The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

To be replaced by what?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Actually it is just one tree, not a forest.The scientific evidence suggests a pattern of one tree (or bush), branching all the time, while the biblical concept of "kinds" requires a forest -- that is, each of the "kinds" is specially created and does not branch.I suspect this is the root of this entire thread.Once again I suspect we see the biblical view of creation trying to argue against the scientific evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nonsense. If your (biblically inspired) position were correct there would be no improvement of any kind through time; there would only be decline and degredation. (The Fall, you know.)But neither the genetic nor the fossil record supports that position.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

False. Examine the fossil record, supported by genetics, from the Paleocene to the present and tell me the primates have not improved. (Paleocene, yes that's millions of years. Sorry, that's what the evidence shows.) False. The flood is a myth. Even the early creationist geologists, seeking to document the flood, gave up just about 200 years ago. Since then the evidence against the notion of a global flood some 4,350 years ago has become overwhelming. I have produced evidence disproving the flood in my own archaeological research. Want to hear about it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Whenever creationists start talking about "no new information" or "no beneficial mutations" or "degradation of the genome" and the like you can assume that they are coming from a biblical belief in "the fall."This religious belief has not been confirmed by empirical evidence, but that hasn't stopped creationists from scratching for any shred of evidence that might be twisted to support their belief. That the vast majority of empirical evidence argues against their position does not seem to make any difference.Or, as a poster on another board repeatedly said, "Divine revelation is the highest form of knowledge."That religious belief was the driving force behind Faith's arguments, and no manner of evidence was able to persuade her to the contrary, became more and more obvious as the thread went on.Thus we summarize this thread.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The evidence indicates that new species are produced, and that mutations and natural selection play a large role in this process.This is what biologists and geneticists have concluded. It appears that the primary opposition to this comes from believers in certain fundamentalist religions, and their beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.Unless you have some evidence I am not aware of?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There is when you believe that everything was created some 6,000 years ago and that there was a "fall" from which everything is "devolving."Of course there is nothing in biology or evolution anywhere resembling that but that doesn't stop the trve believers.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Biblical literalists.They have no interest in science except to destroy those parts that contract their beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.