Evolution: Is it Real? Answers from Biologists

[aychamo]

Funny, my dictionary doesn't define "argument" that way. You may disagree with the arguments presented by Creationists, as I do, but those proffering it are usually doing so with honest intent. Regardless, you're argument of the ideas is welcome here, but not statements like that which are simply fuel for a flame war.

If you are going to post, please include some content.

Ok. If you re-read my post you will see I did not define argument. I defined a sound argument. Did you take a logic class? I took a basic one in which we covered what were or were not arguments, along with other things.

An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for (or reasons to believe) one of the others (the conclusion.) An argument which is valid (or strong) is one in which is its impossible (or improbable) that the conclusion be false given the premises are true. Arguments are then sound (or cogent) when the premises are true.

Show me a creationist argument against evolution that has all true premises and directly supports the conclusion (without arguing fallaciously) and then I will agree that there exists a creationist argument against evolution.

Perhaps you are upset with my "Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?" reply to you. Phobos, you stated "If you are asking for absolute, no uncertainty, complete in every way Truth, then you won't find that anywhere except in Blind Faith." That just doesn't make sense. You are saying "Truth = Blind Faith" (Or perhaps "Truth is found in Blind Faith"). Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Truth is "a statement proven to be or accepted as true." Your statement just doesn't make sense.

And regarding my "lol. No we aren't." statement, I stand by that. Does the post I posted that to even warrant a reply? Averagesupernova said "We are actually experiencing a form of rapid natural selection today. Human intelligence natural selection. Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up." That is totally wrong.

People are not dying in the streets because they can't operate a computer. People that can operate computers are not having a differential success in reproduction over those that can't operate computers. (As an aside, it may not be a joke to say that it's nearly the other way around, think of the socially inept people that hide behind computers that may never have sex with a member of the opposite sex.) Additionally, intelligence and operating high-tech machines do not go hand in hand. My father (a surgeon) is extremely intelligent and he doesn't do much at all on computers.

The lack of knowledge about computers is a form of ignorance. It is not due to lack of intelligence. The vast majority of people that can't use a computer are such becacuse they are ignorant to how they operate, not because they lack intelligence. If the people cared to learn how to operate one, the vast majority of them could learn.

Think about it. You could be the most intelligent person in the world, but if you had never read anything about how a unix machine works, and you were placed in front of a unix prompt and told to perform some task you wouldn't have a clue how to. You would be ignorant to how unix works, but you would still be very intelligent.

(Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm in a huge rush and don't have time to develop the arguments further.)

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sorry aychamo, but I disagree with you on several points. Yes, you are correct that not knowing anything about unix doesn't make you dumb, it just means you don't know anything about unix. But being dumb DOES in fact mean you will have a hard time knowing anything about certain, if not many subjects. The days are gone in this country when if all else fails you can always be a ditch digger. In virtually EVERY field manual labor has been replaced by mechanization. You simply cannot afford to pay someone what it takes for them to make even a marginal living considering the amount of productivity you will get from their manual labor. Believe it or not there ARE people who simply are not capable of doing anything but manual labor. Those are the ones being pushed out. There are many reasons why they are not capable. Some just plain don't want to but still are capable. Where do these people end up? You assumed the streets. You are correct, some of them DO end up on the streets, but a lot of them end up in prison as well. Unless they already have a family, it is unlikely that they will be reproducing in prison. Yes it is also correct to say that those lower income families have more children. But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about. One in the past has been those who go to war. The smartest probably find a way to stay out and if you're not smart enough to stay out, you might be smart enough to find a way to stay alive.

 

[Nereid]

Approx 800 million people in China make a good living from their 'mere' manual labour, ditto ~700 million in India, several hundred million in Africa, etc. IOW, the large majority of homo sap. survive and reproduce perfectly well just with 'manual labour'. In terms of evolution, the fact that a tiny, tiny minority of people in some geographical regions fail to have offspring will likely have zero effect, n'est pas?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Approx 800 million people in China make a good living from their 'mere' manual labour, ditto ~700 million in India, several hundred million in Africa, etc. IOW, the large majority of homo sap. survive and reproduce perfectly well just with 'manual labour'. In terms of evolution, the fact that a tiny, tiny minority of people in some geographical regions fail to have offspring will likely have zero effect, n'est pas?

