4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksfriends
watch this show titled: national geographic:was Darwin wrong
now scientists challenge the theory of evolution.
please watch:
please reply your ideas. i am eager to know.
February 27th, 2012, 07:21 PM
friends
watch this show titled: national geographic:was Darwin wrong
now scientists challenge the theory of evolution.
please watch:
please reply your ideas. i am eager to know.
No, he was not wrong, as shown by the theory of evolution still being in mainstream use.
There's been no scientific challenge to the basic tenents of the theory of evolution for nearly a century.now scientists challenge the theory of evolution.
Darwin was not wrong, I asked god.
Can anyone summarise the content of these video (briefly)?
OK. Found the related article online: Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
It looks like the "catchy" title is a reference to the number of (ignorant) people who are sceptical of the theory, rather than anything to do with the science. Which is quite good; it might get some people to read about the science who wouldn't otherwise.
Unless the videos are completely different to the article, that would not appear to be the case. Which scientists do you claim are challenging the theory of evolution?Originally Posted by xxx200
Last edited by Strange; February 28th, 2012 at 06:32 AM. Reason: missing words
If you have actually watched the videos you will know that they reach the clearcut conclusion that Darwin was correct. So I am forced to ask you, what is your point?
And by the videos that xxx200 has kindly provided for us.
well you will find scientists questioning evolution in this documentary:
I don't really have time to watch two hour long movies. Could you sum up your points in a paragraph or two?
Apparently it is a rathr shabby and dishonest pseudo-documentary about people suffering from creationism who think they are being persecuted: Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks
Nothing to do with scientists, as far as I can tell.
those who are against evolution are not scientist according to you. i understand.
yes i can. the point is established scientists are doubting evolution.
They could be. If they used science.
I am not aware of any scientists who oppose evolution. (Do you?) And there doesn't seem to be much room for any sort of science to oppose evolution. Evolution obviously happens. We have good theories to explain how. These are, of course, being constantly updated as new evidence emerges.
Name one.
That point is not made in the National Geographic videos. Did you not understand them or are you lying?
The other movie is ... well ... just insane rubbish really. People who claim to be scientists claim to have been persecuted because of their ignorance about evolution?
100 established scientists challenge darwin's theory of evolution.
source:A Critique of PBS's Evolution
scientists challenging evolution :
Laura Lee News - Scientists Challenge Evolution Theory
Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book
Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books
Princeton Team Challenges Darwin: Evolution Not Random?
say these people are not scientist
Actually they don't. What they signed their names to was the statement:
Well, I guess we should all be sceptical of everything (within reason). And we should always be examining the evidence for any theory - that is what science does."I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Note that they don't say evolution doesn't happen. After all, it obviously does so that would be a bit like saying "gravity doesn't exist" just because you disagree with Einstein.
They don't even say that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong. All they say is that they are sceptical about it. Yawn.
I wonder how many of those scientists knew that is was being done by a bunch of religious crazies; would some of them have refused to sign if they had known?
So, did you misunderstand that? Or were you lying? (again)
it is a very polite way of saying that darwin's theory is wrong.
you prove they don't know about it.I wonder how many of those scientists knew that is was being done by a bunch of religious crazies; would some of them have refused to sign if they had known?
you misunderstand and lie to yourself.So, did you misunderstand that? Or were you lying? (again)
Er... did you actually read that article? Or did you just think the title might support your idiocy (as with the Nat Geo video)?
It doesn't challenge evolution at all; it is about some evidence that might challenge the "out of Africa" hypothesis. It actually uses geentics (and therefore evolution) to make this argument.
Oh, a religious fundamentalist. What a surprise. You do love them, don't you.Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book
So he doesn't disagree with evolution, just one theory of evolution. I'm confident he is wrong but I have no interest in reading his book to find out why. From the little I have read, he appears to be a physicist who hasn't quite grasped how evolution works. So I suspect the book is one long straw man argument.
Once again: did you only read the title? Or did you fail to understand the content? Or are you being dishonest (again)?
Did you miss the bit where it says: "Our new theory extends Darwin's model" (emphasis added).
Note that we have learnt a huge amount since Darwin's day. He didn't even know what the mechanism of inheritance was (Mendel's work hadn't been published in English at the time). We are continuously learning that it is a more complex process involving not just genetic variation and selection, but also epigenetics, gene transfer, and many other effects (such as the one in this article).
