Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ITT:. Someone who doesn’t understand how science works critiques science.
 
Oh, I will. I have them to hand.

I would ask you first to do the same. Show me just one such paper which denies the destruction of the starch composition of wheat from say 1930.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Your picture is in error. Our last common ancestor with chimps is extinct. We are not descended from chimps but from a common ancestral species. Ourselves and chimps are cousins, we are not directly descended from each other.

Whatever source you got that picture from is ignorant of the underlying science. I suggest you avoid that source in future so you can avoid the errors it makes.

rossum
 
Ecclesiastes said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Think about it? Is this not what we would expect if the theory was not valid? Some coincidence, huh?
Click to expand...
You are right @Ecclesiastes to show this picture, an earlier version of which was used to SUPPORT the Darwinists’ position

The Darwinists now say there was a branch off and that we and chimps have a common ancestor and that is why there is no link. They have looked for a link to that “common ancestor” link for 150 years and have found NONE, which is in itself negative evidence against their theory.

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
full disclosure, I am an analytical chemist, food was my area.

i did a lot of analytical work on cereal grains
 
so what exactly do you mean by ’ destruction of starch composition in wheat’ given you said this is an area within your field of expertise.
 
Last edited:
darwins theory never proposed we came from chimps, ever.

thats an interpretation that was very poorly and erroneously made. It caused a lot of shite back then, and still seems prevalent amongst certain uneducated groups
 
Uriel1 said:
Nor has anyone ever seen one species change into another.
Click to expand...
This is false. In fact, nearly every single sentence you wrote is false, and the rest are merely irrelevant quibbles. I’d provide links to prove it, except they’re so easy to find that the fact that you haven’t bothered to find them yourself (or else choose to ignore them) suggests that it would be an unproductive endeavor.

You might want to take to heart what Feynman said about what he called cargo cult science.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Nor has anyone ever seen one species change into another.
Click to expand...
This is false. In fact, nearly every single sentence you wrote is false, and the rest are merely irrelevant quibbles. I’d provide links to prove it, except they’re so easy to find that the fact that you haven’t bothered to find them yourself (or else choose to ignore them) suggests that it would be an unproductive endeavor.

You might want to take to heart what Feynman said about what he called cargo cult science.
Click to expand...
You simply need to show one example of one species becoming another; you can’t because you are a neophyte, and because you can’t you, and all neo-Darwinists, are wrong

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Huxley_-Mans_Place_in_Nature.jpg/300px-Huxley-_Mans_Place_in_Nature.jpg
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
You simply need to show one example of one species becoming another; you can’t because you are a neophyte, and because you can’t you, and all neo-Darwinists, are wrong
Click to expand...
If that’s what you need to keep telling yourself, then go right ahead. It merely demonstrates that I was right about not wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
You simply need to show one example of one species becoming another; you can’t because you are a neophyte, and because you can’t you, and all neo-Darwinists, are wrong
Click to expand...
Oh, I’m not wrong about this. Your belief depends on a faith in abiogenesis. Miller Urey failed, as have all other attempts, to demonstrate abiogenesis. Haekel’s embryo pictures were a fraud, as were Piltsdown and Nebraska man too

You simply cannot show one example of species change and as a neophyte opposed to God, why are you on this site at all?
Click to expand...
 
Uriel1 said:
You simply need to show one example of one species becoming another; you can’t because you are a neophyte, and because you can’t you, and all neo-Darwinists, are wrong
Click to expand...
Generalize much?

Here is just such an example: Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats

Your sources are misinforming you. I suggest that you check everything very carefully before posting it. You would not want to inadvertently propagate falsehoods.

rossum
 
It took millions of years. not something you could see in a lifetime or lab.
 
Uriel1 said:
The theory of evolution is called “a theory” and not a scientific law.

The theory of evolution was not subjected to the scientific method so is not “scientific” per se. It It has never made any prediction which might be verified, other than suggesting in the first edition of Origin that a bear might evolve into a whale like creature 1, but that suggestion was quickly removed from the second edition. Neo-Darwinists have long promised a missing link but only fakes have ever emerged.

Darwin’s “theory” is more of a hypothesis, which remains “not-proven” because the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution states that the complete diversity of life today arose from a single common ancestor which developed from a primordial chemical soup billions of years ago, when no-one was on earth to observe and record it. Nor has anyone ever seen one species change into another.
Genetic homeostasis 1 (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

Nothing from ancient pre-history is observable, repeatable, nor can it be measured.

Darwinism is non observable, so is simply not falsifiable, thus as an explanation for the start of life on earth (abiogenesis), Evolution is not a scientific law, nor a scientific theory, nor a scientific thesis; it is nothing more than a flimsy hypothesis, but which has now become a man-made proto-religion.

So why is it taught as a science using public funds?
Click to expand...
Thanks for that @rossum: which species changed into which species here?
A. None; it was simply an allele change

As God wisely told us in Proverbs 26:5,
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
 
Uriel1 said:
You simply need to show one example of one species becoming another;
Click to expand...
Actually we have already observed one species becoming another in modern times. Do you agree on the definition of a new species as one that is genetically unable to interbreed with the older species?
 
Uriel1 said:
Thanks for that @rossum: which species changed into which species here?
A. None; it was simply an allele change
Click to expand...
You didn’t read the paper, did you. The initial species is Chrysopa carnea. One allele change changed the camouflage, so the new species Chrysopa downesi is better camouflaged in evergreen trees. The other two allele changes moved the breeding season; C. carnea breeds in winter and summer while C. downesi breeds in spring. These two species do not breed in nature since they live in different habitats and breed at different times. Both morphologically and reproductively they are separate species.

What is the point of you asking questions if you do not read the answers you are given?

If you want other examples of speciation, then consult the scientific literature. The earliest documented example I am aware of is in de Vries (1905). You have a lot of science reading to catch up on.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Thanks for that @rossum: which species changed into which species here?
A. None; it was simply an allele change
Click to expand...
You didn’t read the paper, did you. The initial species is Chrysopa carnea. One allele change changed the camouflage, so the new species Chrysopa downesi is better camouflaged in evergreen trees. The other two allele changes moved the breeding season; C. carnea breeds in winter and summer while C. downesi breeds in spring. These two species do not breed in nature since they live in different habitats and breed at different times. Both morphologically and reproductively they are separate species.

What is the point of you asking questions if you do not read the answers you are given?

If you want other examples of speciation, then consult the scientific literature. The earliest documented example I am aware of is in de Vries (1905). You have a lot of science reading to catch up on.

rossum
Click to expand...
As God wisely told us in Proverbs 26:5,
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

You didn’t offer a working link, only a link to the short abstract which led me to believe it was a heterozygote allele change being discussed. That is not a change of species at all; a rat doesn’t become a cat.

It would be perfectly possible to engineer the reverse allele change and revert to the same type

Caritate non ficta
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top