chapset said:
Kasz216 said:
chapset said:
well simple organism are often a lot older then more complex organism so is it so hard to think they have reach the maximum of their evolution??? that they no longer need to evolve because they are so well adapted to their environment?? And what about the hundred of thousands of fossil that support evolution what about those?? where they put there by some sort of alien or god 6000 years ago when the earth was flat :P |
You know... i believe in evolution, but you aren't helping the cause here...
this arguement is basically the posterchild arguement someone who doesn't believe in evolution would want to see...
because it's bascially a selfmade strawman that makes evolution look ridiculious.
1) Simple organisms still evolve.
2) It wouldn't matter how much support there is for a theory if there is one thing that disproves it. Truth isn't "Majority rules". (These aren't proof agaisnt it though)
|
1) I mean some simple organims my mistake
2) evolution is not a law, as in you cannot predict the result of evolution by looking at past experience or data, finding one or several species that didn't evolve because they didn't need to doesn't disprove the fact that undread of thousands of species did evolve. to disprove evolution you would need to show that not a single organism did evolve trough history but that something else happenned
|
yes exactly, you would have to show that something else happened instead. And yes, laws only exist for specifically measureable theories, like gravity or the speed of light. Because we cannot adequately quantify the value of some change in environment, we cannot mathematically figure it out. But, it is possible that one day there will be enough evidence to quantify those effects, but would require an enourmous amount of variables.
