Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What choice do they have? “My professor said it’s true…” and his professor before him and his professor before him, etc.

Stay on message.
 
Last edited:
stavros388 said:
Read books by people who don’t necessarily share your creed but who take their science seriously.
Click to expand...
Most posters that are voicing their opinion against Darwinism, take science very seriously. When one thinks about what we are expected to assume, and see it’s absurdity. Evolutionary theory is merely a materialistic “creation” story, making full use of random-of-the-gaps to fill the intellectual craters in its explanation of life in general and humanity in particular, It’s hard to sit by as the nonsense of the modern mythos has free reign in schools and the media, and not say something, even if it just ends there.

One should think how it is that one considers it to be true. How much research has one actually done? On what basis, according to what vision of reality is it “common sense reasoning”.
 
Last edited:
‘science of the gaps’ will lead us to all answers and a form of godhood. Utopia even. But human nature always gets in the way of that.
 
I’ve read that some contemporary biology textbooks still teach Haeckel’s fraud as fact. Considering the evolution cult’s aim to deceive young minds, that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
 
Last edited:
I take it very seriously. I find it fascinating. I read Coyne, everything by Dawkins, Ian Tattersail, Gould, Darwin. I have investigated fairly thoroughly and learning more about biology, evolution, and natural history is one of my favorite hobbies/passions.

Your idea of evolution as merely a materialistic creation story comes across as a projection. I posit that you don’t WANT it to be true because it would threaten the worldview you’ve invested so much in. If you can explain the ever mounting profusion of evidence for evolution by natural selection with a theory that fits said evidence better, what are you waiting for? Get it published and let people carefully consider your rival theory.
 
Last edited:
It ran from 1868 to 1997. Better than a 100 year run and everybody said, “Yep. It’s in a book so it must be real.”?
 
Glark said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If you can say that about a book you know nothing about, I can say thing about all those ID nonsense books. But there is one difference. I have actually read the books I am commenting on,
Click to expand...
Good point, but I suspect books on the “truth” of evolution are pretty much all the same. One thing they all seem to have in common is a disturbing reliance on evolution’s triple-treat - baseless assumption, rank speculation and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
What is bassless is your assumptions about books you have never read.
 
Furthermore, rather than seeing anti-evolutionists sharing rival theories or supporting evidence for these, I instead read a lot of tongue in cheek snark and strawman pounding. This all seems to be predicated on the myth that evolution has merely been cobbled together in some worldwide conspiracy to trick the young into losing faith in God, a notion that is almost as preposterous as a similar myth perpetuated by flat-earthers who assume similar intent from conspiring scientists who want us to believe that we live on a sphere.
 
Please provide a short, say, three item list of things evolution is useful for. That is the core of my argument. Fossils of dead animals is not proof of anything but dead animals.
 
buffalo said:
When the experiments showed the earth does not move, this was unacceptable to Einstein. That is why he limited the speed of light. Lightspeeds above the constant he came up with would prove the earth stationary.
Click to expand...
What is this nonsense? Einstein did not limit the speed of light. The speed of light was measured in 1676, a couple of centuries before Einstein was born. Neither did Einstein invent the notion that the speed of light is always measured the same. The Michaelson-Morley experiment did that in 1887, when Einstein was only eight years old. What nonsense are you talking about?
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
stavros388:
Read books by people who don’t necessarily share your creed but who take their science seriously.
Click to expand...
Most posters that are voicing their opinion against Darwinism, take science very seriously…
Click to expand...
I hardly think refusing to read the books about evolution as a very scientific approach. A scientists looks at the evidence. I read a book on ID suggested by buffalo. He refused to read a book by Coyne that I suggested. Which one of us is behaving like a scientist?
 
As mentioned above, it is useful in the development of antibiotics. Secondly, people value understanding things because humans are, by nature, curious and we like to find out how things work.

A quick Google search turned this up, though: Applications of evolution - Wikipedia
 
Drug development is not aided by evolution, including antibiotics. That is why it is so expensive and takes so much time to reach the end user. There is no predictability involved in antibiotic failure (no, I don’t mean a ‘take all your pills’ regimen). There is no ‘evolution cookbook’ for making the next antibiotic. The problem with all drugs is toxicity. Sure, we can cure most patients now, but if the most likely outcome is death then that drug is rejected as a candidate. That is why mice and other animals are used.
 
MM, glad you brought that up. That is one of experiments repeated hundreds of thousands of times, that showed the earth does not move.
 
In his equations, light, C is a constant and he capped it. Find out why…
 
You came late to this debate. We have covered anti-biotics quite a bit. No, evolution does not help.
 
As I posted, when the book was released I debated the major points over and over. I found it not useful to read it. And since, we have new data.
 
Well how about this, then:

“An appreciation of the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology provides new insights into major diseases and enables an integrated understanding of human biology and medicine. However, there is a lack of awareness of their importance amongst physicians, medical researchers, and educators, all of whom tend to focus on the mechanistic (proximate) basis for disease, excluding consideration of evolutionary (ultimate) reasons. The key principles of evolutionary medicine are that selection acts on fitness, not health or longevity; that our evolutionary history does not cause disease, but rather impacts on our risk of disease in particular environments; and that we are now living in novel environments compared to those in which we evolved. We consider these evolutionary principles in conjunction with population genetics and describe several pathways by which evolutionary processes can affect disease risk. These perspectives provide a more cohesive framework for gaining insights into the determinants of health and disease. Coupled with complementary insights offered by advances in genomic, epigenetic, and developmental biology research, evolutionary perspectives offer an important addition to understanding disease. Further, there are a number of aspects of evolutionary medicine that can add considerably to studies in other domains of contemporary evolutionary studies.”

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How evolutionary principles improve the understanding of human health and disease

An appreciation of the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology provides new insights into major diseases and enables an integrated understanding of human biology and medicine. However, there is a lack of awareness of their importance amongst physicians, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top