Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Imagine all the vestigial organs that would have been left in humans had we paid more attention to design. Only now are we into biomimicry.

Imagine all the lives lost because of “survival of the fittest” thinking.
 
But… Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
 
stavros388 said:
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.
Click to expand...
In other words indoctrination. Where’s the practical value?
 
Oh boy, here we go again. No. Look back through the threads 1 and 2. Plenty there to show how bacteria fight antibiotics. They adapt, communicate and share latent memories. It is rather fascinating.
 
Not convincing at all. As a working editor, I read a lot of words that were vague. People live where they live, including on the street. Plus people move due to job loss or relocation. The average human being is distinct from another. While some respond well to certain drugs, others don’t or not as well. All that verbiage told me was that in a static geographic area, which does not exist, only vague inferences can be drawn. I can avoid public places or get the flu after visiting one. The variables are just that, variable.

“evolutionary biology” can lose the word evolution and simply rely on new findings without the evolution branding.
 
Last edited:
Haha I give up.

Edit: I apologise. Edited for unnecessary rudeness.
 
Last edited:
The data is true, no one here will dispute genetics, quite the contrary, nor that there exist remnants of creatures that lived in the past. The issue is the interpretation, which is a story, materialistic philosophy masquerading as science.
 
Well, you asked how it is practical… Anyway, the title of this thread has little to do with the practical applications of understanding. It is about the truth of evolution. Whether or not you agree with the scientists across various disciplines who find it applicable and of immense importance, it’s still true (according to our best current understanding). And until someone presents a theory that fits all of the evidence better, it remains the best theory. That’s really the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Are you aware of the challenges to evolution?

Royal Society Meeting - Modern Synthesis is Broken

Read a report on the Royal Society Meeting

“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”

“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m surprised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.”

“If you want the definition of the Modern Synthesis, take a look at how Neil deGrasse Tyson explains evolution in the 2014 remake of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series. Tyson, an astrophysicist, is unaware that he is misinformed, as are most in science, academia, government, literature, the arts, and the public by this outmoded theory of evolution.”
“Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
‘No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.’ Noble described how bacterial regulatory
networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to Nind food. Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.’”
“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is “Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority."
“Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism. To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.”

http://www.idvolution.org
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
MM, glad you brought that up. That is one of experiments repeated hundreds of thousands of times, that showed the earth does not move.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. It showed that the measurement of the speed of light in the direction of the rotation of the earth (yes, the earth really does rotate!) is the same as the speed of light measured perpendicular to the rotation of the earth. I don’t know what you mean by “the earth does not move.” Does not move with respect to what?
buffalo said:
In his equations, light, C is a constant and he capped it. Find out why…
Click to expand...
Einstein did not cap it. The speed of light is something you just measure. And it always measures to be the same. That is just a fact.
buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
How could you debate the major points of a book you have not read? How do you even know what the major points of the book are?
 
They are bacteria with features adapted to their environment. Specifically they’ve developed a new physical trait-- resistance to a particular toxic substance.

Do you knot know what evolution is?
 
You have fossils. We have the written word of God. At best, it’s a push-- the evidence could be seen to fit your view or ours. But add the authority of the Lord, and is it really even a question?
 
benjamin1973 said:
You have fossils. We have the written word of God. At best, it’s a push-- the evidence could be seen to fit your view or ours. But add the authority of the Lord, and is it really even a question?
Click to expand...
We have fossils and the written word of God. The two are not mutually exclusive when it comes to the truth. We have to accept both. We have to accept nature as it presents itself and we have to accept God. We cannot close our eyes to the evidence just because it appears contrary to your personal understanding of the bible. Instead we are suppose to grow in our understanding of both the bible and nature, not pit one against the other. Its a red herring to suggest that the theory of natural evolution is either without legitimate scientific evidence or is in principle contrary to the word of God.

To suggest that the reason why animals are changing form over million’s of years is because God is directly and incrementally imposing that form on creatures over millions of years doesn’t make sense of the physical data or the reasoning power of God. We know now that genetics and environment is responsible for those incremental changes and we can see how that accounts for the differences we see in animals living today and animals living millions of years ago. We have the mechanism. Biological adaption is evident. Nature is dynamic.

Intelligent design is a push that is ultimately incoherent and is serving only to undermine the intellectual dignity of both Christians and God.

If God wanted to, God could simply think the entire history of the world into being in one instant, but he wouldn’t because that doesn’t make sense. Why would God need to build or construct anything with that kind of power? It doesn’t make rational sense of God’s creative power. Human-beings build things incrementally because they have to, not God. The idea of building or constructing something out of per-existing materials is only analogous to God’s creative power. It is not the same thing. 6 days of creation and one day of rest is analogous to God’s creative act, it is not history. How we create is all we know, and thats why genesis is written like that… We cannot possibly fully comprehend God’s creative power and what he did to make things real.

God is not bob the builder. I feel embarrassed every-time an intelligent design theorist attempts to defend my faith. Intelligent design as currently presented is an insult to human intelligence, God’s creative power, the education system, and at best it is merely an artifact of William Paley. And now Atheists like Richard Dawkins are walking around feeling pretty intelligent, making lots of money saying God is a delusion because apparently evolution and the bible don’t jive. If you support the intelligent design movement, you are helping the Atheists.

Micheal Behe is better off saying that aliens did it because he is never going to convince me that God did this…


Goblin sharks

www.boredpanda.com

21 More Weird Animals You Didn’t Know Exist

Even if you're a dedicated animal enthusiast, you can't honestly expect to know all of the 1,367,555 non-insect animal species, that are identified on the face of Earth today! Here's a new list of 21 more animals you've most likely never heard of, and probably won't see prancing around your...
www.boredpanda.com www.boredpanda.com
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
You seem to have overlooked the part of the quote that says, “if it be proved with certainty to be false.” Since microbe-man evolution cannot be proven to be true, it cannot prove that creation over six days is false.
Click to expand...
Six day creation 6,000 years ago has been proven with certainty to be false. Anything over 7,000 years old proves it false. Nothing at all to do with biology. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology and archaeology to name but some all prove conclusively that a 6,000 year old universe is false.

You are another one placing obstacles.

rossum
 
benjamin1973 said:
They are bacteria with features adapted to their environment. Specifically they’ve developed a new physical trait-- resistance to a particular toxic substance.
Click to expand...
The phenotype, the final bacterium is different from its progenitor because it has either activated previously silent aspects of its genome or received by means of a plasmid, the genetic material by which it can alter its protein production in order to circumvent the toxic effects of a particular antibiotic. These are traits inherent in the bacteria. Nothing has evolved; they are doing what is in their nature to do. I’m sure this has been discussed during the time that you have participated in this thread, as it has been and will be repeatedly, to address this same issue.

I’ve much more to say, but lengthy posts appear not to be read.
 
If you want to say that early transitional birds “activated” feathers rather than evolving them, then good luck with that. But the fact is that there are dinosaur fossils with feathers.

If you want to say that humans “activated” their big brains, bigger than most other hominids, then good luck with that. But the fact is that we’ve found no evidence of earlier hominids or apes that had “activated” this feature.

If you want to say that early whale ancestors had not yet “activated” their flippers, their top-mounted blowholes, then good luck with that. But the fact is that there are plenty of fossils which show new species appearing throughout the evolution of life.

A lot has been said about those species which are mentioned in the Bible: God made man as man is, God made fish as fish are, God made birds as birds are. But what about dinosaurs? Why didn’t God mention the fact that we were about to dig up many thousands of fossils of huge lizards, some with feathers, that were nowhere to be found on Earth, ever since the historical beginnings of humanity?

Here are the options I can think of:
  1. God is messing with us as a test to see if we will accept the Bible blindly enough to be worth of Heaven.
  2. The people who wrote the Bible, inspired by God or not, were limited in their understanding of physical reality, and so their writings reflect those limitations.
(2) seems to me infinitely more likely than (1). And I should say that (2) does not preclude a Creator God, or a soul, or anything else. It’s just common sense about how we should arrive at an understanding of the world: not by reading the texts of ancient and uneducated desert dwellers, but by the careful observations and sharing of knowledge of a couple hundred years of the best thinkers the world has ever known.
 
Aloysium said:
The phenotype, the final bacterium is different from its progenitor because it has either activated previously silent aspects of its genome or received by means of a plasmid, the genetic material by which it can alter its protein production in order to circumvent the toxic effects of a particular antibiotic. These are traits inherent in the bacteria.
Click to expand...
You have just made a claim about how and why bacteria change. But where is the evidence that this is indeed the right mechanism and not evolution?
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
It’s just common sense about how we should arrive at an understanding of the world: not by reading the texts of ancient and uneducated desert dwellers, but by the careful observations and sharing of knowledge of a couple hundred years of the best thinkers the world has ever known.
Click to expand...
Uneducated desert dwellers, lol - modern mythos revealed in its pretentious glory. I’m not sure how to respond, other than this way; the alternative, simply silence, is the true answer because that’s where it is found. But, how else are you to be advised that you’re looking in the wrong direction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top