No. But I will say you appear to have serious reading comprehension problems. Unless you are being deliberately dishonest.say these people are not scientist
No. It is propaganda put out by religious nutters which they hope will be interpreted that way.
Luckily, no one is that stupid. Oh, hang on...
I should add, that any negative comments about religion are addressed solely at those who deny obvious facts because of their beliefs, not at those intelligent people who are capable of rational thought and religious faith.
xxx200 - do you still maintain that the National Geographic video casts doubt on evolution?
being a scientist in general does not qualify to claim to be an expert on any part of science outside your field of expertise
when it comes to evolution, only the professional opinion of professional biologists counts, and to my knowledge no qualified biologists state that evolution and "darwin's theory" is wrong
they may argue of aspects of how evolution takes place , but none of them doubts the reality of evolution as an ongoing process that can be observed if you bother to look
[QUOTE=Strange;311017]
Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new bookthose who challenge evolution ARE NOT SCIENTIST according to our STRANGE creatureOh, a religious fundamentalist. What a surprise. You do love them, don't you.
our STRANGE creature doesn't need to read the book written by a scientist against evolution. oh! he has such a strong FAITH in evolution. he just behaves like a middle aged priest who does not want to hear a word against his FAITH.So he doesn't disagree with evolution, just one theory of evolution. I'm confident he is wrong but I have no interest in reading his book to find out why. From the little I have read, he appears to be a physicist who hasn't quite grasped how evolution works. So I suspect the book is one long straw man argument.
HERESY!!!
look Mr. strange, this much of faith is not good for anybody. be open minded and impartial. only then you know the truth.
it is NOT propaganda at all. the movie expelled by ben stein shows that many scientist do question evolution and persecuted by STRANGE creature like you.No. It is propaganda put out by religious nutters which they hope will be interpreted that way.
Luckily, no one is that stupid. Oh, hang on...
your attitude is just against the very spirit of science.
kenneth miller phd. professor of biology, brown university, RI
Hmmm, did you actually look up information on Kenneth Miller? He is most noted for his opposition to Creationism/ID during the Dover School District Trial.
And this much personal attack by twisting and dehumanizing Strange's member name isn't either. Be civil, or be gone. This is an official warning.
That's fine. I'd be more frightened if any theory was believed by 100% of scientists.yes i can. the point is established scientists are doubting evolution.
Evolution is supported by pretty much 100% of scientists who actually work in fields directly related to the theory (eg genetics, paleontology, biology) its when you get into the fields not related at all (eg Law, Physics) that you find differing opinions. Thing is asking a Math professor about evolution is like asking a mechanic about a hangnail.That's fine. I'd be more frightened if any theory was believed by 100% of scientists.yes i can. the point is established scientists are doubting evolution.
Pretty much 100% != 100%. I've seen people with climatology degrees support Noah's Deluge in papers. If there weren't any crackpots, I'd start to get weirded out.Evolution is supported by pretty much 100% of scientists who actually work in fields directly related to the theory (eg genetics, paleontology, biology) its when you get into the fields not related at all (eg Law, Physics) that you find differing opinions. Thing is asking a Math professor about evolution is like asking a mechanic about a hangnail.That's fine. I'd be more frightened if any theory was believed by 100% of scientists.yes i can. the point is established scientists are doubting evolution.
I didn't say that. So please don't put words in my mouth if you are unable to make a good argument.
He was a physicist (which is a variety of scientist, in case you are not sure). Which means he is probably not an expert on evolutionary biology. Everything I have read about him confirms this. He also has a religious bias which he allows to influence his (limited) understanding of biology. For this reason, it appears that he ceases to be a scientist when he writes about evolution.
If there was any evidence(*) that the book might actually have anything useful to say about evolution, then I might read it. However, for the reasons above (and reviews I have read) it clearly does not have anything intelligent to say about evolution.our STRANGE creature doesn't need to read the book written by a scientist against evolution. oh! he has such a strong FAITH in evolution. he just behaves like a middle aged priest who does not want to hear a word against his FAITH.
(*) See: evidence; the scientific approach.
Don't be so childish.HERESY!!!
I am open minded (unlike Spetner, for example). When someone comes up with some evidence about how evolution works, I will accept it. If someone came up with evidence that evolution didn't happen then I would accept that. Although that would be tricky as it obviously does happen; you see it all around us.look Mr. strange, this much of faith is not good for anybody. be open minded and impartial. only then you know the truth.