They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.

We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?

 

[aychamo]

Sorry aychamo, but I disagree with you on several points. Yes, you are correct that not knowing anything about unix doesn't make you dumb, it just means you don't know anything about unix. But being dumb DOES in fact mean you will have a hard time knowing anything about certain, if not many subjects. The days are gone in this country when if all else fails you can always be a ditch digger. In virtually EVERY field manual labor has been replaced by mechanization. You simply cannot afford to pay someone what it takes for them to make even a marginal living considering the amount of productivity you will get from their manual labor. Believe it or not there ARE people who simply are not capable of doing anything but manual labor. Those are the ones being pushed out. There are many reasons why they are not capable. Some just plain don't want to but still are capable. Where do these people end up? You assumed the streets. You are correct, some of them DO end up on the streets, but a lot of them end up in prison as well. Unless they already have a family, it is unlikely that they will be reproducing in prison. Yes it is also correct to say that those lower income families have more children. But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about. One in the past has been those who go to war. The smartest probably find a way to stay out and if you're not smart enough to stay out, you might be smart enough to find a way to stay alive.

First, please try to use paragraphs in the future.

Your original post's exact claim is that people are being selected against because they can't survive in today's high tech world. That simply isn't true. There are not dumb people dying by the millions while smart people are having so much more sex with other smart people than dumb people are.

There are plenty of jobs out there that require no understanding of today's "high" technology. Let me name a few: grass mower, road construction, meat packer, unloader at a hardware store, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, TacoBell, house painter's assistant, Good-Will, etc. There are all jobs that do not require an understanding of high technology.

In your second post you make the claim that all dumb people that can't make it in todays world end up on the street or in jail because there are no jobs for them because they are all taken by machines.

This simply isn't true, because of 2 reasons:

1. There are jobs availble for dumb people (above paragraph). All the jobs I listed above require no form of any education and all of the jobs above can be performed by people that are borderline retarded, in fact I have seen retarded people work many of the above jobs.
2. Being in jail or on the street does not inhibit reproduction. Besides the fact that your idea is not based on anything valid, you assume that everyone that would end up in jail would not be able to reproduce before they went to jail. They would not go to jail until they are at least 18, and humans are sexually mature by, what, 13? Do you know the rate of teen pregnancy? Do you think that dumb people are incapable of having sex? Also, people guilty of petty crimes would not be sentenced to life, just short terms. They are still plenty capable of reproduction.

I've read nothing that supports your claim that there is rapid natural selection currently working against people that can't survive in todays high tech world.

I'll end this post with two words: Forrest Gump.

 

[aychamo]

They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.

We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?

Quality of life is irrelevant. The "argument" is about whether or not people that are dumb can live in todayas world. The poster said that dumb people are being "rapidly selected against" but he has not shown that to be true.

 

[Nereid]

They don't all agree on how good that living is. Look at the migrations to the cities, even in China, and the results of the Indian elections, which turned on rural resentment that development had bypassed them.

Thanks for the correction; sorry that I wasn't clear. By 'a good living', I meant 'successful at having offspring', the only sense meaningful for this thread.

We just don't know what the slection pressure of the future are oing to be. Some posters have had fun with the stereotype of the asocial computer geek. But notice the explosive growth of computer dating and mate search. Maybe in the future only people who know the that-era equivalent of unix will be able to find spouses?

Things may well turn out like that; maybe those without such skills will find other ways to reproduce, perhaps even as surrogate mothers and sperm donors?

 

[Averagesupernova]

You guys just don't seem to get it. I am NOT talking about the whole world population of less intelligent people going extinct. The examples I gave were in this country. But since you brought up other countries, I will comment. Why do the the folks from China look the way they do? What about Scandanavia? Or any other country you can think of? Because of the way those folks evolved in their environment. The population in THIS country will adapt to this environment. In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.

