Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Darwin's theory
Comments
-
This thread reminds me of a line from Coetzee's novel Disgrace: They circle around him like hunters who have cornered a strange beast and do not know how to finish it off.
"Bearing him in his arms like a lamb, he re-enters the surgery. 'I thought you would save him for another week.' says Bev Shaw.
'Are you giving him up?'
'Yes, I am giving him up.' "
A sledgehammer.0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.
Nor does it claim to.
Do..do you even know what science is?0 -
They won't do that ... it would be against their (Atheist) religion!!:)
... see what I mean...Just like most Atheists, they probably wouldn't do it ... because it's against their religion.Sounds like how some Evolutionists behave when faced with the evidence for ID.:DScience is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)That is true ... and Evolutionists need to stop doing this.:)I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)
Ah here, you're always acting the crybaby when people are "namecalling" yet you keep throwing out the same horse**** generalising digs at people on here. Grow the **** up.0 -
The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.
The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.
The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.
0 -
This is a depressing thread.0
-
Advertisement
-
The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.
The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.
The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.
"a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene in an event known as the Cambrian explosion. In perhaps as few as 10 million years"
That is a relatively stupid post (Not your fault poster)in consideration of a 10 million year period.
It was an explosion on an evolutionary scale. In reality it was not fast at all, even if generation spans at the time were as long as say 10 years, it is still one million generations.
draw a circle with a compass, perfect right ?
now copy it by hand, now make a copy of that copy by hand, now repeat that 999,998 times. If you still have a hand, there is a possibility that you might be right. I reckon your hand will have degenerated into some sort of claw around that pencil. now do that entire exercise 53 more times (yes 53 x 10 million) That's how long ago, and how quickly we are talking about.
Just because you can't comprehend the scale, or the speed of movement, does not mean that something is stationary (Nothing is btw) or that it is too large or small.0 -
If you can't make logical evidence-based arguments in favour of Evolution or against Creation ... I guess this is the next best thing!!!:D
Logical evidence based arguments that include vegetarian tyrannosaurs, you mean? And special climate-equalizing clouds? And magical starlight created in transit to the earth?
No, you won't find any of that here...0 -
They're both conventional geologists ... so they both use the same instruments ... its how they interpret the results that differs.:)
And their interpretations differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand?
Right...
I guess if a cop stopped you for speeding there would be no point in him asking you what speed did you think you were doing.
"Sir, what speed do you think you were travelling at?"
"133mm per hour"
"Riiiight. My speed camera has you at 60km/hr"
"It's a matter of interpretation, officer."0 -
-
The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.
The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.
The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.
If you limit yourself to a very simplistic form of archaic Darwinian evolution, and expect all speciation to be gradual as a result, then yeah: that is not backed up by what we can see in the fossil record. At least not all the time. So the version you get taught in primary school is indeed incorrect, or rather it is of limited use to explain what we can see.
We do have some examples of gradual evolution, however. The development of the whale is relatively well documented, for instance. The problem is that once you produce it, detractors simply move the goalpost and demand ever more granular examples.
That said, we do see rapid speciation in the fossil records as well, and for the past seventy years some interesting research has been going on regarding it.
Gould has proposed Punctuated Equilibrium: very simply put, species stay more or less the same until a change in selective pressure occurs, which forces them to change rapidly (from a geological perspective... still millions of years).
Others have pointed out that we actually carry genetic material very similar to that of completely different species... it is just that we regulate them differently. A change in the genetic information that regulates the information in the protein-specifying information would have rather radical results... most of them catastrophic, of course, but some of them could not be and could lead to very swift evolutionary changes. Experiments have shown that by removing the genetic material that suppresses the formation of limbs in the abdomen of fruitflies will lead them to take on a radically different body plan right away.
There is also the fact that while your genetic material is fixed, the way in which this is expressed is not always rigidly determined. Another theory, therefor, is that it is sometimes possible for the phenotype to change first, and for genetic selection to follow.
