Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hugh_Farey said:
However, I think I detect a note of ignorance in your question, in that you appear to think that falsifiability must involve a practical exercise.
Click to expand...
Yes you are quite right.
I didn’t know how to word it properly but you answered my question. Maybe be you can help me word the question properly.
Now I want the creationists/ID to answer as well. What would it take to completely disprove intelligent design?
 
For me it’s pretty easy I think. I think I’ve gone from 40% convinced to now 60% convinced since being on this thread. It can change again of course.

But if I’m shown the math about it then I reckon I’ll be 80% convinced. But as I mentioned before it’s just so hard to tease out the math easily as a lay person.
 
Are you gonna start a thread for every animal and plant looking for holes in evolutionary theory? 😂 😂 😂 😂
 
ratio1 said:
Why does this disprove evolution?
Click to expand...
Because George Washington cannot be descended from Abraham Lincoln. Fruit Trees are descended from marine life. There was marine life in the Cambrian and there were no fruit trees in the Cambrian.

rossum
 
ratio1 said:
Why does this disprove evolution?
Click to expand...
The earliest fruit yet discovered is from about 65 million years ago, which we might push to 80 million years if further discoveries warrant it, while the earliest marine life is from an order of magnitude earlier. If this were found to be in error, then the biblical account would gain traction.
rossum said:
Fruit Trees are descended from marine life. There was marine life in the Cambrian and there were no fruit trees in the Cambrian.
Click to expand...
ratio1 said:
Marine life evolved into fruit trees?
Click to expand...
The earliest living things were almost certainly aquatic, and probably marine, acquiring the nutrients they needed from the solution in which they lived. As they diversified, some of them acquired the skill of photosynthesis, making complex carbohydrates from air and water using light, and others didn’t. Plants of all kinds descend from these early one-celled photosynthesisers, so yes, fruit trees evolved from marine life. Most of the early marine organisms did not acquire photosynthetic ability, and evolved into animals. Animals did not evolve into plants.
 
Contested Bones

Contested Bones is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology.

This work is unique in that it is the most comprehensive, systematic, and up-to-date book available that critically examines the major claims about the various hominin fossils. Even though the topic is technical, the book is accessible for a broad audience and is reported to be engaging even for nontechnical people.

https://www.contestedbones.org/
 
A language, symbol, map or code that did not come from a mind.
 
Last edited:
If we, as I believe most scientists do, reason from the fact that all life on earth has a common ancestor, then yes. It appears that marine life emerged before terrestrial life (this might not be true, but I think it’s the most accepted hypothesis), and all living things have ancestors, therefore it follows that terrestrial plant and animal life have marine plant and animal ancestors.
 
Last edited:
This requires a tree of life. We now know it is a tangled bush. UCD has failed.
 
Selection doesn’t benefit living animals in their attempts to survive. It means that those which DO survive pass on their (successful) DNA.
 
This article doesn’t help your position as much as you seem to think it does. You might want to read the entire article.
 
I disagree with universal common descent. It’s not verifiable. Yes, different organisms share the same DNA but that is not evidence that they all descended from a common organism. At best, it is a genetic classification system. It is incomplete.
 
No. We are seeing distinct beginnings and then some common descent (CD) from them. UCD is dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top