You are the one who appears to be closed minded; trying to find things that contradict evolution. Which is a bit like trying to find evidence that gravity doesn't exist.
Open your mind and consider the evidence, please.
You mention Ken Miller, so lets see what he thinks of this movie:
Trouble ahead for science - The Boston Globe
He points out several of the lies and falsehoods in the film, for example:
Oh dear.
Ad-hominem attacks are never a good form of argument. Especially when untrue.your attitude is just against the very spirit of science.
You perhaps need to look at the scientific evidence, rather than watching blatantly dishonest movies, misrepresenting others and trying to find something that might support your beliefs. Otherwise you run the danger people thinking you are not being scientific. And we wouldn't want that.
You mean the Ken Miller, author of textbooks on evolution?
On his website he has some very good articles pointing out the flaws in creationism/ID and similar non-scientific idiocy. Worth a look.
Kenneth R. Miller - Home Page
Thanks for bringing this up.
For the second time, xxx200 - do you still maintain that the National Geographic video casts doubt on evolution?
And if you admit the Nat Geo videos actually support evolution, will you please remove them from the post. You wouldn't want to mislead people would you?
you know what? you people are as dogmatist as those religious people you oppose. there is no point to talking to you people. you better cling to your dogma. time will show you the truth.
Well we have been collecting evidence supporting Darwin's theory for 159 years now. How much time do you need?
Well, not if you have no evidence, probably not.there is no point to talking to you people.
You are the one who appears to be dogmatically sticking to something which is not supported by evidence (and, in fact, is contradicted by evidence).you better cling to your dogma.
OK much talking....
lets add creationism to evolution and see what happened.
god created the first creature on earth.[i don't know what it is] initially it was simple. then god selects most powerful perfect creatures of that species and cause the creatures evolve and become more complex and perfect. god did it until the last and most complex creature (man) evolves out. then god stops. that's why today we can see many complex creatures and we cannot find the process of evolution happening and also god destroyed the imperfect intermediary creatures(dinosaurs) whose fossils we find today.
now this story fits to the reality, to all fossil records. isn't it?
That is possible. There is no evidence for (or against) it. I'm not sure if any evidence could ever be produced so it is not really science. But if you wish to believe that, I don't really object.
When we have a better understanding of abiogenesis, then I expect this hypothesis to become redundant.
The interesting thing about that is that God appears to have done it in exactly the same way that natural selection would have done. Again, there is no evidence for your "God hypothesis".then god selects most powerful perfect creatures of that species and cause the creatures evolve and become more complex and perfect. god did it until the last and most complex creature (man) evolves out.
The trouble with that is that evolution hasn't stopped. We see it happening all around us.then god stops. that's why today we can see many complex creatures and we cannot find the process of evolution happening
So does the suggestion that invisible pink unicorns created the world five minutes ago complete with ancient looking fossils. Just for a laugh.now this story fits to the reality, to all fossil records. isn't it?
Last edited by Strange; March 1st, 2012 at 08:37 AM.
Its sad to see in the 21st century people still not understand evolution, but then again, it took the church about 400 years to recognize the earth orbits the sun, so I say by 2312 they'll have evolution figured out.
This statement gives the impression you do not understand evolution (at all). Most of matter in the universe is hydrogen gas, why are you not hydrogen gas drifting in space? Why are your atoms and molecules complex? Not God, but the ENVIRONMENT, the atoms in your body were shaped by the environment, if they had drifted outside gravity and density of matter they would still be hydrogen drifting. There is no "first creature" that popped into existence out of nowhere to start evolution from."god created the first creature"
Its not god, its the environment (which the creature is a part of along with others) and there is no "perfect" creature. A typical fish is only relatively adapted to its enviroment, its probably better at swimming than early wobbling life forms, but drop it in a arid desert and it will not survive. It has nothing to do with a divine intervention that purposly kills the fish for mystical reasons, its the environment that happens to be letal for that type of creature adapted to a different environment. On the other end, a sloth cant swim across the atlantic ocean and cross the sahara to get to Noas ark because its not adapted to live in the ocean and in the desert. If you were born in a remote arctic village of inuit culture, odds are you would not beleive in the god you appear to beleive in now, not because his magical powers are less potent but because of the social environment, had you been born in Scandinavian many centuries ago you might think Thor 's causing thunder. If you look at inequality statistics you generally find more crime and social problems in country with more income inequality, not because the Devil is working overtime in Jesusland US than in Norway, but in part because of the social environment."god selects most powerful perfect creatures of that species"
Last edited by icewendigo; March 1st, 2012 at 09:23 AM.
