I misspoke. I should have used the word “proof”.Old Guy wrote:
So you would agree that you were wrong when you said there was no evidence to support evolution?
Do you and Dope on a Rope have advanced degrees or any formal training in science? No? Then your opinion doesn't mean any more than mine. I can google things just like you do.When you say "in my opinion", that only has meaning if you have some special insight. Do you have any formal training in science? Or any advanced degree? You do realize that your views are at odds with the vast majority of the scientific community?
If there's any debate about the Theory of Gravity, I'm not aware of it. That's because it's been proven. Scientists and the general public both accept it. It makes sense. Evolution has not been proven, thus the fierce debate about it. So, unless you want to rigidly close your mind to other possibilities, and cling to a theory which has not been proven -- that would be the antithesis of scientific curiosity, wouldn't it?-- maybe you should support the teaching of other theorie.? I don't advocate the teaching of one theory only. There are a lot of interesting things to learn about the ability of plants and animals to adapt, but adaptation isn't the same as evolving into an entirely different creature.
Those polls are really old. Do you have anything more recent? At any rate, even one scientist who supports creation or intelligent design has more education than you on the subject. Would you be prepared to tell him that your opinion trumps his degree?"... One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists)... give credence to creation-science"....
Scientists who question evolution are intimidated into silence and they sometimes even lose their jobs. Does that sound like a quest for truth to you? In the evolutionists' attempt to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, they've inadvertently formed their own religion, and have become more hostile and dogmatic than people who believe in ID or creationism.
I understand your desire to prove that tiny mutations in a species could account for the incredible diversity and complexity of life on the planet, but E. coli being manipulated in a lab for generations doesn't support that theory. And as I said before, a mutation results in a loss, which is the case here. The E. coli mutation resulted in the breakdown of certain genes, which prevented it from being able to metabolize two glucose molecules that it had been able to metabolize before.In 2008 microbiologist Richard Lenski produced a beneficial mutation in the lab...
And the mutated E. coli is still a bacterium, and it's still E. coli.
Rather than trying to disprove that life was purposefully and thoughtfully created, you evolutionists may be better served by opening your minds a bit.