15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 12:32, May 19, 2009
, 12:32, May 19, 2009→Yes
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#**'''Counter:''' Recent scientific discoveries <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>, have demonstrated a proven link between non biotic molecular features and biotic RNA. The counters raised by Aschlafly and others on this point are empirically shown to be false.--[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 08:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)