I say RAPID natural selection because of the sudden change of technology we have experienced in the last 100 years or so. We all know evolution takes place over MANY MANY years. I am not saying saying over the last 20 years there have been obvious changes. But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.

aychamo you mention jobs that people with no formal education can handle. You are correct, but having no fomal education does not gaurantee lack of intelligence. You then mention borderline retarded people doing some of these jobs. Road construction? Once again, VERY little manual labor required due to mechanization. Oh yeah, parts of it still are like the guy holding the sign and whatnot. But when you consider the amount of manual labor compared to the manual labor that went into construction of this countries railroad system it isn't even in the same ballpark.

aychamo, you then mention the ability to reproduce in jail or on the streets. Obviously it's not impossible. Saying that would be just plain stupid. But the odds are stacked against them.

aychamo. In another post you mention that I haven't proven the less intelligent are being rapidly selected against. You are correct. I haven't. I don't plan on it because none of us will be alive long enough to actually prove it. 'Rapid' when speaking of evolution is still a long time.

Here is what we know about natural selection:

The characteristics of a population will change over many generations indirectly due to environmental changes.

In the last several hundred years we have experienced SERIOUS environmental changes. Figure it out.

I will end this post and hopefully this argument with 5 words: Forrest Gump is a movie.

 

[Nereid]

You guys just don't seem to get it. I am NOT talking about the whole world population of less intelligent people going extinct. The examples I gave were in this country. But since you brought up other countries, I will comment. Why do the the folks from China look the way they do? What about Scandanavia? Or any other country you can think of? Because of the way those folks evolved in their environment. The population in THIS country will adapt to this environment. In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.

There are other threads which discuss whether - in a biological sense - there are any human races; perhaps you could read those too?

I say RAPID natural selection because of the sudden change of technology we have experienced in the last 100 years or so. We all know evolution takes place over MANY MANY years. I am not saying saying over the last 20 years there have been obvious changes. But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.

Assuming by 'this country' you mean the USA, then perhaps there's a far more significant aspect you're overlooking? Immigration. Within a timeframe far too short for any significant evolution to have taken place, the population of the US has changed from a few (tens?) million people whose ancestors had lived in the region for at most a few thousand generations, to one of ~300 million, whose ancestors come from all over the world. There are no significant populations of isolated homo sap, it's one species and evolution is happening to the entire ~6 billion.

Here is what we know about natural selection:

The characteristics of a population will change over many generations indirectly due to environmental changes.

In the last several hundred years we have experienced SERIOUS environmental changes. Figure it out.

Here's what we know about how the environment will change in the future, over time periods long enough to have an effect on the evolution of homo sap:

 

[Averagesupernova]

Is it just me or do some of you seem to be EXTREMELY irritable?

Nereid you mention another thread that discusses whether there actually ARE different races. I have not read it and I doubt if I will take time to. If you are going to start questioning that then I think I will bow out of this discussion as I thought we could all pretty much agree that people from various parts of the globe are in fact different.


I did overlook imigration, but not really. The imigrants are just like you and I. It takes the same money for them to survive legally in this country and they will not likely produce enough work through manual labor to compete with existing machines. Not only that, but using this argument aren't you basically stating that all imigrants are sub-intelligent? Yes some are probably not educated as well as folks from the USA but that does not mean they don't have a basic intelligence.

Your last paragraph implies that we know nothing of how the environment will change in the future. That is true as I already stated none of us will be around long enough to prove what I've said. But looking at the current trend I would say that the odds are stacked against those who are less than intelligent.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Immigration is a filter in and of itself; Only the more actve and outlooking fragment of a population is willing to pull up stakes and move to another country.

Two jokes:
Garrison Keiler: "In Lake Woebogone my home town, all the chiildren are above average"

Will Rogers: "when the Okies moved from Oklahoma to California, they raised the IQs of both places."

 

[Nereid]

Is it just me or do some of you seem to be EXTREMELY irritable?

What makes you think that?

