Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t follow. I don’t think that’s how evolution works (i.e., in a straight line). Things split from a common ancestor.
 
That is precisely what is being marketed here: a concept called evolution. It has zero scientific use. I read the biology journals and all they are doing right now is trying to figure out the human genome. They are having a very hard time with it. They are finding switches that are not only on and off but regulate one or two other functions. There are mRNAs in noncoding regions that have an unexplained influence on coding [for proteins] regions. They are taking apart a very complex machine that uses two digital codes and the codes are going to take a very long time to break because most of the time, direct functional relationships represents a series of processes. So, they are also using the hammer and chisel approach with genetic knock-out experiments on test animals. The concept is crude but relatively simple: “We’ll remove a sequence here or there and see what effect it has on the animal.” If the animal dies, oh well. If it can’t walk anymore - write that down. The problem with this crude approach is vaguely similar to removing parts from a car engine to see how it runs or a line of code from a computer program to see what happens. “Evolutionary biology” is a fake term. No one was there millions of years ago and it involves a great many “likely,” “probably,” “apparently,” and maybe statements. If a person were given a stack of one million documents, how do you sort them or to put it another way, determine their proper relationship with a high degree of certainty. And “radiocarbon dating.”? Please look up the term and its limitations.
 
Last edited:
You know, this is a fun debate to have, but I see why the old forum had a ban on Darwin debates. It always devolves into a flamewar and nobody ever gets anywhere.

I’m Team Darwin, to be a little cheeky, but it’s not really a fight worth having.
 
edwest211 said:
If a person were given a stack of one million documents, how do you sort them or to put it another way, determine their proper relationship with a high degree of certainty.
Click to expand...
Ones that cite other documents came after the documents in question. You can’t cite documents from the future.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why you keep saying evolution has no scientific use. Do you mean by studying it that what we find has no practical use? Or that we wouldn’t gain anything from knowledge that we derive from studying evolution? Are you saying that we shouldn’t pursue this as a topic of scientific inquiry?
 
That’s like asking general relativity to explain why your fridge works or asking a computer scientist to explain gravity.

Darwin didn’t care about how life originated; he was focused on what happened afterwards, so the theory of evolution doesn’t try to answer the question of how life began. It just assumes that it did begin – which it did – and then tries to explain how that life became so varied.
 
buffalo said:
We agree it is fine-tuned?
Click to expand...
Yes, our piano was fine-tuned, though we have since sold it. The universe is fine-tuned for hard vacuum, since 99.9999%of it is hard vacuum. Most of the rest is the intensely hot interior of stars.

A little more clarity on exactly what you are referring to might help here. “It” is not precisely precise, if you get my meaning.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
Click to expand...
And natural selection is only part of evolution. Random mutation provides the creative (name removed by moderator)ut into natural selection.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
How did this life start ?
Click to expand...
We don’t know everything yet, but we do have many ideas. Google ‘abiogenesis’ for the background. Use Google Scholar for a more up-to-date listing of the relevant science papers, though you will need to understand the technical terminology used.

rossum
 
Answer (as you are well aware): We don’t know. There are plenty of ideas out there and science is hard at work. It would be great to be around when the scientific community has got to the stage that it has an explanation that fits the data as well as the theory of evolution fits the data of the abundance of species and their history. Doubt if I’ll live long enough to see it, but I have little doubt that day will come. Meanwhile: we don’t know.

Actually there’s oodles of stuff we don’t know. Just as well, or the splendid excitement of scientific discovery would have to wind down. Don’t expect that to happen.
 
It’s all fairly respectful from what I can see here. I think these are important discussions. Will they be resolved? Unlikely, but still worthwhile.
 
Say for the last 150 years we were studying the design of nature. Who knows what advances would have been made. Now we are - it is called biomimicry.
 
Except the data does not show it. The changes always end up with loss of function. Additional useless wings on a fly does not help the case.
 
But that is precisely why it is so important to have a steady stream of threads to debunk Genesis and turn God into not the Creator. But the being that does not exist.
 
And now we know. The information was breathed in to the first organism with designed programming to vary and still remain what they started as.
 
The fruit fly experiments produced insects with mixed up parts, and that could not survive in the wild.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top