Talk:Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No, it isn't true. That is why it is called a theory. Even after over a hundred and forty eight years it is still an unproven theory. Nothing found in any geological evidence as well as anything current or reproducible. Irreducibly complex biological systems is just one problem that evolution runs into. DNA doesn't, and has never been observed to write additional code. It loses some of its code sometimes, but that never causes a species to evolve into another. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is another one. It is that natural systems will degenerate when left to themselves over time. Will a machine eventually arise from a mound of rust? No, it won't, and never will. No matter how great is your belief in evolution.

Genetic drift over time that produces noticeable genetic differences is microevolution. Variation of traits within a species. The drift we notice is only that some genes that were recessive have become more dominant after a period of time. This is what Charles Darwin used as a basis to postulate a theory from. Yet it isn't evolutionary since it only shows the variation within a species available code. Nothing new is being added within the whole of species. Only that certain traits ensure better survival in different environments. Darker skin around the Equator is better protection against skin cancers and lighter skin where sunlight is scarce towards the north and south poles ensures better absorption of less sunlight. You can look at the variation within the Human race to see the evidence of how variation has ensured our survival across the planet. To subscribe to further defining of other races within the Human Race is pure racism. But that's another problem that evolution has helped perpetuate. Such is evident in the orginal title:

On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life By Charles Darwin M.A. Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street 1859 --Roopilots6 12:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT) --

Roo, once again you show that you do not understand how science works. Theories are never proven true, they are proven false.--TimS 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
TimS, once again you've proven how religion has affected the realm of science.--Roopilots6 08:11, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
How is that? Please explain.--TimS 09:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Darwin meant that species (homo sapiens sapiens, banana trees, etc...) could develop different races within their species and if these races were for example separated by a new ocean or mountain ridge, these races would start to diverge until new species are formed, we usually define an animal species by animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring, although there are exceptions and it seems there often are no real boundaries between related species, they seem to overlap genetically, just as would be expected from evolution.

As for the whole "racists use evolution as an excuse" discussion: just because someone abuses a theory out of ignorance that theory doesn't become evil or untrue. Is nuclear physics untrue because it helped create nuclear weapons?

Middle Man

I don't think the analagy between racism and physics worked out too good...--Roopilots6 20:38, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, people have used the story of Noah's Ark as an excuse for slavery, so the racism arguement works both ways, and cancels each other out. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)