Nereid you mention another thread that discusses whether there actually ARE different races. I have not read it and I doubt if I will take time to. If you are going to start questioning that then I think I will bow out of this discussion as I thought we could all pretty much agree that people from various parts of the globe are in fact different.

Here's what you said in an earlier post:

In another thread there is discussion of blacks evolving into whites. Go read it if you haven't. Humans evolving into 2 different types or races of humans. Supposedly the whites branched off.

Either you have just contradicted yourself, or you are confused.

There is significant genetic variation within any (geographically defined) group of the mammal homo sap. However, the genetic variation between most such groups is far smaller than within them. Further, there are no significant groups which are reproductively isolated, a huge change from only ~500 years ago when (for example) the New Guineans and Australians interbred with their (geographic) neighbours at a very low rate. If 40,000 years or so of isolation didn't result in a new sub-species among a population of ~<1 million, a few hundred generations of inter-breeding among a population of ~>6 billion isn't likely to do much more than greatly reduce whatever small geographic variations there are today.

I did overlook imigration, but not really. The imigrants are just like you and I.

What do you know about me?

It takes the same money for them to survive legally in this country and they will not likely produce enough work through manual labor to compete with existing machines.

Historically, war, rape, subjugation, enslavement and so on have been major factors in migration and inter-breeding between geographically defined populations. This has been so for most of the past 10 generations or so too. Even within the last generation there are plenty of counter examples, from adoption, through migration of refugees and family members, to the practice of some immigrant men of seeking brides from abroad (home town, for example, or 'mail-order').

Not only that, but using this argument aren't you basically stating that all imigrants are sub-intelligent?

From a biological/evolutionary perspective, 'economic migration' is probably trivial.

Your last paragraph implies that we know nothing of how the environment will change in the future. That is true as I already stated none of us will be around long enough to prove what I've said. But looking at the current trend I would say that the odds are stacked against those who are less than intelligent.

Let's take a look at this idea from the perspective of a period of time long enough to be likely to make a difference to the evolution of an inter-breeding population of ~5 billion with near-global geographical scope.

First, as I said above, 40,000 years hasn't been long enough to make any significant difference to homo sap.'s gene pool (in Finland, I'm told, there are lively discussions about when the last blond will be born). Yet in that time the mammal's social organisation and population dynamics have undergone dramatic change - starting with permanent agricultural settlements ~10,000 years ago, and the rise of 'states' (~6,000 years ago?). Less than 20 generations ago a new form of organisation arose among some population groups, let's call it industrialisation. Less than 5 generations ago the most profound change of all began - dramatic declines in death rates at all ages of evolutionary significance (there's no difference between immortality and death at menopause, for example). This change has now spread to essentially all populations, albeit incompletely for some. Finally, in one generation, the economies of geographic regions with ~10% of the total population shifted to being predominantly services-based.

If 1,000 generations produced no significant change in a population of ~1 million, what makes you think you can extrapolate meaningfully about the evolutionary significance, to a population of ~6 billion, of a trend that isn't even 1 generation old?

 

[Nereid]

Immigration is a filter in and of itself; Only the more actve and outlooking fragment of a population is willing to pull up stakes and move to another country.

Some of them. If they subsequently seek brides from their home towns, or adopt orphans from other countries, and so on the 'filter' may not be all that important.

From an evolutionary perspective, how many generations of economic migration do you need to make a significant difference? Assume an interbreeding population of ~100 million.

 

[aychamo]

aychamo you mention jobs that people with no formal education can handle. You are correct, but having no fomal education does not gaurantee lack of intelligence. You then mention borderline retarded people doing some of these jobs. Road construction? Once again, VERY little manual labor required due to mechanization. Oh yeah, parts of it still are like the guy holding the sign and whatnot. But when you consider the amount of manual labor compared to the manual labor that went into construction of this countries railroad system it isn't even in the same ballpark.

The amount of manual labor is irrelevant. The people still have jobs. In fact, it takes less intelligence to stand there and hold a sign than it does to physically construct a railroad system. The fact is there still exists jobs for individuals of very low intelligence. They are not all ending up on the streets or in jail.

aychamo, you then mention the ability to reproduce in jail or on the streets. Obviously it's not impossible. Saying that would be just plain stupid. But the odds are stacked against them.

