- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darwinism disproven
Posted on 9/15/24 at 2:51 pm to RobbBobb
Posted on 9/15/24 at 2:51 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Like the guys with doctorates and PhDs that told us that wearing paper masks, standing 6 feet apart, and taking a vax (that has never worked in human history) could beat a lab created virus, PS: it didnt. Actually prolonged it
Well, they weren't PhDs. The 6 foot apart crap was just made up by some bureaucrats. They did it by just guessing because they were supposed to come up with a number. The high number was actually 10 feet.
quote:
No, I'm just curious how all those other animals survived without any evolutionary color adaptation, being a scientific principle and all?
They did survive with evolutionary color adaptation. That's my point.
I don't understand what your disagreement is. My position is very simple.
If a new trait is beneficial then it is passed on genetically. If a new trait is harmful it is not passed on. Over millions of generations that changes a horse from being 3 feet tall to 6 feet tall.
1
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:01 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
while the dullards frick like rabbits.
Take away the freebies and gubmin hanouts and what have ya gost, a popalashun exploshun in dying races...
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:16 pm to SuperOcean
quote:I think the adaptation was more to help them stay camouflaged while hunting.
Who what is eating polar bears ?
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:22 pm to SuperOcean
quote:
Who what is eating polar bears ?
Immigrants.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:27 pm to Bard
quote:
So right off the bat, he's wrong in that we can and do witness evolution.
The guy sailed to the Galapagos on a wooden ship. It’s 2024.
His ideas and research were solid as they could be for the time.
I don’t understand why it’s so popular to shite on the guy.
I do know why, actually.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:47 pm to Zach
quote:
Over millions of generations that changes a horse from being 3 feet tall to 6 feet tall.
See that’s the hang up. Why do these changes have to occur over million of years. We do see changes in species but that was called adaptation not evolution. We saw that with moths during the Industrial Revolution or so my science text book taught us. Evolution as taught when I was in school was microorganisms developing into larger organisms such as some organism crawling into a beach and later developing into different species. There is no evidence to support that.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:51 pm to labamafan
quote:
Evolution as taught when I was in school was microorganisms developing into larger organisms such as some organism crawling into a beach and later developing into different species. There is no evidence to support that.
There is evidence to support that.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 3:56 pm to Flavius C Julianus
Not being obtuse but please post it if possible so I can see
Posted on 9/15/24 at 4:11 pm to labamafan
Technically they aren't white. Their basically transparent. The light gets trapped in an undercoat. Their skin is black to absorb more thermal energy. They look white because the light is actually luminating in their fur.
Grizzlies and Polar bears are still close enough in species to produce offspring. That offspring is able to produce offspring of their own. This makes them a weird hybrid. Grolar Bears or Pizzlies.
I think animals adapt to their environments over time, and the successful traits are able to explode.
Grizzlies and Polar bears are still close enough in species to produce offspring. That offspring is able to produce offspring of their own. This makes them a weird hybrid. Grolar Bears or Pizzlies.
I think animals adapt to their environments over time, and the successful traits are able to explode.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 4:26 pm to labamafan
quote:
See that’s the hang up. Why do these changes have to occur over million of years.
With animals it's hard to document exact time or causes. They were around way before humans could write anything down. But I don't deal with Darwin's evolution. I like natural selection and it's easy to see how it works with humans over the years.
IE, some of the greatest athletes in the world 1,000 years ago were knights in shining armor. Their height was about 5-3. I've seen the armor in museums and I thought it was for children. Now you could say it's because of nutrition. But we didn't have diet problems in 1940 America and the soldiers who invaded on D-Day were averaging 5-7, 150 llbs. Why are men taller today? We're heavier because of diet but not taller. It's because women like taller men and it affects future genetics.
If people can change their physical appearance in a thousand years it's easy to see that animals can change a lot more in a million years.
