Can anybody actually refute anything she says as it relates

>>8248503
no one gives a shit, honestly. don't post retarded crackpot videos

File: BM-DarwinDodos.jpg (358KB, 908x649px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 908x649px

>>8248518
Yeah, that's my job.

>>8248503
Yes, any biology professor, anywhere. Or any of the massive amount of books written about the subject. Here is a good one
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/mobile/p/vertebrate-paleontology-and-evolution-robert-lynn-carroll/1000216830/2673453778406?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Textbooks_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP20456&k_clickid=3x20456

>>8248503
Condense her points into one to three posts.
No one wants to watch 30 minutes of video just to refute specific points.

There is evidence.

Missing links exist because every generation is a missing link and only a fraction of all dead organisms undergo the niche set of circumstances that are required for them to become fossils.

>>8248530
In every instance that I've learned evolution, be it school or lectures in evolutionary biology or whatever the lecture is always prefaced with the various ideas that came before and after Darwin prior to the common acceptance of his ideas.
The modern evolutionary synthesis is what is used to explain evolution now and Darwin's idea of natural selection is only a component of that since he offered an incomplete representation, devoid of an understanding of genetics for instance.

>>8248572
>There is evidence
Evidence must be falsifiable, measurable and retestable. The half assed theories you come up with your idealized interpretation of fossils that is supported nothing is not evidence.

Sorry to burst your bubble dodo kid.

>>8248582
Evolution by naturap selection is the model that best fits the evidence. If you have a better explanation I'd like to hear it!

>>8248606
>the one with no evidence and full of holes fits best
mmhmm

>>8248608
Even if we can grant, for the sake of argument, that evolution is full of holes, can you suggest a better alternative?

>>8248503
>3:48
>"its okay not to know"
condensed her entire epistemology to 5 words

>>8248634
>>8248606
dont feed trolls you newfag

>>8248640
its not okay to not know but act like you do

>>8248582
Just a counterpoint to the OP stating that there isn't evidence.
I didn't feel like listing specific evidence since the OP didn't feel like summarizing the video.

I don't even need to rely on fossils.
If I compare the homologous genes of various organisms that I have DNA samples of then the proven fact of the molecular clock (Mutations are statistically constant, amassing linearly until the chance of reversion outweighs the chance of a stronger difference in gene sequence) shows evidence of descent since later splits will be more genetically similiar than comparisons between earlier splits.

Richard Lenski proved that E.Coli can gain a beneficial trait from multiple independant mutations.

Speciation is an observable event. Ring species exist. Hybrids exist.

A species like Axolotl can be developmentally altered to develop into a salamander, as opposed to remaining in a pseudo larval state.

And all the core assumptions of evolution (mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow) are true. There is no arbitrary barrier that has ever been observed.

>>8248503
Americans are the only ones that deny evolution.

Literally nobody else is interested in this argument.

>>8248503
Ignore threads like these. They'll never stop, but they will eventually reduce in frequency.

There is value to be had in arguing with a brick wall, but seeing it cluttering literally every board gets tiresome. Please just go away.

File: new_laugh_crying_smiley[1].png (68KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 256x256px

>>8249798
>tl dr : im so superior to you with my darwinist dogmas with zero evidence and you're a subhuman who don't deserve my presence.
dropped your fedora there

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

>>8249802
I was raised apart from both religion and scientific dogma. I eventually went through a Descartes-esque rejection of everything I thought I knew, and stripped my logical framework down and exhaustively verified and rebuilt, just to ensure as many elements of unknown faith had been highlighted and recognized as such.

The "ur dogmatic" argument doesn't really work for me. I don't trust much of anything. You can't even imagine the overhead functioning like that demands until you get it sorted out.

But anyway. Your opinion isn't worth hearing because you never actually hear much of anything, it's mostly empty rejection, a lot of which shows a poor understanding of the material you're rejecting. It's clutter.

File: dragon.jpg (73KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x552px

Basically this woman walks around an evolution exhibit looking at various displaying and stating that scientists dont have enough evidence to state things with certainty.

Her objections include:
-No one was present to observe these events
-Lack of "missing links"
-"Primitive" organisms are being alive today implying they have never evolved
-Various organic structures are too complex to evolve
-The Indianapolis Children's museum has a dinosaur skull that is "clearly a dragon" (In fairness to this one it really does look like a dragon and is actually called Draconis Hogwartsia, pic related)
-there are cave paintings of dinosaurs
-there are gaps in the fossil record
-"no one considers that neanderthals could be people with big foreheads"

Basically she does just reads a fact and then says there is no evidence for it, no one was there etc. Playing devils advocate it is true that the displays dont actually present any evidence, and they do state things as certain when they are in reality not completely certain, and in at least one case state something as true and then go on to say that that same thing is probably true. But then, its a museum, not a science textbook

Your welcome now validate the 45 minutes I wasted on this

>>8249816
ur'e mad :^)

>>8249868
no u :^)
:^)
:^)
:^)
:^)
;^)