Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[mhmtas63]

Evolution has not stopped. Poaching is causing elephants to evolve smaller tusks or no tusks at all for one large scale example.

rossum

Then how evolution explain the male and female elephants? Which one first evolved? The female? Then what got female with child? Or the evolution of male happened by random chances just in very billions details as consistently with female? Hımmmm… The evolution must predict that!

Or how many genuses got formed initially? Only once? Then how did it generate into so many specieses? Or did many genuses occure in the beginning? Then why new ones do not anymore? Yeah… There should be need for million years! But at least we could be able to see some marks. Because we can investigate and observe thousands years. We cannot see any part of revelation wthe are sure the whole evolution is valid! Very scientifically!

 

[PickyPicky]

That’s the same as your nail clippers line, and the answer is the same, too.

 

[edwest211]

Aw, c’mon. You’re ruining everything. Isn’t it obvious that everything just slowly modified from the version on the left to the version on the right? Besides, humans don’t climb trees anymore… oh, wait.

Ed

 

[buffalo]

No - micro evolution is adaptation or variation within. Natural Selection is the conservative mechanism that keeps the organism stable. It is not creative.

 

[Techno2000]

That’s the same as your nail clippers line, and the answer is the same, too.

Right, so the answer is… anything that has ever been… clipped,pruned or amputated can change the course of random mutations. Or does this only apply to Elephants ?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Did the second creature just play in the shallows for few a millions years to get use to the water ?

I wonder how it went from eating grass and berries to eating fish and krill. And somehow it’s hind legs fused together to form a single fin and its nostrils ended up on top of its head. Inventing untestable theories (aka stories) about how these things could have happened is “science”, apparently.

That second creature must have really knew how to dog paddle fast to avoid the sharks all those millions of years.

 

[PickyPicky]

No, the difference is between killing (an elephant) or clipping (a nail). Or did you thing the poachers just clip off the trunk? Killing affects ability to breed, clipping doesn’t; one is relevant to natural selection, the other isn’t.

 

[Techno2000]

Ok you’re right I thought this was about how they cut the horn off Rhinoceros to deter poachers.

 

[Techno2000]

Poachers preferentially shoot elephants with large tusks, because they are more valuable.

This would have more to do with selective breeding than random mutations evolving completely different species.

 

[rossum]

What I mean the evolution between genuses.

I can read what you write, not what you meant to write. You need to take more care to write what you mean, that makes things easier for everyone.

It has not stopped, it is just a lot slower than evolution between species, and even slower than evolution within species. If I observe a blade of grass for five minutes I might come to the conclusion that grass has stopped growing. It hasn’t, it is just that I need to observe it for longer than five minutes.

Why new ones from scratch do not grow any more? Did that stop?

Yes, it stopped after the Great Oxygenation Event, which changed the chemistry of the Earth. Before that already existing life would have eaten any newly arising life: consider a newborn baby against a hungry adult tiger.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Then how evolution explain the male and female elephants?

All mammal species, back to the first mammals, have male and female. Sexual reproduction evolved a very long time before mammals.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This would have more to do with selective breeding than random mutations evolving completely different species.

The “selection” part is always present. The difference is between artificial selection, as with poachers, and natural selection as with most evolution. Either way there is still selection.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

This would have more to do with selective breeding than random mutations evolving completely different species.

The “selection” part is always present. The difference is between artificial selection, as with poachers, and natural selection as with most evolution. Either way there is still selection.

rossum

5 minute of mating does not prove Darwin’s Billions of years of evolution theory.

 

[Rhubarb]

The theory of evolution, as with any theory, aren’t hard cut and dry complete. They are models used to describe and explain natural phenomenon. They can’t be ‘true’ or ‘false’. They can model a phenomenon well, or, not well. They can model it mostly well, or mostly poorly, but I know of no theory that models anything exactly and perfectly correct. There’s always something further, something that needs explaining.

 

[mhmtas63]

Sexual reproduction evolved a very long time before mammals.

Just consider all genus and let’s assume that one organism came into being by random chances. Then how did that organism generate opposite gender? If itself evolved so there would be one gender again.

Can you point a case in which a germ get formed without an initial cause? I think the physical geography and nature is in the most likely conditions for such an event which has not been since the world was being formed.

How much we go back in time we see that all alives are same as biological and physical as just how they are now. Where is evolution?

Alives have life and other senses. So from where do those sense come? From energy? Then why could not human animate anything such like robots or computers? If life come from energy so a young body die. Why could we not be able to animate that body anymore by giving energy? I say: soul exit from body.

 

[Glark]

Lewontin is a distinguished evolutionary biologist.

He is a lettered space-cadet who has wasted his life pursuing a fairy tale, in other words.

To quote him as though he were otherwise is “a hoax”.

In the quote I supplied, Lewontin appears to express serious doubts about the existence of convincing fossil evidence for human evolution. This doesn’t mean he has serious doubts that human evolution occurred. On the contrary, he considers human evolution to be a “fact”.

“It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.”

This passage from Lewontin is a sterling example of gross Darwinist delusion. Firstly, the time-frames Lewontin’s claims are hardly facts.
He then claims it to be a fact that “all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different … (eg.,) humans from nonhumans.” This is nothing like a fact - it is an untestable theory about a process that supposedly began billions of years ago. He even compares this evolution to be as factual as the earth is round. This is patently absurd.
Who does he think he’s talking to - a bunch of gullible five year-olds? Lewontin must have been drunk on the blood of creationists when he penned these stupid, unscientific falsehoods.

 

[Glark]

Even if Darwinism were to be eventually debunked, it wouldn’t stop millions of folks believing in the general theory of evolution - that all life on earth evolved from microbes. The same people who believe Fantasy No. 1 - that life arose naturally from inanimate matter - will also believe in Fantasy No. 2 - evolution, whether or not there are “accepted” scientific explanations.

 

[Glark]

Your lack of knowledge of anatomy is showing. Whale’s legs disappeared, as a snake’s legs did. A whale’s tail evolved from… wait for it… its ancestors’ tail.

If you learned more about the subject you would not make so many egregious errors.

I’m sorry. I guess my lack of imagination and a poor aptitude for fairy tales means I will always struggle with Darwinism.

Incidentally, the snake lost its legs when God cursed the serpent that deceived Eve. “So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life” - Genesis 3:13.

 

[Glark]

Evolution has not stopped.

The Scriptures must be lying when it says God ceased his creative work on the seventh Day. If God used evolution to create, and evolution is still happening, then the creative process hasn’t ceased, but is still in progress.

 

[Glark]

Human and chimp Y chromosomes are very different - Horrendously Different

But the Darwinist propaganda machine doesn’t want the public to know about it because such differences don’t help the “common descent” cause.

(However, it should be noted that chimps actually became astronauts before humans did. Beating humans into space means the chimp mind is possibly more evolved than that of humans.)