In fairness there are many Christian denominations and other religions that have no problem at all with evolution. It is the fundamentalists of many brands that have the problem.
look nature is not self created. in the beginning, according to science, there was big bang. nature comes after this big bang. so we can infer that nature did not exist before big bang. somebody must have done the big bang and big bang produces the nature. so somebody exists before nature even began.
if this is true, then i think my story is also true.
Why must someone have done it? Because you say so?
Why must there be a before at all? Because you say so?
because you say so ?
so much certainty, so little evidence
Why must there have been a creator? Who created the creator?
could you give an incident/example where something happens without cause?
why not? Because you say so?
why must everything happens randomly, without cause? because you say so?
Because we have never detected a sentient cause to evolution or biological processes and nether have you or anyone else.why must everything happens randomly, without cause? because you say so?
xxx200, for the third time will you now concede that the National Geographic documentary supports the theory of evolution?
If you fail to respond this time I will make a formal protest to the moderators and ask that you be forced to reply on pain of suspension.
i really believe that nat geo documentary does not support evolution. and you sir, you are talking like an inquisitor of the middle age church . well i like that inquisitor spirit of yours a lot. I AM NOT AFRAID OF SUSPENSION sir. i am only afraid of one thing: if all scientist started to behave like you then what will happen to the search of truth.
"since we can't find a cause of something, then there must not be any cause of that thing" this kind of thinking is not only ridiculous but also against the very base of science i.e. cause-effect relationship.Because we have never detected a sentient cause to evolution or biological processes and nether have you or anyone else.why must everything happens randomly, without cause? because you say so?
Hi xxx200, do you think Thor is causing thunder? I guess you do not, because its easier for you to understand the "process" that causes the thunder so unlike a norse person in the antiquity you dont have to cling to the notion that "Someone" is causing the thunder. If a viking was asking "but if Someone(Thor) is not causing the thunder, then Who is?" you might have to say its not who but the combination of properties and the specific local situation (environment) in a given time.
So far, everything we observe follows this principle as opposed to something occurring magically because of an unseen entity. Stars dont pop into existence from nothing, the properties of matter and space cause massive amounts of gas within a given location(density) to move towards the center (gravity) and this matter is part of the environment and dynamically shapes the environment(being both part of and affect by this environment). Since an apple doesnt fall because of the god Gravitor the Merciless, and thunder doesnt happen because of mighty Thor, and stars arent born because of Horus, etc, we can extrapolate that the universe is because of the properties of reality which we still havent figured out completely rather than a deity(which is just shoving the problem in the next doors backyard because you then have to explain who created the god or how come the god that created god came into existence out of nowhere and that is more far-fetched and magical then a 'properties of reality' approach). We havent figured out the mechanisms and process of reality that cause our universe, but evolution is easier to understand and once you do you will not need a who for that anymore than you'll need Thor to understand thunder.
(And if planets orbit the sun following the shape of an ellipse, rather than in the shape of a triangle or the outline of a unicorn, its not because god likes circles more than triangles nor because "someone" is moving them or because there is something magical about the ellipse, but because of the properties(of the universe) and the environment. If you have a ball of water in zero g, if it assumes a ball shape someone doesnt shape the ball because they like this shape but its the result of properties of matter and of the local environment. If a shark and a dolphin and an Ichthyosaurs have similar hydrodynamic features, its not... )
Last edited by icewendigo; March 2nd, 2012 at 09:21 AM.
Does that mean you haven't watched it? Or you couldn't understand it?
i really believe that nat geo documentary does not support evolution.
I doubt that....not only does the film methodically dismantle specific objections to the theory of evolution, but concludes with a unambiguous statements such as:
"For over 140 years, people have attacked Darwin's theory.
....The evidence is so overwhelming that knowledgeable experts now regards the theory of evolution as fact."
That sir was completely unnecessary. John Galt is making a quite reasonable request based on the film you put up and like any member has the right to report what he sees as violations of how we engage in conversations around here. If you don't care to engage in reason-based arguments, or put of evidence of your claims (e.g., where the NG film presented evidence against evolution), than I suggest you find something other than a science forum.and you sir, you are talking like an inquisitor of the middle age church
If all scientists act like me then the search for truth will be enhanced. In a debate of this nature it is essential that important questions be answered. Several people have told you that the NG documentary confirms the truth of evolution. We needed to understand whether or not you accepted that. You avoided answering the question. I don't know why. I hope it wasn't dishonesty.i really believe that nat geo documentary does not support evolution. and you sir, you are talking like an inquisitor of the middle age church . well i like that inquisitor spirit of yours a lot. I AM NOT AFRAID OF SUSPENSION sir. i am only afraid of one thing: if all scientist started to behave like you then what will happen to the search of truth.
