone and you'll see branchings from specific kinds, but no links between all the major types. Most 'missing links' are frauds or come around to actually being living fossils.. ..oh but wait! we just came up with punctuated equilibrium which means evolution happened so fast there's no evidence of it happening in the fossil record.. ..they never stop to think maybe it didn't happen in the first place at all..
This is like giving a 10 year old a box full of legos and watching as he jams them up his nose, oblivious to the fact that he can piece them together to make something. I think it's an intentional deception.
wait for it... waaaaiiiiiiit fooooor iiiiiit........ SCIENCE!!!!! I don't really know how to make it any clearer than that. Evidence. Facts. what more do you need? Miller Once again, for the love of god, do some research. We're tired of doing it for you. The fact that you're posting on this forum tells me you have internet access. please use it. google will give you thousands of pages to give very complete, thorough answers to these types of questions. Since I've answered your questions, I would like you to answer one of mine. Please explain to me how, exactly, the concept of macroevolution violates the scientific method. And you shouldn't be attacking the knowledge of others while tirelessly arguing against a subject you're clearly so ignorant of.
the Miller Urey experiment.. god.. lol If anything that experiment showed you Cannot get life from non life. First of all the gases used were poisonous enough to kill anything that came in contact with, they also didn't use oxygen in the exp, when oxygen was used they couldn't get any results.. I could go on about the Miller Urey exp, it's probably the worst example to use to say a couple amino acids came together to build such a complex machine.. lol Macroevolution violates the scientific method because you cannot replicate this in a lab. It takes millions of years so us as individuals can never actually observe it, therefore making it not being able to apply to the scientific method.. If you have physical evidence for macroevolution I would love to see it. Please don't show me examples of say grizzly bears and polar bears, they've just altered pre existing genetic information, they are still completely the same kind. And you kind of avoided that question, I was more asking for something specific that pushes you to believe we all and every living thing came from a single cell rather than from a basic kind?
Now i don't know too much about that experiment but ok, lets just say they didn't have any oxygen...what does that prove? A ton of single celled species find oxygen to be poisonous and if i recall correctly the oxygen in our atmosphere is the waste product of single celled creatures..cyanobacteria i think...some sort of early algae so yeah
the same "kind"??? these are two different species. the last time I checked, "kind" is not a scientific classification of animals. You're proving your ignorance more and more every post. You've proven to me that you're not interested in facts or logic and no matter how much evidence you're shown, your mind is closed. I won't waste any more time arguing with a wall. Enjoy your ignorance.
there are many types of anaerobic bacteria that thrive in environments with no oxygen. Obligate anaerobes cannot survive in the presence of oxygen.
oxygen isnt in the atmosphere naturaly nub it was made by photosynthesising organisms after life initially started to evolve