Maggie's Farm

The same old argument that since life is so complex it couldn't have occurred naturally or by chance thus some superior being must have created all that we see. The irony of this argument is simply stated as "then who created the superior beings???

Darwin's theory is elegant, logical and provable. It is irrefutable and yet they keep refuting it. Evolution is visible everywhere and in everything. Almost every food we eat today was virtually inedible until humans "evolved" it into something tasty.

That's a word game. What humans do is use their understanding of how evolution happens and they push it in the desired direction.

He doesn't understand Darwin's theory. Ironic in a way to speak so eloquently on something he does not understand. I will give him a break and say that he is not ignorant but rather duplicitous. Darwin's theory is based on what he observed. The naysayers don't try to tell you that Darwin didn't observe what he observed. Darwin's theory is a "theory" !! No better and no worse than any theory. And like very theory in history there are those who agree with it, those who disagree and those who feel it is incomplete. Darwin's theory is incomplete; necessarily so, because it was arrived at looking at a small cross section of life and on a remote island. Of course he had his training of other life on the planet and common sense to sort through it all but it was this little slice of life on a remote island that brought the concept into the sunshine and made it possible to create his theory. After that, and certainly after Darwin's death it is up to scientists and non-scientists too to flesh it out providing proof or refutation. I have seen a lot of both of these but without exception all of the refutation of Darwin's theory boils down to one simple thing: i.e. that "I" have a prior bias and therefore will spend all my effort proving him wrong even if I am forced to deny my own knowledge/education. I have never seen, read or heard a valid refutation of Darwin's theory. I have seen endless lamenting that it is incomplete usually followed by a gigantic leap to state that "therefore it must not be true".

I could go on and on about the bias and willful blindness of the evolution deniers, but I won't. One fact remains: all the scientific evidence supports Darwin's basic theory. Simple as that. All of the arguments against it lack evidence.

Could it be wrong? Sure! Prove it.

The odds are long, really long, on winning powerball and yet someone wins every week or so. "Odds" are often misunderstood or misinterpreted. Look up the "infinite monkey theorem" for unbelievable odds. And yet the amount of time and the universe of events leading from first living organism to today is astronomically larger.

Where he is wrong is he is citing opinion, kinda like the impeachment hearings. Show me a single scintilla of proof that it was intelligent design or that it was NOT evolution.

Consensus: two or more people agreeing on something. Doesn't make it fact/true. History is replete with great minds forming a consensus and later proved wrong. Consensus literally means nothing in fact finding. It can lead to understanding motive i.e. bias but it cannot lead to finding the truth.

Life on earth began 3.465-billion years ago. This is an unfathomable amount of time for life to evolve. That it did evolve is not in doubt and that it took that long is not in doubt.