'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009

SoulsResonance Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @JustinZimmer6 Now as for the site you directed me to I shall look into it as I said before I am looking for solid evidence, and cold hard facts. I'm not against evolution just as of yet completely unconvinced as they have yet to provide any of that. Also you have not seemed to comment on my genetics argument I find that strange surly you have a rebuttal for that as well.

shadowsidestep Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - if the world embraced science 600yrs ago we would be 1000 yr more adv then we are 2day, but instead they made the study of science wrong.thats whats happens when we let religion rule the world,and over 2/3 of all the wars in the history of man was caused by religion.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance You're funny. If by "they" you mean the scientific community at large you sure seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If you aren't finding evidence for evolution then you aren't looking very hard, or you have some sort of ridiculous definition of evidence and "fact". A simple Google search returns all you need to know about that horse evolution canard you posted. Both your "genetics" and "horse evolution" claims are repeated throughout creationist literature --- cont

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance Try looking up "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" genetics is a large part of the modern theories explaining HOW evolution works. A great deal works by genetic drift. If you are studying "genetics" and evolution isn't making sense then I'd have to question where you are getting your genetics. In Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" and Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" both cover these issues in great detail. TalkOrigins has every genetics claim you could cont --

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance Since you're not a creationist, don't be offended if you'll find the defense of your claims in the archive under "Index of Creationist Claims". YouTube doesn't let me post links, but you'll probably find yours under CB101.2. BTW, Darwinismrefuted(dot)com is an intelligent design site, which is merely a legally subversive form of creationism. I'm assuming that's where you got these "scientific" claims of yours, since you seem to be. Try looking at the full context of some of their

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance quotes, you might find them frighteningly deceptive. Try looking at the actual evidence. I've given you three sources, any one of which by themselves contains more information than every ID/Creationist site out there combined (from redundancy). Or swing by whyevolutionistrue(dot)com and read a little or engage in discussion. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Life is an amazing phenonenon once you begin to understand how it works.

SoulsResonance Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @JustinZimmer6 First of all just stop suggesting that I am a creationist because my arguments are some they have used themselves. My reason for disagreeing with evolution is for studying objective material about genetics and so forth, I like to learn. After reading this information I had began to question evolution as what I had learned did not seem to agree with my CURRENT knowledge about it, you should note that I initially did agree with evolution.>>continue.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance what you won't find on any of these so-called "debunking" sites is an alternative explanation, at least one that doesn't begin with "In the beginning..." or involve boatloads of animals floating for a year without food or apparent predation and then somehow becoming distributed across several distant landmasses.

SoulsResonance Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @JustinZimmer6 I'm willing accept evolution, and will look up what you suggested, but what I have found out about it so far has not convinced me yet. I will admit that perhaps I shouldn't have had such an infallible tone in my first few post, but I simply just don't agree yet. What I have found so far is assumptions and theories that's not enough for me. I have no "religion" or faith I simply believe in the universe and nature I say this so you let go of your seeming polarized view of me.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance I'm using the term "creationist" because the claims you were making, including calling evolution a "religion", and that there is no evidence for evolution among the specific claims are textbook creationist propaganda. If you are simply someone who stumbled upon one of these subversive sites, then I apologize for making that assumption based on the evidence I had.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 23, 2012 - @SoulsResonance If you are a pantheist as you describe yourself, then you will want to understand evolution as best you can, as it is truly a means by which the universe comes to know itself. That evolution has occurred is incontrovertable, the evidence is plain to see. The theory is in how this evolution occured and it adjusts to new evidence and discovery. I would recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" then first, it goes into the depths of possible abiogenesis and embryology.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - @SoulsResonance The evidence produces the data by which the theory is developed. Analyze the evidence presented, and judge for yourself if the theory matches the data. The idea, again, is not to believe in evolution, but to understand it. If you don't understand it, then you are simply agreeing with people who say it's true. And, that makes you succeptible to "alternative ideas" that sound sciency, but are really misdirections for laymen to meet an agenda. Look up the "wedge document".