Thank you for finally answering. I am sorry I had to issue a threat to get you to respond. That should not have been necessary. You made it so. Do not try to transfer responsibility to me, for your intransigence, rudeness or dishonesty, or whatever the reason for your non-reply was.
you cannot impose one rule over evrything. you GENERALIZE the rule of thunder. this is a common logical fallasy.Hi xxx200, do you think Thor is causing thunder? I guess you do not, because its easier for you to understand the "process" that causes the thunder so unlike a norse person in the antiquity you dont have to cling to the notion that "Someone" is causing the thunder. If a viking was asking "but if Someone(Thor) is not causing the thunder, then Who is?" you might have to say its not who but the combination of properties and the specific local situation (environment) in a given time.
So far, everything we observe follows this principle
or should i say, if a car or plane going in a straight line suddenly take a you turn, it is not the pilot or the driver that prefer u turn over straight line. it is the combination of properties and the specific local situation (environment) in a given time.(And if planets orbit the sun following the shape of an ellipse, rather than in the shape of a triangle or the outline of a unicorn, its not because god likes circles more than triangles nor because "someone" is moving them or because there is something magical about the ellipse, but because of the properties(of the universe) and the environment. If you have a ball of water in zero g, if it assumes a ball shape someone doesnt shape the ball because they like this shape but its the result of properties of matter and of the local environment. If a shark and a dolphin and an Ichthyosaurs have similar hydrodynamic features, its not... )
And if everyone thought like you, we would still be in the Dark Ages.
I generally prefer not to get involved in discussions on this particular topic, however, I do wish to pose a simple question here : what is the evidence not against evolution, but for creationism ? What I mean by that is - has anyone ever actually observed a new species being created, just appearing out of thin air ? Is there such evidence ?
For some reason all I ever see on this is arguments attempting to show how evolution is wrong, but never how creationism is right ! Where is the scientific evidence for that ?
there are evidence in favor of creationism.
1] each time a new and more powerful species of virus causing deadlier diseases are born out of thin air. example: AIDS virus, SARS, ANTHRAX virus etc.they do not evolve. they are created out of thin air.What I mean by that is - has anyone ever actually observed a new species being created, just appearing out of thin air ? Is there such evidence ?For some reason all I ever see on this is arguments attempting to show how evolution is wrong, but never how creationism is right ! Where is the scientific evidence for that ?
2] men and women of any species are joined to procreate the offspring of that species. these offspring do not evolve.they are created. they have creators. example: your parents created you (if you are biological child). i think you do not evolve from your parents. your parents are your creators.
3] genetic engineers create many new species of rice,cereals in their lab. these species of cereals and rice are more powerful. they do not evolve. they are created.
4] big architectures, machinaries, technologies are created by men if you consider them as a factor.
5] Mendel, the father of genetics created many beautiful plants in his garden by crossbreeding among plants. these plants are not evolved.
creationism is everywhere. you see.
now can you give me a very clear cut example of evolution?
Wrong ! None of these are new in the sense of creation. They evolved from earlier forms through evolution. If you look at their genetic material, you can easily determine their genus - for example, the SARS virus belongs to the genus "coronavirus", of which other viruses are also members, sharing a large portion of their genetic material. It is not newly created, but existing material re-ordered with small mutations.1] each time a new and more powerful species of virus causing deadlier diseases are born out of thin air. example: AIDS virus, SARS, ANTHRAX virus etc.they do not evolve. they are created out of thin air.
Evolution is really a function of groups of organisms, not individuals. Species evolve. In any case, I don't know about you, but I haven't been created by my mother and father ! I share a very large portion of their genetic material, and am thus not a newly created being. What I am is the result of their already existing genetic material re-combined in new ways, possibly with small random mutations. I am a product of evolution !2] men and women of any species are joined to procreate the offspring of that species. these offspring do not evolve.they are created. they have creators. example: your parents created you (if you are biological child). i think you do not evolve from your parents. your parents are your creators.