This post was edited on 9/15/24 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 9/15/24 at 5:01 pm to Zach
quote:
1940 America and the soldiers who invaded on D-Day were averaging 5-7, 150 llbs.
There was this thing called the Depression right up to 1940. Food was hard to come by
quote:
Why are men taller today? We're heavier because of diet but not taller. It's because women like taller men and it affects future genetics
This is not evolution. Not even really natural selection. Women respond to safety and security (provided via money) way more than a mans height. Otherwise, Jeff Bezos at 5'7" & Bill Gates at 5'10" dont reproduce. Bill's dad was 6'7", btw.
Reverse evolution?
Posted on 9/15/24 at 5:33 pm to Bard
quote:
Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" is a bit too general, but essentially it means that creatures change biologically over time based on the changes in their surrounding ecology.
So right off the bat, he's wrong in that we can and do witness evolution. It doesn't happen over the period of 24 hours, but it does happen over the course of successive generations (especially in less complicated life like reptiles, mosquitos, and even lower-end mammals) to be witnessed. We, therefore, can witness more from shorter-living species than longer-living ones.
A few examples:
-beak shape changes over several generations have been meticulously documented in Darwin’s finches, this has been especially highlighted in the evolution of finch species via natural selection when droughts hit Daphne Major in 1977, 1985 and 2004.
-the Universe 25 experiments on mice which showed a repeated evolution over the generations into smaller, more poorly socialized and less healthy younger generations as generations came and went with all of their needs basic being met (food, water, cleanliness/health and safety).
-the Lenski long term evolution experiment with E. coli bacteria has documented significant changes in bacterial cell abilities and behaviors since its beginning in 1988. At the beginning, Lenski started with 12 identical strains of the bacteria which has now gone through 80,000 generations.
Evolution can be observed to produce changes within a species and cross mating can be observed to produce organisms different enough to be considered a distinct species, but the claim of every single organism on Earth having evolved from a single zero-point organism is a problem for Darwinism.
Not the least of which is the problem of where that single organism came from. Even Darwin, in several early editions of Descent of Man, said, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..." because he knew that he couldn't explain where the first organism came from.
We now know enough about it to give odds on the origin of life on Earth having arisen from purely natural interactions and the numbers that people have estimated are insanely high. Like 1 in 10 to the 162nd power. Odds approaching zero. And that's AFTER taking into account the amount of time that is generally ascribed to the age of the Earth.
Darwin also knew his full theory wasn't supported by the fossil evidence as well—specifically the Cambrian Explosion—and admits this here: "...To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
Modern scientists usually simply ignore these facts. It's true. They are inconvenient to proclaiming evolution to be a "fact," so they just act like they don't exist.
The truth is that natural selection is an observable fact and inter-breeding is an observable fact, but the diversity of life present on this planet having evolved from a single organism is a theory with significant flaws that no one can yet overcome.
This post was edited on 9/15/24 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 9/15/24 at 5:35 pm to Flavius C Julianus
quote:
There is evidence to support that.
Yeah?
Evidence that supports a jellyfish evolving eventually into a mammal?
O.k.
Let's see that evidence.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 5:37 pm to Bard
quote:
-the Lenski long term evolution experiment with E. coli bacteria has documented significant changes in bacterial cell abilities and behaviors since its beginning in 1988. At the beginning, Lenski started with 12 identical strains of the bacteria which has now gone through 80,000 generations.
That's a lot of generations.
How many of the strains have become vertebrates at this point?
Or have become anything other than a bacterium?
This post was edited on 9/15/24 at 7:42 pm
Posted on 9/15/24 at 5:47 pm to MMauler
quote:
Say this real slow T-H-E-O-R-Y of Evolution.
the·o·ry
/'THire/
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 6:03 pm to Top of the Rock
There is really no argument about natural selection. There is some pushback that a single cell can evolve into Albert Einstein.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 6:22 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
There is really no argument about natural selection.
All Darwin did was try to take credit for "the weak and the stupid die first."
This has been known since the days of the caveman.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 6:34 pm to OWLFAN86
Where’s the fossil record? That’s too big of a jump from sea creature to land mammal, or chimp to human. And how is human DNA so different than a fish if we have the same ancestor?
Posted on 9/15/24 at 6:37 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
By who exactly?
Guy is doing a poor job defending this but it makes them better predators as they blend in with the landscape.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News