Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Metis1 said:
40.png
Techno2000:
So man tricked random mutations into believing he had fur.
Click to expand...
No one can “trick random mutations”-- at least as far as I know. Mutations happen all the time, and if this were not to be true, then geneticists would be solidly opposed to the basic ToE-- except that they’re rather clearly not.
Click to expand...
If the evolution of man happen in let’s say Alaska, then man would not have lost its fur?
 
Metis1 said:
Why is it that so many people on these message boards believe that the overwhelming number of scientists who specialize in this area are so ignorant, dishonest, or both?
Click to expand...
There are 3 or 4 hardcore “anti-evolution” folks. IMO, they see it (perhaps fearing it) as giving sucour to atheistic positions. Rather than criticize the reasoning of the atheists, they do one or more of;
  • ridicule the theory;
  • deride the scientists;
  • claim a conspiracy to deceive the world
Some are rather more honest and seek out alternative scientific explanations for what the mainstream call evolution.
 
Metis1 said:
Why is it that so many people on these message boards believe that the overwhelming number of scientists who specialize in this area are so ignorant, dishonest, or both?
Click to expand...
This is the most pertinent and disturbing question in the whole thread.
 
Techno2000 said:
If the evolution of man happen in let’s say Alaska, then man would not have lost its fur?
Click to expand...
If polar bear individuals lost their fur or other means to stay warm, would this be a plus or minus for their chances of survival in their habitat?
 
goout said:
40.png
Metis1:
Why is it that so many people on these message boards believe that the overwhelming number of scientists who specialize in this area are so ignorant, dishonest, or both?
Click to expand...
This is the most pertinent and disturbing question in the whole thread.
Click to expand...
No, it’s more like the Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
goout:
40.png
Metis1:
Why is it that so many people on these message boards believe that the overwhelming number of scientists who specialize in this area are so ignorant, dishonest, or both?
Click to expand...
This is the most pertinent and disturbing question in the whole thread.
Click to expand...
No, it’s more like the Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome.
Click to expand...
Yes. Blindness to one’s state is no excuse for ignorance.
If a person has information and the authority of one’s own community to help interpret and think about that information, blindness is no excuse.
I think what St John Paul 2 said is great!
  1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the re-foundation of the Academy, it gives me pleasure to recall the intentions of my predecessor, Pius XI, who wished to bring together around him a chosen group of scholars who could, working with complete freedom, inform the Holy See about the developments in scientific research and thus provide aid for reflections.
To those whom he enjoyed calling the Scientific Senate of the Church, he asked simply this: that they serve the truth. That is the same invitation which I renew today, with the certainty that we can all draw profit from “the fruitfulness of frank dialogue between the Church and science.” (Discourse to the Academy of Sciences, October 28, 1986, #1)
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

At some point it must become scandalous to persist in non-ecclesial proselytizing.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
Techno2000:
If the evolution of man happen in let’s say Alaska, then man would not have lost its fur?
Click to expand...
If polar bear individuals lost their fur or other means to stay warm, would this be a plus or minus for their chances of survival in their habitat?
Click to expand...
minus …
 
Metis1 said:
40.png
goout:
Well, with their minds firmly made up that evolution is a fact, scientists look for “evidence” to support that a priori position.
Click to expand...
Again, that’s simply not at all true. There is no “international scientific conspiracy”-- quite the opposite.

Matter of fact, the basic ToE stands to even just plain old common sense, namely that all matter appears to change over time and genes are made up of matter. The “miracle” would truly be if genes did not evolve because they’d be likely the lone exception.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you ascribed this quote to me!
I take it this was an accident?
 
Rau said:
Excellent. So apply the same principle to your earlier question.
Click to expand...
So, the difference between man coming out furless, and man coming out looking like Werewolves was just a 1000 miles of geographical distinct.
 
Don’t trust Wiki…

Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome

"We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics."
  • and-
Staying 1 strep ahead: Research shows how bacteria keep ahead of vaccines and antibiotics

"If the immune system targets these antigens, then the bacteria can simply change them, like a criminal changing their appearance to evade detection."

Read more at: Staying 1 strep ahead: Research shows how bacteria keep ahead of vaccines and antibiotics
 
Last edited:
How many morpholigcal changes are needed to get from the chimp to human foot?
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
I finally found Denis Noble’s presentation at the Royal Society (Buffalo referred to it earlier), and he does state that organisms do make “A response to the environment that produces an acquired characteristic which is inherited. That is the original definition of one form of Lamarkism.”

It would seem to represent a sea change in our understanding of evolution to suggest that Lamark was right (at least on this particular point). Is this (Noble’s) conclusion one you accept?
Click to expand...
What experiment, verified by other scientists, shows that a characteristic that was acquired though experiences of one organism was inherited by its offspring? I can see many ways such an experiment might be set up incorrectly and give the impression that such inheritance was happening. That is why I ask for one that has been verified by others.
 
Last edited:
Many areas of a hard drive are used for storage and rarely used. But when they are needed the data is fetched. Most hard drives look the same. The programming is the difference. So no, it is no longer a good case for common descent.
 
It is the “embryo problem”. When embryos experience mutations they usually are deformed (birth defects) or do not survive. Changes that happen after maturity do not show up in the successive populations.
 
We do not do science by consensus or authority.

It only takes one scientist with a major finding to overturn an entire paradigm.

This is what is happening now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top