Genetic engineering has nothing to do with natural evolution. Stick to the topic.3] genetic engineers create many new species of rice,cereals in their lab. these species of cereals and rice are more powerful. they do not evolve. they are created.
Again, mechanical engineering has nothing whatsoever to do with natural evolution ???4] big architectures, machinaries, technologies are created by men if you consider them as a factor.
He didn't create anything, he only used already existing genetic material and combined it in new ways. That is not creation.5] Mendel, the father of genetics created many beautiful plants in his garden by crossbreeding among plants. these plants are not evolved.
Not one of the above examples is evidence for creation in any way, shape or form, in fact it is actually quite the opposite. Now, I am asking you again - show me evidence for something newly created, i.e. something that can be shown not to be a re-combination of already existing genetic material ?!
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "evolve"; you seem to have quite an odd defintion. Because those are all examples of some of the processes by which evolution works.
They are all somewhat inaccurate as well. For example:
1) You claim that viruses are created from "thin air". Do you have any evidence for that? Because, as far as I know, we know which earlier pathogens they evolved from.
2) The offspring of parents being different from their parents is exactly what evolution is all about. (See also 5)
3) These new varieties are created as variations of earlier species - sounds like (manually controlled) evolution to me. (Incidentally, the movement of genes between species happens in nature as well and is an important fact in the evolution of some species.)
5) Mendel's cross-breeding experiments were not to create "beautiful" plants but to demonstrate how different characteristics are inherited by the offspring. Again, this is exactly the mechanism by which evolution works. (See 2)
Not really evidence of "creationism".
Unless by "creationism" you mean the generation of new varieties of plants and animals by genetic variation in the offspring. But we already have a name for that process. Guess what it is...
I completely agree with you Strange. All these examples are either not relevant, or in fact evidence for evolution. That was my original point - all living organisms are in some form related, they share much of their genetic material. No new organisms appear that do not contain large portions of already existing genetic material. There are no new creations, only re-combinations of existing material with small mutations. That is evolution.
definitions:
creation = The action or process of bringing something into existence
evolution = The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
so you see in order to be evolution there must be an earlier version available from which the later version gradually evolves out.
no, it is not evolution. do you think a child is gradually developed from his parents? child is brought into existence by its parents. so it is creationism.
well, the following things are creation because there is no earlier version of them available when they are first created:3) These new varieties are created as variations of earlier species - sounds like (manually controlled) evolution to me. (Incidentally, the movement of genes between species happens in nature as well and is an important fact in the evolution of some species.)
television
telephone
wheel
internet
gun powder etc..
well of course they are evidence of creationism.Not really evidence of "creationism".
if you now claim that these varieties of species evolves out from their earlier version, then please answer this question:
how the first creature on the earth comes into existence? from which it evolves out? because there is no creature before it.
source: Google
you are not created by your parents? what's wrong with you? in order to defend evolution you just ignore even your parents? pity on you.
Allow me to jump into the discussion.
Where did you get that from? I don't know of any observational evidence showing any pathogenic entities of any kind ever "popping into thin air". Without evidence, it seems like you're just conjuring up false inferences for the sake of argument.
By the way, did you know viruses are not considered life? Anyway, it's still considered evolution as their is change in genetic material. It always has been evolution (and that applies to any pathogen). Ever heard of bacterial conjugation? What about the term "strain"?
Not only that, this defies the law of the conservation of mass/energy (although a classical idea, it still applies to almost all cases). So good luck fighting modern biology and physics. Are you also going to say babies are also created of thin air? (oh, nevermind, there's #2)
This is obviously irrelevant. I must sincerely say, this logic (or should I say illogic) is too bad to even make an argument against. The same goes for #3, 4, and 5. Should I say this? ... Just because the sense of the word "creation" is used a lot does not rectify any idea involving creation.2] men and women of any species are joined to procreate the offspring of that species. these offspring do not evolve.they are created. they have creators. example: your parents created you (if you are biological child). i think you do not evolve from your parents. your parents are your creators.
Maybe you'll notice how illogical your argument is if I use it for evolution.
Computers haven't always existed. They are, according to you, creation ("because there were no previous versions). Evolution is defined as change (short and simple). Now tell me... Have computers always been the same? No. We now have laptops and desktops and mobile devices with far more advanced features than original computers ever have.
The same goes with TV's, cars, and even ideas. Does this therefore prove the evolution of life? No. It is irrelevance. So neither do your examples of creation rectify the creation of life.
