Evolutionary Theory is a Farce

Well first let me go through what makes your very contention ludicrous. First off, you cannot seriously expect to show that a legitimate scientific theory is a 'farce' simply by copy-pasting creationist propaganda on a website. No, the way to challenge a scientific idea, is to contest it in the scientific arena. This creates progress, new thinking, and new ideas. All scientific theories have been subjected to the same harsh criticism, they've all been tested, reviewed, poked, prodded, and reviewed another dozen times. Trying to show that evolutionary theory is a 'farce' in an 8,000 character limit is a joke, its akin to trying to disprove special relativity on a hotel napkin. Secondly, the statement 'Macroevolution is what is being contested not microevolution' has essentially won me the debate right there. From a scientific standpoint, there actually is no difference between the two. The distinctions are used in the scientific community arbitrarily. Macroevolution IS microevolution, the only difference is the time scale. To say that you don't accept macroevolution and yet to accept microevolution is like saying you accept that you can walk to the kitchen but it would be scientifically impossible for you to walk to the corner store. Hence, your definition of evolutionary theory is wrong, but anyway I won't harp on it, lest people think I'm dodging your points. Just for those who are judging, please note the inaccuracy of the definition. SCIENCE No tree over the age of 5,000 you say? Well I doubt you are familiar with the term 'clonal colonies' but they are essentially families of trees with the same roots, they are genetically identical and live in the same area, while no 'clone' is over the age of 5,000 there are many clonal colonies which are estimated to be 80,000-100,000 years old. (http://www.nps.gov...) Well I am a bit dumbfounded by your criticism of radiometric dating, but allow me to enlighten you. It is based off basic principles of matter, the probability per unit time that a certain particle can tunnel out of the nucleus of an atom. The nucleus is not affected to large scale changes of pressure and temperature, and hence it can be assumed that the rate of change is constant. I doubt you understand the words you are using, because your arguments make no sense and are essentially saying the same thing. In regards to the 'closed system' I've pretty much already mentioned that, it is based off quantum mechanics and the fundamental properties of matter, aside from special cases, the rate of decay can be assumed to be constant with an exponential dependence on time. The fact that undesirables such as fractionation may occur does nothing to the legitimacy of the dating technique. Such errors are generally grossly over or under what is expected, and can therefore be clearly identified. I'm leaving the 'Common Decent' part, because it isn't an argument. *Sigh* once again I am doubting that you know the meaning of the words you are using. 'Mutation' in the scientic sense is NOT only negative. Mutations create change in the gene pool, for better OR for worse, with the detrimental mutations generally being removed over the long term by natural selection. I have no idea why you brought up those diseases as a case against evolution, I seriously don't. Usually i can at least see some sort of connection between that and an argument against evolution, but here I honestly have no idea. If you could explain to me how these things have anything to do with what we are talking about, I'd be appreciative. You want me to name some positive genetic mutations for humans? What about our evolution from the primate? The fact that we are (well, mostly) intelligent? These are the results of mutations within our gene pool. And no, once again evolution is does not mean that less complex life forms evolve into more complex life forms, it is just that they become better suited to their environment. SOCIAL Well since when have allowed the social implications of a scientific discovery override the veracity of that discovery? Well, never. I'll address your points later, but first let me point out to the voting audience that talking about the social implications of a theory does nothing to contribute to the idea that it is a 'farce'. The science behind an idea is totally independent on what humans do with it. Take Einstein and the mass-energy equivalence. This was directly used in the creation of the atomic bomb, which killed hundreds of thousands of people and has forever de-stabilised the world. Does this make Einstein wrong? Is E=mc^2 a 'farce' because of the way people used it? Take a second look at your own quote. It says 'favoured RACES'. This has nothing to do black, white, asian, or anything else. It is simply a re-wording of natural selection. You are wrong on so many counts here that I am finding it hard to actually keep up. No, Hitler did not use evolution to commit genocide, because evolution has nothing to say on the matter, and nothing to say about the extermination of jews or anything else. In scientific terms and the way that Darwin was using, humans are one race. 'The struggle for life' strongly hints that he was talking about natural selection and races being species. Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and modern racism are influenced by evolutionary theory to the same extent that killing your child is influenced by the bible ("For God commanded, saying, honour thy father and mother: and, he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." -Matthew 15:4) Oh wait, bad example. I'm sorry but this last passage of yours I found hilarious. I actually showed my friend this when he came over the other day and he couldn't contain himself. I don't know where to start... -No, humans did not exist in our present form 400,000 years ago and evolutionary theory makes no such claim. -Yes, the species we came from were not as intelligent. -The species we came from didn't populate like humans because they did not live in houses, have medicine, and technology. As for the very last bit, once again I am at a loss for words. I honestly don't know what you're talking about and why this has anything to do with evolution. ---------------------- MY CASE My case is simple, if my opponent wishes to attempt to scientifically show that evolution is a 'farce' then he can go for it. But, he's going to have to show why all these branches of knowledge which rely on evolution are better explained by his hypothesis (whatever that may be). abiogenesis - adaptation - adaptive radiation - allele - allele frequency - allopatric speciation - altruism - anagenesis - Archaeopteryx - aquatic adaptation - artificial selection - atavism - Brassica oleracea - Cambrian explosion - catagenesis - gene-centered view of evolution - cephalization - Chi square test - chronobiology - chronospecies - clade - cladistics - Climatic adaptation - coalescent theory - co-evolution - Co-operation (evolution) - coefficient of relationship - common descent - convergent evolution - creation-evolution controversy - cultivar - ecological genetics - ecological selection - endosymbiosis - error threshold (evolution) - evidence of evolution - evolution - evolutionary arms race - evolution of cetaceans - evolution of complexity - evolution of the horse - evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - evolution of mammals - evolution of sex - evolution of sirenians - evolution of the eye - evolutionary developmental biology - evolutionary neuroscience - evolutionary psychology - evolutionary radiation - evolutionary stable strategy - evolutionary tree - experimental evolution - exaptation - extinction - gene - gene-centric view of evolution - gene duplication - gene flow - gene pool - genetic drift - genetic recombination - genetic variation - genotype - genotype-environment correlation Alas, I have run out of characters, and I was only up to G.