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.
buffalo said:
Coined by Charles Darwin, the term “living fossils” is used to describe living creatures that have stood the test of time — hardy and resilient organisms that have remained largely unchanged for millions of years. Here are some of of the most…
Click to expand...
And don’t forget their great-great-grandfather… Mr. Bacteria 🙂
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Based on this line of reasoning, only a handful of super-fish and super-land mammals would exist today. After all, those with a slight reproductive advantage, plus the evolution of better body parts, would leave all that came before - dead. Either eaten to death or unable to compete for resources as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is amazing that the butterfly ever made it through the crucible of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Let’s not forget the Wollemi Pine. Missing for 200 million years, it was discovered in Australia. Yeah, comet impacts, changes in climate, an ice age, and then that fake word evolution is included in the description. It survived for an unknown period of time. You can even buy one.

http://www.wollemipine.com/aboutwp.php
 
The point is that the change is too incremental to see it happening. And yet baby you didn’t “die out.” Given enough incremental changes, you have become a very different person than you were, and there’s no particular moment at which Baby gave way to Adult.
 
Finding out that an organism we thought was extinct still exists is not evidence against evolution.
 
It sure is. A lot can happen in a million years, much less 200 million. Consider this: no one knows. Supposedly, evolution requires this amount of time to work and what is the earth doing? Its undergoing dynamic change, including the dinosaurs being wiped out. So anything would have to survive a highly dynamic environment for hundreds of millions of years to be around today. Very far-fetched. Too far-fetched. Millions of years is the mystery curtain where evolution happens. Not credible.
 
edwest211 said:
No human being ever has. The false premise is this: Man evolved from a sea creature that evolved from something even more primitive. One very obvious problem is, right now, all of the so-called “earlier forms” exist. Sure, a tiny percentage died out, but from the single cell organism to the human being and everything in between, is alive right now.

Based on this line of reasoning, only a handful of super-fish and super-land mammals would exist today. After all, those with a slight reproductive advantage, plus the evolution of better body parts, would leave all that came before - dead. Either eaten to death or unable to compete for resources as well.

But that is not true.
Click to expand...
The only people who think that should be true are creationists who don’t understand how evolution is supposed to work.

Again, if evolutionary theory predicted something that obviously false, do you think scientists would still take it seriously and devote their careers to exploring it?

Organisms occupy different niches and even entirely different environments. They are not all competing for the same tiny pool of resources.

In cases where such competition does occur, yes, one species can drive out others, either sending them into extinction or forcing them to move (and perhaps adapt/evolve in the process).

But the fact that we have microbes and algae and trees and fish and lizards and cows and humans all at once isn’t a problem. Nor are the earlier creatures on that list the actual “earlier forms” that gave rise to humanity. Today’s bacteria are just as “evolved” for their niche as we are for our several niches. They happen not to have diverged as much from some of our single-celled common ancestors as we have, but they are not the same as those ancestors. They’re not even the same as last decade’s bacteria.
 
So your issue is with the timeframe? You don’t think the fossils we have of older Wollemi pines are actually as old as they seem to be?
 
Evolution is useless. It has no applicable scientific or other use. Niches is an interesting thought but it doesn’t explain anything. As I wrote earlier, scientists have to take apart the genome like it was a mechanical device. Evolution offers no guidance.
 
Definitely not. How much uranium was in the earth after cooling? Let’s look at half-lives:

"The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years. Uranium atoms decay into other atoms, or radionuclides, that are also radioactive and commonly called “decay products.”

The age of the earth is just over 4.5 billion years, supposedly. Yet we still have an unknown quantity of starting uranium compared to what we have today. No answer to this question is available.

How about thorium. It has a half-life that about equals the age of the universe. Really?

“All known thorium isotopes are unstable. The most stable isotope, 232Th, has a half-life of 14.05 billion years, or about the age of the universe; it decays very slowly via alpha decay, starting a decay chain named the thorium series that ends at stable 208Pb.”

Not credible.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
The point is that the change is too incremental to see it happening. And yet baby you didn’t “die out.” Given enough incremental changes, you have become a very different person than you were, and there’s no particular moment at which Baby gave way to Adult.
Click to expand...
Well if you stare at a caterpillar or a tadpole you couldn’t see it change either…what’s your point ?
 
The point is that at no point did any of the things we’re talking about have any requirement to prepare for or match the ending condition. Pre-giraffes weren’t waiting around for their long necks so they could eat leaves, any more than baby you was waiting around to learn how to type (or whatever) in order to make a paycheck.
 
“Hugh_Farey said:
There is very little difference in appearance and style between a children’s “Big Book of Bible Stories” and a “Big Book of Greek Myths” or even the “Big Book of Fairy Stories”, and a bald command to accept that one is true and the others are not is no longer, if it ever was, acceptable.
Click to expand...
Except for the modern sci-fi twist, I think a strong case could be made that the evolution of human beings from space rock and stars, rodents morphing into whales and giraffes and dinosaurs into birds, and other fables in the children’s Big Book of Modern Science and Evolution Theories have an erie resemblance in appearance and thought to the children’s Big Book of Ancient People Mythologies and even a certain commonality with the children’s Big Book of Fairy Tales.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Pre-giraffes weren’t waiting around for their long necks so they could eat leaves, any more than baby you was waiting around to learn how to type (or whatever) in order to make a paycheck.
Click to expand...
There’s no proof that there was Pre-anything, so what’s your point ?
 
Last edited:
There’s a pretty conspicuous absence of giraffes in older fossil samples. In fact, there’s a pretty conspicuous absence of people or even mammals, as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top