Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, and the same thing applies.

As more members of the species have long (heavy) necks, those with stronger chests and thicker vertebrae will have a better chance to stay healthy and to reproduce.
 
No. It is the need to survive Now which drives evolution. Those which can, reproduce. Those which can’t, have a reduced chance to reproduce (either through death or through failure to be selected for mating).

If there were only short-necked 4-legged animals, and the only food source suddenly become 50-foot-tall trees, there wouldn’t be evolution. There would be immediate extinction.
 
Nope. In times of shortage where leaves are the best food source, those animals which are best at reaching leaves will have a better chance to survive and reproduce.
 
Last edited:
Accept for the fact that scientists can identify the mechanisms involved in evolution and ID relies purely on assumptions.
 
Last edited:
I’m talking about shortages of food-- either due to weather changes or to increased competition.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Isn’t it obvious!! I mean - hands down - the most ridiculous idea imaginable. I couldn’t build that nest. It has to have the right shape, the right internal spec.s, and interlocking materials to make sure it doesn’t fall apart.
Click to expand...
All you are showing is your lack of imagination.
 
IWantGod said:
Leaving God out of the science class room is acceptable, because when we do science we are looking for natural causes, not ontological causes…
Click to expand...
Then materialistic metaphysics (aka theory of evolution, which is a distortion of science) should also be left out of the classroom.
 
Pre-humans were just ape variants, meaning animals. There is no evidence for pre-humans, just assumptions. Yes, I’ve seen the papers and the obvious bias.
 
You can believe that if you want. But the first humans had to eat right away. No waiting.
 
I’m seeing way too much imagination and assumptions. I have to come up with fiction on the fly, and using evolution as a storytelling mechanism, literally anything is possible. But I know my readers are smarter than that so I present only plausible scenarios not “whatever story a scientist can imagine must be the real, actual answer.” Give me a break.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top