SoulsResonance Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - @JustinZimmer6 During our little back and forth I have been looking through talkorigins(dot)org and I like it, it seems I'm finally going to settle my mind about this. What I don't understand about this whole "evos" v "creas" thing is why it even matters I'm only interested in the facts and science I assure you, and I do want to understand as best I can. I must say it seems am I under informed my understanding was based on dated info and claims about evolution. I have enjoyed our little spat

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - @SoulsResonance I'm glad to see you're on the right track. As far as the creationism vs evolution is concerned, it stems from a religious need to view the biblical creation myths as literal histories and reject the notion that humans are part of the animal kingdom. There are shades beyond this, but the core of the arguments is the same. Creationists feel that if evolution is true then Adam and Eve are false and so loosens the grip of original sin and therefore makes people immoral.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - @SoulsResonance In fact it is perceived that if we think we evolved from other animals that we would therefore act like animals. This also removes humankind's place as a special creation. This is repeated nearly as much as supposed refutations of evolution. What is frustrating to scientists is that these people try to force creationism into science by means of politics and deceit and often even misquote scientists for their agenda (and there is an agenda, I mentioned the Wedge Doc earlier)

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - @SoulsResonance Creationists seldom come up with new issues with evolution, rather they ignore rebuttals and simply repeat the same old straw men and repackage their mission to seem less "biblical" and therefore attract more people who frankly don't know any better. If what they were practicing was science they would come up with their own theory to explain the abundance of data; they don't. They just create distractions and try to seed doubt. It's a nuisance for those doing real science.

JustinZimmer6 Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - @SoulsResonance It's sort of like what moon-landing denialists are to NASA. What is disturbing, especially given the religious nature of their base, is the amount of dishonesty used. It's not that creationists are necessarily stupid, but they employ many misleading tactics and outright lies to deliver their message. There is a lot of stupidity involved, but there are elements that will sneak in their message, whether through legislation or bogus review articles who's dishonesty is intentional.

jityr2 Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.

TheAdawon Says:

Jan 24, 2012 - How do we know it was a billion years? Where did matter come from if it can neither be created or destroyed?  How was the big bang produced? How is it that every little detail of matter could be created out of chance?

Diosukekun Says:

Jan 25, 2012 - @TheAdawon 1) radiometric dating of igneous rock 2) symmetry breaking 3) cern is working on it 4) what? anyway, mere chance or guided chance makes a huge difference

theaccousticaddict Says:

Jan 28, 2012 - @St00sh13 "Who created god."No one did, God is eternal, meaning that he has no beginning neither does he have an end. You know, just like energy, it has no beginning neither does it have an end, it is eternal."saying god "has always been" or something, is neither an answer nor an explanation to anything."Yes it is an answer, he is eternal, just like energy is, do you know what eternal means?

mscott2757 Says:

Jan 30, 2012 - @jbrizzle1234 *Chance vs Superstition

mscott2757 Says:

Jan 30, 2012 - @Diosukekun How do you know the original state of the rock? How do you know if it hasn't been contaminated by nature? Science can't calculate age

thevadar Says:

Feb 2, 2012 - This still does not solve the main problem with evolution, in the fact that it is near impossible for the first cell to have spontaneously created itself. Not religious myself, just sayin. Frankly this whole two sided argument both calling each other ignorant is stupid. Understand this is a complex problem, in which both sides don't know the answer. Calling either side ignorant, which is this presenter and 90% of the commenters, is the true ignorance here. Step back and understand the situation.

JustOneEarth Says:

Feb 7, 2012 - @thevadar All you need for evolution to occur is a self-replicating molecule; you don't even have to begin with life. From there, variations that lend themselves to encouraging replication are going to be selected for.That said, this objection doesn't even have anything to do with evolution, this has to do with abiogenesis and is outside of the theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection simply explains how we go from one living thing to the diversity of life we see today.