So perhaps the problem is that we tend to think of genes as single-purpose information carriers, in stead of as replicators of building blocks that can be used in widely different ways, and that we have a predisposition to prefer simple, broad explanations over complex ones.
Deriding a dumbed-down version of evolution is a strawman argument, however, and competing theories until now do not avoid good old Occam's razor to my knowledge: they seem to rely either on unsupported wild speculation, or on special cases where the laws of nature are temporarily suspended.
You yourself seem to favor a sort of Gaia hypothesis, from your earlier comments. The only support I have ever seen for it seems to be arrived at by starting with the idea of a global organizing agency, and then working backwards, emphasizing whatever is compatible with this idea and considering a sufficient amount of this as a compelling reason to assume it is correct.
But perhaps you have some compelling evidence that is not of this nature that you can share?0 -
Advertisement
-
AngryHippie wrote: »"
That is a relatively stupid post (Not your fault poster)in consideration of a 10 million year period.
It was an explosion on an evolutionary scale. In reality it was not fast at all, even if generation spans at the time were as long as say 10 years, it is still one million generations.
draw a circle with a compass, perfect right ?
now copy it by hand, now make a copy of that copy by hand, now repeat that 999,998 times. If you still have a hand, there is a possibility that you might be right. I reckon your hand will have degenerated into some sort of claw around that pencil. now do that entire exercise 53 more times (yes 53 x 10 million) That's how long ago, and how quickly we are talking about.
Just because you can't comprehend the scale, or the speed of movement, does not mean that something is stationary (Nothing is btw) or that it is too large or small.
If the survival advantage is great enough, eventually, all future generations will carry this gene except for members of the species which are isolated from that gene mutation and are not inter-breeding, in which case, we might see the first stages of speciation where the genome of this population starts to diverge from the general population of that species. When the genome becomes so different that members of the two seperated populations are no longer able to breed fertile offspring, then we have completed speciation. At any point before this, it is possible for divergent population groups to re-merge with one another and share any beneficial genetic mutations that one population may have developed that the other has not.0 -
The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.
Why? Because you say so? Because you are merely easily amused? Or beucase you can falsify the theory in some rational way other than simple blanket dismissal and mirth? I am all ears here.The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there.
What is not illogical about it? Or are you merely content to continue with an approach of "Truth by assertion" on the matter?The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain
What are the limitations of which you speak?The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change.
Great, please directly reference the fossils, their names, their dates, and show us how it is "at odds" with the theory exactly. Show us your workings, numbers and evidence for this. Again: All ears here. You have made a direct reference to the fossil record and a direct qualitative point based on it, so I am sure you will have NO ISSUE at all laying out the details evidencing your claim here.0 -
AngryHippie wrote: »"
That is a relatively stupid post (Not your fault poster)in consideration of a 10 million year period.
It was an explosion on an evolutionary scale. In reality it was not fast at all, even if generation spans at the time were as long as say 10 years, it is still one million generations.
draw a circle with a compass, perfect right ?
now copy it by hand, now make a copy of that copy by hand, now repeat that 999,998 times. If you still have a hand, there is a possibility that you might be right. I reckon your hand will have degenerated into some sort of claw around that pencil. now do that entire exercise 53 more times (yes 53 x 10 million) That's how long ago, and how quickly we are talking about.
Just because you can't comprehend the scale, or the speed of movement, does not mean that something is stationary (Nothing is btw) or that it is too large or small.0 -
Squeedily Spooch wrote: »Ah here, you're always acting the crybaby when people are "namecalling" yet you keep throwing out the same horse**** generalising digs at people on here. Grow the **** up.
If J C and catallus's posts aren't enough for a swing of the banhammer, I don't know what are.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
In fairness Wibbs, your question is one for specialists, let's face it. None of those things were even on the Ark. So it's nonsensical in the context of the thread.
