Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 48.8%
  • No

    Votes: 14 32.6%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Total voters
    43
I read DArPa article you posted before replying earlier. I worked for some company that made satellite components for them before.

They heavily recruit at MIT and other schools.
 
We should have faith and wait for the transitional fossils like these perhaps

2009_John_van_Wyhe_DarwinvsGod_fig006a.jpg



monkey_0930.jpg



:chrisfreshhah:
 
15 out of the last 23 posts by the same user.

This thread had the potential to generate a good discussion before this mindless spamming!
 
15 out of the last 23 posts by the same user.

This thread had the potential to generate a good discussion before this mindless spamming!

As soon as I posted something, you were in attack and accusatory mode. Instead of addressing what I posted, you were concerned with where I might have copied something from. Care to explain why that is?

Why pretend you are here for a discussion on the subject ? You seem disturbed that some of us view Darwinian evolutionary biology to be pseudoscience and akin to a religious dogma.


Posting silly skeletal images won't cut it. Explain or keep silent.

I will post ten meaningful issues raised against evolutionary biology and a link. Get back to discuss each problem and show the crowd you can stand up for your beliefs in Darwinian Evolution.
 
Last edited:
  1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);
  2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);
  3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);
  4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
  5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);
  6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);
  7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);
  8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);
  9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);
  10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).
Of course, even these “top ten” still just scratch the surface. What would you add?


https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/
 
Last edited:
I encourage everyone here to educate themselves about this subject. Read above sources I posted and material. Study the serious issues Darwinian theory has. The more you know the better.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Random mutation occurs of an individual organism, and the offspring will inherit that mutation. Variation of the trait in their genomes will develop because of the interaction with the environment.

Then population evolves because individuals with certain variants of trait tend to survive and reproduce more than individuals with less successful variants.

It makes sense if you think about it. Very easy and logical.

019ce20bdf71e86872992b04e9771e92.jpg


The picture describes exactly the major flaw in the theory. In the pic above a causal " just-so" story is given as an explanation to account for why giraffes have long necks, from the get go it seems credible enough to explain how giraffes came to have long necks. There are 2 major flaws with that explanation

1. Lack of evidence; there is simply no way of knowing or even proving that it happened that way. It's just a story that depends on the narrator point of view and as you know with any story the narrative changes according to the story- teller. Just ask yourself this why couldn't the giraffes with short necks simply not feed on short trees ? i mean did they simply stand there and wait to die ? animals migrate in search of pasture but the description in the pic above has been constructed so as to only convey the narrative that story teller want us to believe. It's not a factual depiction of what happens in nature.


2. Lack of a viable mechanism; it is assumed that natural selection and random mutation given enough time can be able to account for the biological novelty that we see around us. It's just an unproven hypothesis and most importantly it does not reflect reality of what we know of the above mechanisms. There's a limit to biological changes which is why we don't see the transformation of one species to another but the theory requires one to believe that this isn't true and that there's no limit. So when one engages in debate with the proponents of the theory any debate would prove to be futile as you'll simply be debating about the dogmatic convictions of said proponents instead of actual facts.


To give an example of just how absurd the theory sounds take a look at the explanations given how sexual reproduction and the organs associated with it arose. According to the theory both the female and male reproductive organs supposedly evolved separately but somehow came to complement each other after undergoing their individual changes. Evolution has no foresight no goal nor directions etc but miraculously it's able to achieve features that require foresight goal etc. waa cajib. It makes you wonder how sexually reproducing animals were able to reproduce considering that their reproductive organs were undergoing changes while bearing in mind that the process itself takes ages.



No one has ever observed complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere so why claim otherwise when there's no direct evidence to support it. They believe that the mechanisms of evolution accomplish wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator.
 
No one has ever observed complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere so why claim otherwise when there's no direct evidence to support it. They believe that the mechanisms of evolution accomplish wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator.


This is the bottom line saxib. They make up stories and sell it as science. They are scandalous group of people.

Another example of their discredited claim is the similarity between embryos as proof of the common origin of species. They take advantage of the ignorance of the students and the trust these students place in their academies.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
This is the bottom line saxib. They make up stories and sell it as science. They are scandalous group of people.

Another example of their discredited claim is the similarity between embryos as proof of the common origin of species. They take advantage of the ignorance of the students and the trust these students place in their academies.

Waa ruunta, even if we assume that similarity proves common origin of species how did they establish that it came about due to an unguided mechanism ie NS & RM ? there's no evaluation/testing of the mechanism to see whether or not it's capable of producing the effects the proponents claim it can.

They just believe it can and with time the impossible becomes possible, waa yaab
 
Waa ruunta, even if we assume that similarity proves common origin of species how did they establish that it came about due to an unguided mechanism ie NS & RM ? there's no evaluation/testing of the mechanism to see whether or not it's capable of producing the effects the proponents claim it can.

They just believe it can and with time the impossible becomes possible, waa yaab

Unlike other branches of science where you learn about a law proposed by someone, the theory associated with the law and hypothesis, then the proofs. Examples are Newton's laws, Boyle's law etc. The scientist has a theory of how the law works or should work and the theory gets tested in the lab to produce results that match the hypothesis. Sometimes this process of proving the hypothesis takes very long time. Different individuals in different centuries can add something to the theory. If all succeed to agree, the law is accepted as a fact. A good example is gravity which is a law of nature. We can't touch it or see it but can observe the effects it has on almost everything. Although gravity is called a theory, it is a fact of nature.


I feel sorry for the gullible young students who have no clue about what they are being taught sometimes as facts.
 
Last edited:

Trending

Top