That is not the definition normally used for creationism. In some sense, all new "things" are created whether that is by reproduction, cloning, evolution, etc. So this isn't a very useful definition.
The real question is what are they "created" by: natural processes, human activity, divine intervention? We only have evidence for two of those.
And, if the "something" is populations of living organisms, that isn't a bad description. A bit incomplete but it'll do for the moment.evolution = The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
And, in the case of populations, that is exactly what we see happening.so you see in order to be evolution there must be an earlier version available from which the later version gradually evolves out.
It is not evolution; it part of the process of evolution: you are slightly different from your parents; they were slightly different from theirs; yours will be slightly different from you ... So, the human population develops/changes over time. Just like your definition of evolution.no, it is not evolution. do you think a child is gradually developed from his parents? child is brought into existence by its parents. so it is creationism.
By a process of chemical evolution called "abiogenesis".if you now claim that these varieties of species evolves out from their earlier version, then please answer this question:
how the first creature on the earth comes into existence? from which it evolves out? because there is no creature before it.
As Strange said, abiogenesis. And while we have a theorized natural process, can you tell me where God first comes into existence? From what was He created? Because there is no creator before Him.
xxx200 while I can appreciate your enthusiasm for some of your topics, It just has to be said you are wrong I am afraid on this issue, and you will not get many folk who agree with you either here as this is a science forum. We are now in 2012, theres no room for creationism now except for ignorance, people who are creationists are not interested in science they have a religious mindset, biased by belief, its all from the upbringing, if the bible or Hindu gita, Koran was not written then all these folk would embrace evolution, what they actually have is a form of delusion that is what religion is. No I am not biased I used to think creationism had some merit.
xxx200 what you are doing is scanning the internet looking for anything you can find which you think will dispute evolution, fact is none of these links dispute the fact of evolution. The links which you find just either challenge the role of natural selection in evolution, or the gradualist interpretation.
As I said in another thread, Evolution is a fact, but Darwins theory is not. Darwins theory is just an interpretation of evolution (being gradual and based on natural selection), theres many other interpretations some of which include no natural selection at all, or directed evolution by internal factors. Theres lots of complex stuctures in organisms on earth and I don;t think they came about by random mutation coupled with abit of natural selection at all, but I don't need to resort to metaphysics to put in the gap. Instead we must do science, or atleast attempt to do science and find other mechanism/s which we can observe, test etc. you might want to look up symbiosis of lynn margulis.. margulis has criticised neo-Darwinism, but was still an evolutionist. I think darwin was a fraud and I hate the man he stole all his ideas of lamarck and alfred wallace and others and gave them no respect for it, but I am not ignorant of the fact of evolution, you can be as anti-Darwinian as you like.. that still does not change the fact of evolution. the only people who take creationism seriously are religious folk... in scientific circles creationism is no longer considered, its in the crackpot bin with aliens and reincarnation.
It is not an "interpretation", it is a "theory"; i.e. it is supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has been greatly extended since Darwin's time to include other mechanisms (after all, he didn't know anything about genes so he certainly couldn't know about epigenetics or any of the more recent discoveries).
That is just nonsense, I'm afraid. There is no way he was a fraud. He was an extraordinary diligent observer and recorder. He would spend years just collecting data on a single subject.I think darwin was a fraud and I hate the man he stole all his ideas of lamarck and alfred wallace and others and gave them no respect for it
There is pretty much nothing that he could have stolen from Lamarck as just about everything Lamarck said was wrong (with the exception of evolution itself).
He also didn't steal from Wallace. They were in correspondence and no doubt took inspiration from one another. One of the first articles Darwin published was a joint paper with Wallace. I seem to remember that he was reluctant to be rushed to publish his book because a paper by Wallace was about to be published. And he knew this was about to be published as he passed it on with a recommendation.
But, as you say, it isn't really relevant. You can dislike Darwin and even discard all his work, if you want to. It doesn't make any difference: evolution still happens and we have masses of evidence for the mechanisms.
March 3rd, 2012, 09:35 PM
in evolution there must be a previous stage from which later stage evolves. do you agree? if yes,then read on..
if we go backwards from present day we would find that there was a primordial creature from which all the branches evolve out. the very first creature from which the evolution process is supposed to start. now how this very primordial creature came into existence, because there was no previous stage in its case. it is the very first.
how do you think this very primordial creature came into existence?