And it doesn't need a specialist to see the fundamental differences in skull shape and size between a human walking around today and a Homo Erectus skull. They are very different. And they're just the really obvious, a child could see it differences, there are more and more differences the closer in you get. Behaviourally the differences are large too. No matter what dating scale you care to mention, Homo Erectus were around for a very long time. About four times longer than we have been. Neandertals were around for about twice as long. And for a good while there was an overlap. Modern people today are in the unique position of being the only humans or human like people around. We're alone. For many periods we weren't.The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.
Taking the Cambrian explosion as an example. Precambrian fossil bearing rocks are thin on the ground. Very. And fossils within them rare again. Much of the rocks represent very deep deposition in deep seas where life, even today is rarer and more spread out. Even so there was life in these stygian precambrian depths. The Burgess shales were a freak bit of luck where a volcano dumped squillions of tons of ash onto a warm shallow sea so we get a better idea of an environment where more life was to be found. Those ecosystems didn't appear overnight, the preservation conditions did. Big difference.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.
The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.
The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.
Where have you been? This thread has needed some of your.....
...whatever it is....
....for a while now. Surprised it took you this long to find it!0 -
Well, this thread has certainly made for a depressing interesting read.0
-
SaveOurLyric wrote: »Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.
Unlike creationists, who have staunchly retained astro-physics, biology and geology from the bronze age and see no reason to let actual observation change this tried and tested conceptual framework.
But let us not forget: it is scientists who are dogmatic and unwilling to entertain new concepts.0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »Unlike creationists, who have staunchly retained astro-physics, biology and geology from the bronze age and see no reason to let actual observation change this tried and tested conceptual framework.But let us not forget: it is scientists who are dogmatic and unwilling to entertain new concepts.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »That's a porkie, I'm afraid (unless you meant staunchly retained bronze age astrophysics). Creationists have been unable to convincingly rationalize how light that we can demonstrably show has traveled millions of light years could be younger than 10,000 years old.
Just because you want people to accept your concepts, doesn't mean you've made a case why they should. Don't confuse your own failure as being the intransigence of another.0 -
Advertisement
-
marieholmfan wrote: »Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).
Why not? When evidence is not important the time scale is immaterial. I could argue as JC et al have, and claim creation took place a fortnight last Friday. I'd be just as wrong, but that wouldn't matter as I wouldn't care about the evidence.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That's a porkie, I'm afraid (unless you meant staunchly retained bronze age astrophysics).
Well, yes I do? Say what you want about creationists: once they find an idea they like, they hang on to it come hell or high water (haha) no matter what you can actually observe in reality.Creationists have been unable to convincingly rationalize how light that we can demonstrably show has traveled millions of light years could be younger than 10,000 years old.
JC explains that it is so God can show us how awesome all this universe he created wayyy beyond what we would be able to observe in a 10k year old universe actually is. My take-away from that is: if God spent so much effort to fake evidence to suggest the universe is much older, I ought to oblige Him and believe it is older. I mean, he obviously wants me to: why else create all that fake evidence?Just because you want people to accept your concepts, doesn't mean you've made a case why they should. Don't confuse your own failure as being the intransigence of another.
Naaa - as a resident creationist explains: it is just that astrophysicists do not spend enough time studying the universe as if only what is in the Bible could possibly be true.0 -
marieholmfan wrote: »Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).
So would there be a different apparent age of the universe to, say, cuttlefish?0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »So would there be a different apparent age of the universe to, say, cuttlefish?
Well, dogs have calculated the age of the universe to be approximately 98 billion years.
And this has been confirmed by the one true dog.0 -
The ark. Bloody hell. OK let's imagine the story is true - and bypass the black morality of a supposed loving deity that destroys 99% of its creation - before the ark you would have had these other humans, proto humans. Where did they come in? How did they come about if it was Adam and Eve and their kids and grandkids practising wholesale incest?
The proto-humans were under the water, obviously!
The weight of the water would have changed the shape of the skulls.