I didn't say reproduce in jail, I said reproduce before or after their jail sentences.

aychamo. In another post you mention that I haven't proven the less intelligent are being rapidly selected against. You are correct. I haven't. I don't plan on it because none of us will be alive long enough to actually prove it. 'Rapid' when speaking of evolution is still a long time.

This is you saying you have absolutely nothing to support your original post with. Case closed.

 

[aychamo]

Is it just me or do some of you seem to be EXTREMELY irritable?

ad Hominem abusive. Your argument is fallacious.

 

[Averagesupernova]

If 1,000 generations produced no significant change in a population of ~1 million, what makes you think you can extrapolate meaningfully about the evolutionary significance, to a population of ~6 billion, of a trend that isn't even 1 generation old?

I'm not speaking of just one generation and I never was. Sure, lots of changes have been made in the last 20 years or so. The day that hundreds of men digging by hand were replaced by machinery is farther back than 20 years.

The amount of manual labor is irrelevant. The people still have jobs. In fact, it takes less intelligence to stand there and hold a sign than it does to physically construct a railroad system. The fact is there still exists jobs for individuals of very low intelligence. They are not all ending up on the streets or in jail.

This is you saying you have absolutely nothing to support your original post with. Case closed.

You mention physically construct a railroad system. You speak of this as if 5 or ten people did all the work. There were HUNDREDS of men per crew that basically moved dirt and that is it. I think someone holding a sign and knowing when to turn it SHOULD have more intelligence than a grunt that is told: 'put dirt here until we tell you to stop'.

The shoe fits on the other foot too. If I cannot support my original post for the obvious reason given, then you cannot support your view either.

I give up. A discussion cannot be had with you guys simply because you come back with a counter argument that is twisted. Implying that I am saying things I never have said.

 

[Nereid]

I'm not speaking of just one generation and I never was. Sure, lots of changes have been made in the last 20 years or so. The day that hundreds of men digging by hand were replaced by machinery is farther back than 20 years.

[nitpick]A generation in the mammal homo sap. is closer to 30 years than 20[/nitpick]

Here's how you began:

Think about what it takes to survive in todays high tech world and think about where those who can't fit in are ending up.

Then you explained what you meant as follows:

But they are not what I consider the lowest on the scale. The lowest would be the ones who are in prison and live on the street. With any natural selection the lowest or weakest are the first to go. Do you get my point yet? There are other example of what I am talking about.

and

But the big picture tells me that for many many years people lived a simple life doing manual labor farming, hunting and whatnot and suddenly LOTS of people moved to the city. For a while they still did manual labor but now even rural jobs mostly are mechanized.

and

But looking at the current trend I would say that the odds are stacked against those who are less than intelligent.

and so on.

What evidence have you provided that a) those who can perform only manual labour (or are less than intelligent) are significantly less likely to produce viable offspring, b) such people form a significant minority of the total population, and c) the ability to perform only manual labour is hereditary? If you can't show these things, then *even if* earning a living by manual labour (or being less than intelligent) becomes impossible, how would there be an evolutionary change in homo sap?

I give up.

Please don't.

A discussion cannot be had with you guys simply because you come back with a counter argument that is twisted. Implying that I am saying things I never have said.

So, would you please clearly state your thesis? Then I can come back with counter arguments that are to the point.

For the record, here's what I interpreted your thesis to be:
There is a socio-economic trend in the US: those of low intelligence or inability to earn a living except by manual labour do not produce fertile offspring at a rate that is at least equal (on average) to the rate at which all others in the US do. Further, low intelligence and the inability to earn a living except by manual labour have high hereditability.[/color]

 

[aychamo]

The shoe fits on the other foot too. If I cannot support my original post for the obvious reason given, then you cannot support your view either.

Hey now, you are the one that made the claim that there is rapid natural selection acting on people these days. You are the one that is required to prove it, if you fail to convince us of your claim, we are logicallly correct in not accepting your claim. We don't have a "view" to support.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sorry, I said I give up.

