- 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 7:03 pm to Willie Stroker
Posted on 9/15/24 at 7:03 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
The healthiest animals get all the poon and strengthen the herd. The sickly ones watch the show and die off. It seems to be different in humans though. The most successful have fewer offspring while the dullards frick like rabbits.
That's only because we don't let the dumb and lazy starve.
0
Posted on 9/15/24 at 7:16 pm to SuperOcean
They have been found in the bellies of Killer whales, Greenland sharks and other bears, it happens.
They evolved in color for hunting and to keep warm.
They evolved in color for hunting and to keep warm.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 7:37 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:No
Darwinism disproven
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:24 pm to labamafan
quote:
There is no evidence to support that.
There is, though.
While there are certainly gaps within the fossil record, some animals have an extraordinary tight fossil heritage (land dwelling mammals to whales, as an example).
You might as well be arguing that a 1 frame a second camera reel can't be admissible in court because we don't know if we're viewing the same person throughout.
Sure, there are gaps (it's not 30 fps) but everything lines up. Saying there's no evidence to support it at all is either ignorant of the facts, or willful ignorance.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:31 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:other than intelligent design
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.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:34 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
other than intelligent design
I'm not sure I understand you.
Do you mean that intelligent design is a better explanation than life springing into existence out of non-life?
Yeah, I agree about that.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Not the least of which is the problem of where that single organism came from.
Man, this logic.... You might as well scratching out the theory of gravity because we can't explain the origin of gravity.
The origin of something has little to do how that something operates. We don't know where gravity comes from but we know a great deal of how it operates. Same goes for evolution.
quote:
...because he knew that he couldn't explain where the first organism came from.
I'm by no means an expert on Darwin, but just because Darwin may have at one point in his life been some sort of a theist (he died a self-professed agnostic) and explained the origins of life by said faith doesn't touch his theory at all.
It's entirely possible for some supernatural being to have created life on earth, then, after billions of years, that life evolved into what we see today.
quote:
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.”
"I can give no satisfactory answer" =/= "There can be no satisfactory answer".
quote:
Modern scientists usually simply ignore these facts.
You haven't presented any facts, though.
Just Darwin at one point, seemingly, attributing the first life forms to some sort of Creator and him also not understanding how the Cambrian Explosion could occur.
You do know much of Darwin's original theory has been changed/updated/improved correct? His base idea got the ball rolling, but many of his thoughts were incorrect. And I suspect a scientist like himself, just starting to stumble into a new scientific realm, fully expected further generations to hone his theory.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:39 pm to OWLFAN86
classic darwinian evolution was abandoned decades ago because the fossil record does not show the gradual shift from species to species that what darwin proposed would require. Looks up punctuated equilibrium. They shifted a long time ago to rapid mutation based evolution with long periods of no change, because species pop in and out of the fossil record much more rapidly than pure natural selection could explain. Even Darwin noted this but when darwinian evolution was becoming the basis for a secular religion, it was assumed that it was because there had not been enough digging and that the evidence would be found in time. Havent kept up with any of that stuff since college so im sure they have come up with other band aids to patch things up. much like comsmology, problems with evolutionary theory are never seen as possibly fundamental, so they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to preserve the orthodoxy
This post was edited on 9/15/24 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:41 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
How many of the strains have become vertebrates at this point?
Considering we're talking less than 40 years, and such progress took hundreds of millions or perhaps even billions of years, how many do you think evolved into vertebrates during that timeframe?
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:43 pm to Zach
quote:
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.
This logic doesn't hold water. Look at north korea and south Korea. Very similar genetics but several inches difference in average height. This is clearly due to diet, not mating preferences unless North Korean woman are attracted to shorties. I would guess that we could trace average height of both groups back in time and find that they converge somewhere before communism took over.
From your example, it took 1000 years to grow 3 inches but then only 80 years to grow the next 3 inches. That is too quick to simply be selective breeding. There's not enough generations in 80 years to make such a profound change genetically. Diet can do it that quickly, though.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:49 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
other than intelligent design
Are you kidding me? The laryngeal nerve is like 15 feet in giraffes.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Do you mean that intelligent design is a better explanation than life springing into existence out of non-life?
1.) Saying God did it is akin to saying it's magic, and not an explanation at all.
2.) Life springing out of non-life isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 8:55 pm to narddogg81
quote:
because species pop in and out of the fossil record much more rapidly than pure natural selection could explain.
Because parts of the fossil record are extremely thin.
A very unique species "popping into existence" in the fossil record could very well be explained by unearthed fossils that would show/explain its heritage.
Some areas of the world aren't friendly to fossil formation, and considering the world's climate has changed over its lifetime even areas that at one point contained good fossil preserving conditions didn't always.
Scientists discover hundreds of new species every year, so there's no reason to assume these gaps can't be explained.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 9:15 pm to Bard
Adaptation is not evolution.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 9:19 pm to Tesla
quote:
Adaptation is not evolution.
this
Posted on 9/15/24 at 9:22 pm to Tesla
quote:
Adaptation is not evolution.
Sure, not all adaptation is evolution, but why can't evolution be adaptation?
This post was edited on 9/15/24 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 9/15/24 at 9:56 pm to OWLFAN86
While this might lead most of y’all to consign me to the looney bin, I believe in the primacy of man. I think we are the authors of this story, and I think the physical world ends up reflecting our philosophies. The interplay of time and matter and consciousness has been demonstrated, and it is a scientific fact. The electron double slit experiment for example. They behave like particles when observed and like waves when not. Were humans retarded for millennia as they spun stories about their origins and their place in the cosmos, or were they just inhabiting different philosophies that were equally “true”? I think the latter. All of us carry some fragment of God, and when enough of us believe something to be true, this power that we have manifests the belief. The world exists in human consciousness; we are separate but connected subjectivities that create, not only experience, this world. We have control. This is “the secret” behind the “law of attraction.” The ancient creators of our theologies, and the more modern creators of scientism, understand this power. They deny it to you and reserve it for themselves. “Atman is Brahman,” as the Hindi say. “Belief is both prize and battlefield within the mind and in the mind’s mirror, the world,” as David Mitchell wrote. Sounds insane. I’m not insane. I think it’s true. You will find what you look for.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 10:04 pm to SquaringCircles
How many pots have you smoked
Posted on 9/15/24 at 10:05 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
How many pots have you smoked
You were just positing Intelligent Design, sit this one out.
Posted on 9/15/24 at 10:11 pm to Azkiger
I can make the argument from the aspect of mathematics that intelligent design is far more likely than what would have had to happen if evolution had been the way
there is a math to EVERYTHING beautiful
art, music, a shapely women ,, and in creation life a helix, a cell
there is a math to EVERYTHING beautiful
art, music, a shapely women ,, and in creation life a helix, a cell
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News