I find it odd how people jump to conclusions about the theory of evolution.

They often just see 2 sides. God or evolution. It could be a different theory to explain life. Personally there are way too many gaps about the theory of evolution. Even the scientific community is torn. Random is not systematic. We will probably never know. But as the molecular world is revealed like DNA, its complexity makes believing it is all random becomes hard to believe. [quote]In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged. [/quote]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BlueSkyKing · M

You could not be a biologist or a geologist and refuse to accept evolution. Produce another theory that can work as elegantly and design the tests.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@BlueSkyKing that is a nice generalization. But by definition it's wrong because systematic is the opposite of random. And science has clearly shown how systematic on a molecular level life and the cell are.

Bumbles · 51-55, M

@Axeroberts Just have your faith, and leave science to the scientists.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts You're confounding systematic and stable

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@Axeroberts The fact that cells are systems does nothing to refute evolution.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@ninalanyon random is the opposite of systematic

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Bumbles this is science 🙄. Now you don't agree with science and bring God into it to blurr the issue. I can't help it if you don't agree with what science is saying here. I am sure there is a better theory waiting to be discovered that addresses things on the molecular level and not purely outside observations

Bumbles · 51-55, M

@Axeroberts It's argle-bargle AKA phooey. The "scientific community" supports evolution through natural selection.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Bumbles not everyone.

Bumbles · 51-55, M

@Axeroberts There is always a contrarian or two, that’s quite normal. The overwhelming consensus is that evolution occurs through natural selection.

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@Bumbles in order to even have natural selection you need the living organism first

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts Yes, that's called abiogenesis... a different topic.

Evolution is what happens [i]after[/i] abiogenesis

Axeroberts · 56-60, M

@newjaninev2 another "theory". But has not been successfully done in a lab. Nevermind 4 billion years ago in a swamp. Don't forget to add multiverse to this list 🙄

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Axeroberts What Theory are you referring to?

Are you talking about abiogenesis? I thought we were discussing evolution.