That's a different issue. Or should I say... "didn't you watch the film," since it appears you didn't, nor did Darwin to my knowledge speculate about how the first life came to be.how do you think this very primordial creature came into existence?
The idea of a first organism is somewhat of a misnomer anyhow since life is a very fuzzy line somewhere on this side of crystal formation like snow flakes.
I also can't think of a larger handwave than suggesting some being could have started it all--while simultaneous ignoring the origin of that being. If there is a "goddess," that seeded our watery world 3.8 billion years ago, than she evolved somewhere else in the 10 billion years that preceded that point.
No. I am not. Not unless mom or dad turn out to be God on Earth, which would be news to me, after all these years...
Allow me to list the appropriate definitions, taken from Wikipedia :
Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic GodNow, in the light of these definitions, let us take another look at the examples which were raised :Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
1. Human children - clearly the product of a biological process, and under the above definitions to be considered an example of evolution
2. Disease pathogens - once again, a biological process involving successive generations, thus evolution
3. Genetically modified organisms - again, this represents a manual change in genetic material of successive generations of an organism, thus clearly evolution under the above definitions
4. Mechanical engineering - this has nothing to do with the topic on hand
5. Genetically engineered plants - same as (3) above, thus evolution
So far as I can see you have thus far failed to provide any evidence for creationism.
Yes, a child is developed from his parents. Of course it is. As already explained, offspring of any species are a product of their parents' genetic material, possibly with small variations, which is why no child is an exact copy of any of his/her parents. This is evolution. Refer back to the definitions in the previous post, they are quite clear on this point.no, it is not evolution. do you think a child is gradually developed from his parents? child is brought into existence by its parents. so it is creationism.
Yes, I agree.so you see in order to be evolution there must be an earlier version available from which the later version gradually evolves out.
I also agree. These are creations, but none of these has any connection to the topic of this thread. We are talking about biological organisms. Please stick to the discussion topic.well, the following things are creation because there is no earlier version of them available when they are first created:
television
telephone
wheel
internetg
gun powder etc..
A good question, to which I don't have an answer. This is a very complex field of ongoing study, and definitely not my area of expertise; personally I would tend towards abiogenesis as a likely explanation, but at the same time I am of course aware that there is no real evidence in favour or against such a hypothesis.[how the first creature on the earth comes into existence? from which it evolves out? because there is no creature before it.
However, this isn't actually the topic we are talking about - the question I posed to you was if there is any evidence today of creation; has anyone witnessed creation ( as defined in previous post ) happening today ? So far I have not seen any evidence for this provided by yourself, our anyone else for that matter. I say everything we are seeing today in terms of biological processes is perfectly explained by way of evolution; evolution is happening right in front of our eyes.
Yes, I agree.in evolution there must be a previous stage from which later stage evolves. do you agree?
Like I have written in the previous post, I do not have an answer to this question, apart from my personal belief in abiogenesis; but before you even start, I am perfectly aware that there is no hard evidence for that hypothesis. This is basically an unresolved scientific problem.how do you think this very primordial creature came into existence
However, may I remind you again that this issue of how life first came into existence on earth is not the topic of this discussion. The title of this discussion is "Was Darwin Wrong". The answer is simple - no he wasn't. Evolution as a mechanism works perfectly well, even if it can't explain the first link in the chain; but then again, Darwin himself was very clear in stating that his model was never intended in the first place to explain the origin of life, it was only meant to model how life evolved after it came into existence on earth. Let's stick to that.
By a process of chemical evolution called "abiogenesis".
Good point. Even viruses are borderline as far as the definition of "life" goes; refer to the corresponding Wikipedia article :
Turns out that viruses can actually be used as an argument in favour of abiogenesis ?Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life",[56] since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes and evolve by natural selection,[57] and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism, and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell[58] – although bacterial species such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation.[59][60] Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[1]
xxx200, do you understand now?
I cannot say that the evolution of automobiles proves biological evolution just because they both involve change.
And you cannot say that the creation of TV's proves that God created life just because something is being created. Behold! ... irrelevance.
Also, evolution does not deal with how life came into existence. It's about how life gradually changes (especially developing in complexity) over time once it already exists.
Thanx to the OP, time to move this to Trash IMHO. Is that evolution or creationism? The thread has evolved, and continues to create foolishness out of thin air. Who cares...
well it had some promise (sigh)
| « Diploid genes? | Sawfish Swipe Their Snouts Skillfully (Video) » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
