Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you are free to stamp your feet and deny that a planet full of scientists are all wrong and that even the leaders of your religion have been hoodwinked - all men and women who are light years ahead of you in scientifc comprehension.

You are a fundamentalist in the true meaning of the term. Just a couple of points along the line from where the flat earthers and alien abductees hang out.

I’d say that you feel that you are standing up for something. And I would suggest that you are unaware of how the rest of the educated world considers your views. Here’s the thing. With very few exceptions, you are effectively ignored.

And when you are not, when someone decides to rail against some backward hick local school council demanding that fundamentalist religious views be tought in a science class, the main reaction is a cross between bemusement and amusement.

That’s right. People either scratch their heads and wonder where in heaven’s name these people are coming from or they have a bit of a ‘did-you-hear-what-that-guy-said’ laugh.

I mean. You really couldn’t make it up. Honestly. What you post passes for satire where I live. Logging on to this thread is like getting my daily Doonesbury hit.
 
Even if Darwinian theory eventually falls flat, this won’t stop some folks believing that human evolved from microbes.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
That part doesn’t make sense where did they come from.
Click to expand...
All life started as chemotrophs. Some chemotrophs evolved to eat other chemotrophs, thus becoming heterotrophs. Given a population of imperfect replicators in a resource-constrained situation then evolution will happen. If the supply of basic chemicals is constrained then there is an advantage to grabbing those chemicals from inside another organism.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
I use science sources primarily as you well know.
Click to expand...
I do not know that. If you think the HGT is a problem for evolution then your sources are grossly misinforming you, so much so that they do not deserve to be called “science” sources. At best they might be “creation science” sources, which do not qualify as science proper but as religion. See Edwards v. Aguillard.

rossum
 
It’s a theory, but it’s the best we’ve got scientifically. But there are some problems I can’t understand.
evolution (by this I mean one species evolve into another species, so bacterial resistance doesn’t count) has never been demonstrated in the laboratory (please correct me if i’m wrong on this)
some will say we don’t have time to observe this.
However if we look at the number of generations an ape need to evolve into humans, we can observe the same number of generations easily in bacteria in the laboratory as each bacteria’s generation is much shorter. However, I never hear scientist reporting that E coli can evolve to become S aureus.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
That part doesn’t make sense where did they come from.
Click to expand...
All life started as chemotrophs. Some chemotrophs evolved to eat other chemotrophs, thus becoming heterotrophs. Given a population of imperfect replicators in a resource-constrained situation then evolution will happen. If the supply of basic chemicals is constrained then there is an advantage to grabbing those chemicals from inside another organism.

rossum
Click to expand...
Chemotrophs are just one small part of God’s interconnected Ecosystem.You can’t just cherry pick one small piece to try an extrapolate and apply this to something that might of happen so-call billions years ago… its pure speculation.
 
Techno2000 said:
Chemotrophs are just one small part of God’s interconnected Ecosystem.You can’t just cherry pick one small piece to try an extrapolate and apply this to something that might of happen so-call billions years ago… its pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Chemotrophs are alive and living today round deep-sea hydrothermal vents. They form the base of ecosystems that do not get their energy from sunlight.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
So,Chemotrophs evolved to eat themselves, even if this was true, that would be the only food source for them.
Click to expand...
What part of “other” in the phrase “other chemotrophs” do you have a problem with?

If a mammal, like a fox, eats another mammal, like a rabbit, is that mammals eating themselves?

You also need to learn the difference between a chemotroph and a heterotroph. Better find some website to explain it to you, obviously I am not pitching my repeated explanations at the correct level. My apologies for that.

rossum
 
rossum said:
If a mammal, like a fox, eats another mammal, like a rabbit, is that mammals eating themselves?
Click to expand...
Again, you use something from God’s established ecosystem to try extrapolate and apply it to your speculations.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
In the beginning there was NOTHING.
Click to expand...
So, according to you, there was a time when God did not exist, since God is not “NOTHING”. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that contrary to Catholic theology?

rossum
 
Darwinism fails on several accounts:
It does not consider the existence of the individual organism with its focus on its material constituents, genetic molecular changes.
It sees as the driving force, merely the electrochemical processes of atoms, which are said to underlie the complexity we find in life.
This is all said to be random.
The shaping of living forms is held to be survival until procreation, when clearly so many factors are involved in mating, both physical and emotional.
It speaks of species, thereby recognizing that they are more than abstractions, in conflict with the idea of this being a purely physical cosmos.
The focus on molecules and species neglects the reality of ecosystems. An individual animal or plant exists solely because it is at the same time, part of a greater whole.

It fails most clearly and completely when we contemplate our own existence:
As I see this screen, pause to collect and connect these thoughts, feel the wonder, and move my thumb over individual letters, one person, the explanatory value of Darwinism is reduced to the infinitesimal. I can understand how the physical structure of the phone, in this setting that contains my still functioning brain, shapes the relationship I have with the material world and unknown persons with whom I am communicating. That material code running on the computer that is my relational Spirit results in this whole, cleaved into bits and pieces of experience while remaining one. All this complexity, to what end but the journey of creature to its Maker. Without God, without any acknowledgement of life’s ultimate purpose, any theory about the creation of the universe, all living beings and mankind, is going around in circles, providing illusion to people hungering for truth.
 
Last edited:
Bacteria have a built-in ability to transfer bits of genetic material between each other, including different types of bacteria. This occurs when bacteria come into contact with a harmful substance. This is not evolution. It is the activation of a pre-existing function of bacteria. Bacteria found “in the wild,” have shown resistance to both natural and manmade antibacterials. The function is called Horizontal Gene Transfer.

Ed

Regarding this thread. What took so long?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top