 

[Thallium]

I am just breaking in.

We have no reason to talk about evolution as a fact. People do so because schoolbooks do so. Expderts within this field are too uncertain if evolution is real. We have many unaswered and intriguing questions that raise doubt about this theory. We have no reason to speak of a real human evolution from ape to modern man BECAUSE no one has found any missing link.

 

[aychamo]

I am just breaking in.

We have no reason to talk about evolution as a fact. People do so because schoolbooks do so. Expderts within this field are too uncertain if evolution is real. We have many unaswered and intriguing questions that raise doubt about this theory. We have no reason to speak of a real human evolution from ape to modern man BECAUSE no one has found any missing link.

Err, evolution is observable. Anytime an antibiotic is applied evolution is happening via natural selection.

A "missing link" is an outdated term that was used about a hundred years ago. There are two problems with the idea of a missing link: 1. The supposition of the existence of something that may not exist, and 2. Any time a missing link B is found between organisms A and C, it creates a new gap for a missing link between (A and B), and (B and C). That means that for each missing link one finds, it creates a gap for two more.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am just breaking in.

We have no reason to talk about evolution as a fact. People do so because schoolbooks do so. Expderts within this field are too uncertain if evolution is real. We have many unaswered and intriguing questions that raise doubt about this theory. We have no reason to speak of a real human evolution from ape to modern man BECAUSE no one has found any missing link.

See this essay: evidence for macroevolution. It shows that your assertions are false. You have been listening to fakers.

 

[loseyourname]

Experts in the field do not doubt whether evolution is real. Quit being silly. They have questions about tempo and mechanisms and taxonomic relationships; that is all.

 

[FZ+]

Experts in the field only doubt evolution is real in the same way that all theories must be doubted - to make room for a new, better theory, if and when it arrives. This doubting of evolution by people in the know has aided the theory's development and adaptation to new facts and evidence. It does not amount to a sense of nostalgia for a prehistoric fundamentalist pseudoscience, such as creationism, or ID.

 

[Thallium]

Err, evolution is observable. Anytime an antibiotic is applied evolution is happening via natural selection.

A "missing link" is an outdated term that was used about a hundred years ago. There are two problems with the idea of a missing link: 1. The supposition of the existence of something that may not exist, and 2. Any time a missing link B is found between organisms A and C, it creates a new gap for a missing link between (A and B), and (B and C). That means that for each missing link one finds, it creates a gap for two more.

The evolution of Modern Man needs to have more genetical developments than what has been found(Rudolfensis, affarensis and so on). The "evidence" we have is not enough. A missing link is far from outdated.

 

[Thallium]

Experts in the field do not doubt whether evolution is real. Quit being silly. They have questions about tempo and mechanisms and taxonomic relationships; that is all.

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

 

[BlackVision]

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

Which biologists are these? I would be surprised if even 2% of biologists doubt evolution.

 

[Nereid]

Experts in the field do not doubt whether evolution is real. Quit being silly. They have questions about tempo and mechanisms and taxonomic relationships; that is all.

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

Er, loseyourname said 'do not doubt whether evolution is real' (my emphasis), note the absence of the word 'theory'. There are several theories of evolution, but no doubt about evolution ... just as there is a Newtonian theory about gravity - about which doubts and discussions are not uncommon (and which General Relativity superceded) - and no one doubts gravity.

Of course there are observations and experiments which are inconsistent with, say, Darwin's original theory of evolution! It's through these inconsistencies that science works - otherwise it'd be a dogma, infallible, etc, and no scientist claims infallibility!

 

[aychamo]

Even BIOLOGISTS doubt the theory of evolution and some have found evidence against it. Silly? Stop being so audacious.

Poor argument. Just because some biologists may or may not doubt evolutionary theory doesn't make evolution any less real.

 

[Thallium]

No that is a valid arguement. They are the ones doing research on evolution. The reason for their doubts is that they have found out different things. Read "The Seven Sister of Eve" by Brian Sykes. That is a prime example that raises suspicion about Modern Man's evolution.