i'd have to say that this thread belongs in a science area...but here it is anyway.
recently i have been looking into evolution and Darwinism, and have found that Darwinism has , in the last 15 years, been disproven.
apparently, Darwin's "Tree of Life", finches from the Galapagos Islands, and embryos that look remarkably similar, are based on outdated research and sloppy logic. They say that students are being hurt by the failure to present both sides of an emerging scientific debate over Darwin's theory.
there is a documentary that i have been watching that is called Icons of Evolution and Jonathan Wells is a scientific author that explains in detail what the documentary could not.
if any of you are Darwinists or Evolutionists, please let me know how you feel about this. i am starting to get interested in this debate amongst scientists and would like to expand it into here.
i would go deeper into this right now and explain some of the icons but am busy and i dont know that i could present them correctly. here is a site that has a few of the icons and explains them.

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/index.htm

All this shit is fucking inane. At my store, we keep Darwin's Origin of Species in the Fiction Genre. Although, last week our manager said "No, no, no! I don't care what your religious belief is, Darwin isn't fiction."

And it's not! People who dismiss eveolution are the most ignorant people walking this planet. It's not something open to debate. Evolution is very much so fucking real. Now, if one wants to argue against evolution 1000 years ago, well hey, whatever. Who cares. But what one cannot argue is evolution in the past 100 or so years. Evolution we've witnessed. For example: Gall Wasps (is that how you spell it?). Every generation of Gall Wasps are in some way different (evolution) than their predeccessor. Not too mention conditioned evolution and other traits we've recorded in other species: such as bats. I forget which bat and where, but this bat doesn't use sonar location as much like its relatives. Instead, it has an 'inner ear' which is so sensitive to sound, it can hear an insect flapping its wings hundreds of feet away. But of course, like this program was pointing out, since this is a new characteristic of the species, it isn't perfected. Too often the bat will fly into something, such as a branch, because the insect is on the other side of it.

So yeah...I don't give fuck who you are, evolution is real you fucking twat.

there is a difference between micro and macro evolution....

So then explain it...farting skeleton man.

Source = Wikipedia

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.

Because microevolution can be observed directly, creationists agree that it occurs, though they tend to make a distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation.

_____________________________________________________

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Within the Modern Synthesis school, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution. The process of speciation (is isolated populations) can fall within the purview of either. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. One of these two views is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.
However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.

Yeah, okay...nifty. So, evolution still occurs. Stupid creationists. They'll admit this, but deny that because there's some s'posed weak points? As if they're whole fuckin' argument in general (everything from God exists to God farted out the galaxies) isn't fuckin' weak?!

This whole "We love God" phase that's going on with kids these days really makes me want to...you don't even want to know. But the point is, just...okay, I'm going to calm down. It's useless. If you believe in God, then that's fine and dandy, but if you dismiss science, then you're an ignorant tool who should be banned from procreating.

I believe that there is something, not "god" as seen in such films as Passion of the Christ or Little Buddha... but a force that drives the universe greater than man. And I still dont believe that darwin had the whole picture, I think he had some good ideas... but he over generalized his approach. I think there are somethings that cannot be explained.

Such as why Chinese food is so addicting...but it gives you the nastiest anal offerings.

why the fatter the chick, the smaller the outfit.

Oh God...yeah...that's...yeah.

yeah, i think i'm gonna stick with macroevolution, man. but why are should religious people be against it anyway? what if adam and eve were monkeys? or protozoa? why the hell not? the bible's full of analogy. and if it's not, then explain how they lived 600 some years? bacteria can do that, no sweat.

this is my new favorite stupid thread

creationtards are as about as stupid as you can get. 1) evolution in no way relates to the creation of life. 2) The contradiction; God created everything and then allowed us free will to f it all up no wonder he's pissed

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Read the ENTIRE thing before you go off the deep end. If you want to "debate" things, at least be well read on the evidence and actual definitions of things. that's all i'll ever ask.

Furthermore, I might have put this in another thread but its more relevant here than there. Newton, Mendel and Darwin (and the other guy who i forget that never gets the credit darwin does) all had great launch-point ideas. Their theories upon testing have been incomplete. That's what science does. It tests and tries to see if there's any other option. Just as matter is not always conserved via newton (sometimes it gets turned into energy b/c they're the same thing) and mendel didnt count for masked expressions, plietropy etc Darwinian evolution had some gaps that were unable to be filled with the current technology at the time. It was once thought that evolution was towards perfection. This is now just about 100% agreed on to be false. Take an embriology class before talking about a fetus not being similar to another species at certain times. Read up on the article posted above and it will say things much better and more clearly than i believe I could.

I might get shot for saying this (or at least force-fed Chinese food) but evolutionism and creationism isn't two mutually exclusive ideals. Hear me out. Is there any evidence to suggest that evolutionism necessarily happens in a universe without a god or buddha or divine force that drives it? Not that I know of. So why can't evolution be "god's" way of making the planet work?

Buddha doesnt make things happen.... if you know your Buddhism anyway.

jesus cuts my lawn, he REALLY makes things happen... for an extra 10 bucks he cleans my gutters too. if you want results call jesus.

Jesus drove an SUV. Muhammed pumped his gas.

muhammed was disenfranchised... thats not cool.

hmmm...well i do believe in evolution...but i dont think that the right evolution is being taught. unless one goes into a higher study (post highschool), you will only find darwinism and certain "icons of evolution". these "icons" are basically biased illusions used to prove a point. im not saying Darwinisn as a whole is wrong...but there are some aspects of Darwin's theories tat have been disproven already...and yet you can still find these "icons" published in text books and being taught.