Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This proves my point that evolution is way too slow to help any animal…out in the wild…in real life.
So Tibetans, Andeans and Ethiopians do not exist, do not live at high altitude and instead live at sea level.

Your logic is very faulty here.

rossum
 
No rush, but if you come across it I’d be grateful. It would be interesting to see how it deals with the gaps in the Biblical chronology.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
This proves my point that evolution is way too slow to help any animal…out in the wild…in real life.
So Tibetans, Andeans and Ethiopians do not exist, do not live at high altitude and instead live at sea level.

Your logic is very faulty here.

rossum
No , the Tibetans, Andeans and Ethiopians have acclimated themselves to this climate.I can not depend on random mutations and evolution to help me survive at that altitude.The theory of evolution will always be a day late and a dollar short… in the real world of survival .
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that what brought most if our parents together was love. Clearly nothing Darwinian about that. Supernatural? If you wish to separate existence in that fashion, where it is intrinsically one, then yes it has all a supernatural origin, then and now.
 
Modern evolution theory has far more in it than what Darwin said, as can be seen by the many comments on this thread. However, the basic concepts of natural selection is right on, and we have many examples that we’ve observed in real life. In fact, Darwin wasn’t the first to suggest this. The earliest on record is a priest named Mendel, who demonstrated it using pea plants. Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia
 
Their ancestors evolved to better acclimatise themselves. Those ancestors children are reaping the benefits.

rossum
 
Their ancestors evolved to better acclimatise themselves. Those ancestors children are reaping the benefits.

rossum
What did the ancestors do, they didn’t reap any benefits of evolution 3,000 years ago .
 
Grafting is mentioned in the Bible. What Gregor Mendel found was already happening, he just codified it.

“Gregor Mendel, through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance. He deduced that genes come in pairs and are inherited as distinct units, one from each parent. Mendel tracked the segregation of parental genes and their appearance in the offspring as dominant or recessive traits.”

Evolutionary theory cannot be applied to anything. Biologists only deal with what’s alive today and the gaps in knowledge are growing. The pea plants weren’t evolving.
 
Last edited:
[satire]

We found another stone with the same markings from site A8923-4. A supercomputer at Caltech just translated it.

“What’s it say?”

'Hungry.

'Homeless

‘Evolution not working fast enough.’
 
40.png
Techno2000:
What did the ancestors do, they didn’t reap any benefits of evolution 3,000 years ago .
The benefit was less frequent deaths during childbirth.

rossum
The point I’m trying make is… evolution and random mutations wouldn’t help me to survive in that environment.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
rossum:
40.png
Techno2000:
What did the ancestors do, they didn’t reap any benefits of evolution 3,000 years ago .
The benefit was less frequent deaths during childbirth.

rossum
The point I’m try make is… evolution and random mutations wouldn’t help me to survive in that environment.
They already have done just that. You are here, aren’t you? You did survive.
I’m here because God put my spirit inside a embryo… no evolution necessary.
 
The point I’m trying make is… evolution and random mutations wouldn’t help me to survive in that environment.
Your uncertain understanding of evolution is on show here. Random mutations are part of evolution, not separate from it.

Some random mutations, though not all of them, would help you survive in that environment: increased lung capacity, increased frequency of breathing, tweaks to the number of of red blood cells, tweaks to haemoglobin. All of those can help compensate for the relative lack of oxygen at high altitude.

Such mutations would be beneficial in a low-oxygen environment and so would tend to spread through a population living in that environment.

At sea level those mutations would be either neutral or mildly deleterious and so would not be spread by natural selection.

Over time, the population living at high altitude would all have those changes.

rossum
 
I’m here because God put my spirit inside a embryo… no evolution necessary.
You are also here because your parents survived long enough to reproduce. Similarly for your grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents etc.

All of those many people for many generations had genes that were good enough to survive and reproduce. Not one failure. Not. One. Failure. That is a very strict filter.

Now extend that strict filter back over billions of generations to the very first life on earth, from which you are descended. Is it any surprise that all living species are successful at surviving and reproducing? They all arise from a long long line of successful survivors and reproducers. Not one failure in all of those billions of generations. Modern species are the living descendants of a very long line of 100% successes. Is it any wonder that they are generally successful?

rossum
 
Some random mutations, though not all of them, would help you survive in that environment: increased lung capacity, increased frequency of breathing, tweaks to the number of of red blood cells, tweaks to haemoglobin. All of those can help compensate for the relative lack of oxygen at high altitude.
If I needed to survive NOW in that high altitude when I needed to the most… evolution and random mutations would fail me. No animal has time to wait around for evolution to help them survive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top