As for the morality or otherwise of God's decision, well:
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
It's pretty straightforward stuff, wibbs, come on! :rolleyes:0 -
The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.
The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.
The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.
I realise people have already responded to this video, but I feel I need to throw my own opinion in here as well. Apologies if I cover anything people have already said, I haven't read the posts thoroughly.
Firstly, notice how the man in the first video is introduced as a professor at UC Berkeley. Good credentials, right? Bzzzz, no points for you. He's a law professor. Which doesn't in itself mean he knows nothing about the subject of course, but since he's introduced as a professor, the assumption is that he's a professor in something related to the field he's discussing. Biology, geology, something like that. It's misleading, and I'd guess intentionally so.
His arguments make no sense either. The fossil record has become no more complete since Darwin's time? Bollocks. We unearth more (and I hate using the term but it's a good simplification) 'missing links' all the time. Please, any of you who don't believe this please go and look at some images of human fossils over time. The change over time is there right in front of your eyes if you let yourself see it. If you really don't want to look at the human examples, look at the transitional forms between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods. Theropod dinosaurs and birds. They're just some of the more interesting examples. Acting as if all of evolutionary biology is based on extrapolating from Darwin's finches? More bollocks. There's plenty of anatomical (as I mentioned above) and molecular data supporting evolutionary theory, but of course he doesn't mention this because it would discount his points. He's basing his refutations at a 1st year secondary school, at best model of evolutionary theory. It would be like refuting chemical theories based on the bohr model. I can't quite follow his second point, he seems to be stumbling over words and going off on tangents, but he seems to be implying mutation cannot occur and this is evidenced in the literature (it isn't) and also seems to hint at the idea of 'irreducible complexity' which is proven nonsense.
The second video is worse again. It starts with reasonable, but again oversimplified introduction to evolutionary theory, then proceeds to shit all over it. Arthropods didn't evolve from chordates? Of course they didn't, and no one ever claimed that they did. If you watched these videos taking a shot every time they uttered a logical fallacy, you'd probably need to get your stomach pumped. A phylum is as different as it can be from other phyla? What does that even mean exactly? What about convergent evolution?
The Cambrian explosion talk is also inaccurate. They state that all bodyplans came around at this time, over a very short time period. While it's true that the base bodyplans of most phyla popped up in the fossil record at this time, that doesn't mean they all appeared at that time. Think about it. How many animals that die do so in a location where they would be preserved as fossils? Not too many. And many organisms today have bodies that preserve much more easily than those of the Cambrian. I'm not even sure what they're suggesting. I doubt they even do. Creation occurred in the Cambrian? Then where's the human fossils? :pac:
These pieces of 'evidence' might seem to make sense on first glance, but they're omitting major parts of evolutionary theory just to suit their agenda, and that isn't science.0 -
The weight of the water would have changed the shape of the skulls.13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.0
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
The proto-humans were under the water, obviously!The weight of the water would have changed the shape of the skulls.
As I say I do hope you're not being serious here. Though having engaged with creationists before I suspect you might be. I have found their knowledge of basic science around this area to be scarily lacking. Hence so called "experts" can make up theories that sound plausible to them.As for the morality or otherwise of God's decision, well:
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.he knew beforehand that this would be how it would have turned out. C) Knowing beforehand and allowing that environment to take shape he purposely condemned millions of his beloved humans, men women and children to death(then again he's a prolific enough child killer so...). Never mind all the animals who would be innocents in this. Even to a six year old that's gobsmackingly immoral.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.It's pretty straightforward stuff, wibbs, come on! :rolleyes:Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Lookit, they made a film about it last year with Russell Crowe (it was directed by that guy who wrote swan lake), so he'd know more about it than me, but microscopic species can exist in water as far as I know, anyway.
If you want to get pedantic about the shape of the skulls, most of them wouldn't have sunk to the bottom because skulls have holes in them, so they float.
This has gone really OT, but the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement