Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And we again must consider that the piano player can play many different tunes on the 88 key piano.
 
I grew up believing evolution happened just because my teachers said so. After opening my eyes to other possibilities, I see how flawed the premise is and how biased the information is. Had it not been for a few here who added some details, I would have not considered a viable alternative. As science, it has no practical value.
 
Their bodies would have to go through a lot more than that. Having studied ‘space medicine,’ there are significant hurdles yet to be overcome for long-term human survival in space or on Mars.
 
If you study the literature, you’ll see that all bacteria and viruses would be gone after a single application of any existing drug but they have a built-in ability to a) in the case of bacteria, exchange bits of genetic material to find the right combination to survive exposure to a toxic substance and b) viruses have the built-in ability to change their outer coat. So, no, that’s not evolution. Scientists have no guidance from evolution regarding what those changes might be.

Cancer cells are complex and drug discovery costs a lot of money. Hundreds of samples of cancerous tissue are exposed to various chemicals to figure out, through trial and error, which ones work, without killing the patient. Evolution provides no guidance. None.
 
No, the answer is to promote atheism. Studying old bones and artifacts is good, but making people believe you came from nothing and will die to nothing, meaning no after-life, means you can do anything you want. Evolutionary psychology means your thoughts, your ability to think, upgraded all by itself over a certain amount of time. The formula: Time X a lot of wishful thinking = automation evolution. Like an unguided missile guiding itself.
 
You’re right, which is why I cited the French Revolution.

“Man is the measure of all things definition. A statement by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras. It is usually interpreted to mean that the individual human being, rather than a god or an unchanging moral law, is the ultimate source of value.”
 
Is this saying that Lamark (not Lysenko) was on to something?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. So how and why did we decide to leave the trees? No particular reason? I don’t buy it.
 
Metis1 said:
40.png
Glark:
Even the village idiot can see that the differences between humans and chimps are much greater than 2%.
Click to expand...
Why the sarcasm? If this is a reflection of your personality, then I have no desire to continue any discussion with you whatsoever.

To your point, just because a difference in the genotype is only 2%, what comes out in the phenotype can appear to be greater. However, with that being said, we are in essence a largely hairless large-brained ape.
Click to expand...
Why did evolution produce fur-less apes ?
 
Ender said:
If this is so then it seems a bit misleading to suggest humans differ little from chimpanzees when the real differences lie in other areas of our DNA that were not considered.
Click to expand...
The manifestation of DNA to form the phenotype is affected by other factors, such as enzymes, hormones, mutations, and environment. One of my close friends has exact twins, they were dna tested and found to be an exact match, and yet one can easily tell them apart today, including they having quite different personalities.

Not only are chimps and humans really quite similar physically, but they’re also similar personality wise, which is undoubtedly one reason why we like watching them. And, as compared to the rest of the animal world, they’re quite intelligent.
 
edwest211 said:
If you study the literature, you’ll see that all bacteria and viruses would be gone after a single application of any existing drug but they have a built-in ability to a) in the case of bacteria, exchange bits of genetic material to find the right combination to survive exposure to a toxic substance and b) viruses have the built-in ability to change their outer coat. So, no, that’s not evolution. Scientists have no guidance from evolution regarding what those changes might be.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true: Viral evolution - Wikipedia
 
Uh… just because? We would use our self-upgrading brains to figure out how to make clothes to keep us warm? For no particular reason? I’ve read more plausible comic books.
 
A biased story is still a biased story. I suggest looking into the drug development process. There is no evolution guide-book to help researchers, just trial and error.
 
edwest211 said:
Interesting. So how and why did we decide to leave the trees? No particular reason? I don’t buy it.
Click to expand...
When the area in the eastern-horn region of Africa became semi-arid due to the elevation around the Rift Valley region, trees began to disappear, savannas began to dominate, thus walking versus tree-climbing became more useful. This was not the only area affected in that region, but this is the area whereas we tend to find the greatest number of early human fossils. At least this is what the evidence is suggesting.
 
Glark said:
40.png
edwest211:
Astronauts that work in space for prolonged periods in zero or near zero gravity experience measurable biological changes that are not good.
Click to expand...
Evenutally, astronauts will evolve the ability to breath in space without any artificial aids. This might come in the form of “space gills”.
Click to expand...
I think NASA would probably like the idea of space gills.Unfortunately they are going to have to wait millions and millions of years for that to happen.
 
And evolution ‘knew’ this was going to happen? I really don’t think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top