Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Say what you want, mate, but of course be aware that others may judge you by what you say.
 
Well, it could be scientists will be certain they’ve got it right, as far as human life is concerned, anyway, when they discover the first man and first woman were indeed made from trees, even as the Voluspa hints.

Or they could just do the usual boring scientific things: form a hypothesis, see if it accounts for the known data, attempt to find predictions which would falsify the hypothesis; then when everything fits and nothing (so far) has disproved the hypothesis, and no rival hypothesis carries much weight, decide they have, pro tem, the theory. This being an historical science, predictions aren’t so easy to come by, and may take ages to test (as with some modern predictions in physics and astrophysics). But if we have to wait, we have to wait.
 
Bradskii said:
Science deals with the natural world. It doesn’t deal with anything super natural. By definition. Do you understand that statement? Good, we can move on.

If science finds an answer to how something happend, we call that something ‘natural’. From a theistic point of view you can still claim that God made it happen in that particular way. But if that particular way obeyed the laws of science as we understand them (even if, from a theistic perspctive you want to claim that God designed thise laws), we still call it natural.

If Science hasn’t found an answer, it says: ‘We don’t know’. You could then claim that God is the cause, but you are doing that in amy case for the things that happen in a natural way. So you haven’t addd anything different but you are setting yourself up to look foolish if science does come up with a natural answer. God of the gaps as it were.

If science declares that something has happened that definately does not obey natural laws, then they will declare it to be super natural and all those with a deity that they could claim has caused it will be free to argue their case.

Evolution has very many scientific explanations. Much much more than either of us has of even being remotely able to understand even a tiny fraction of it. And that’s on the assumption that we would be interested in learning about it. In your case, that is not the case.
Click to expand...
Do any embryo or a germ occur from scratch? I mean do people can form a new germ by combining and compounding atoms one by one? Or do that can occur by chances now? And why evolution stop?

God acts through laws which we call science. But that science(without God) or any natural force or energy cannot animate! Natural forces or chances or energies have no art and skill!

Faith is not a formula to be proved by maths. Faith is a light which could be conceived by heart but not just by logic. Logic and science support it.
 
rossum said:
40.png
mhmtas63:
And why evolution stop?
Click to expand...
Evolution has not stopped. Poaching is causing elephants to evolve smaller tusks or no tusks at all for one large scale example.

rossum
Click to expand...
So random mutations know about the Poaching situation ?
 
Techno2000 said:
So random mutations know about the Poaching situation ?
Click to expand...
Not in this case. It is an example of evolution by artificial selection. Poachers preferentially shoot elephants with large tusks, because they are more valuable. Hence the genes for large tusks are being removed from the elephants’ gene pool at a higher rate than the genes for small tusks or for no tusks.

rossum
 
This is speculation, a hypothesis, which you are proposing to be fact without any genetic research to back it up.

Those factors that control the expression of specific genes may be at work. In the future, large-tusk elephants may reappear when fighting for a mate or for survival is a more important factor than protection against fire arms.

At any rate this is not evidence for the fundamental beliefs of evolutionary theory which claim that random chemical activity drives diversity in nature and that omit the role of the psyche in any but the very simplest of animals. It’s a circular argument that restates its assumptions as proof that they are true.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
At any rate this is not evidence for the fundamental beliefs of evolutionary theory which claim that random chemical activity drives diversity in nature
Click to expand...
It is precisely such evidence. A change in the environment – the arrival of poachers in significant numbers – drives a change in the DNA of animals living in that environment – fewer genes for large tusks.
Aloysium said:
In the future, large-tusk elephants may reappear when fighting for a mate or for survival is a more important factor than protection against fire arms.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Another change in the environment will drive another change in the DNA of animals in that environment. Evolution tracks changes in the environment and changes DNA to match those changes. In one environment large tusks are deleterious on average and so the genes for large tusks are disappearing from the population. If, later, large tusks become advantageous then those genes will increase in the population.

That is what evolution does: adjusts DNA to fit the environment.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
So random mutations know about the Poaching situation ?
Click to expand...
Not in this case. It is an example of evolution by artificial selection. Poachers preferentially shoot elephants with large tusks, because they are more valuable. Hence the genes for large tusks are being removed from the elephants’ gene pool at a higher rate than the genes for small tusks or for no tusks.

rossum
Click to expand...
So, if man keeps using nail clippers, soon man won’t have nails in the future.
 
Techno2000 said:
So, if man keeps using nail clippers, soon man won’t have nails in the future.
Click to expand...
No. Only if a reasonably large proportion of nail clipper users kill themselves with the clippers, especially if they kill themselves before having any children.

You need to learn the difference between Darwinian inheritance and Lamarckian inheritance. Hint: consider Jewish males and foreskins.

rossum
 
rossum said:
It is an example of evolution by artificial selection.
Click to expand...
Artificial selection is awesome, man wont have to wait 15 million years of getting their wisdom teeth pulled, evolution will make them disappear soon. :roll_eyes:
 
The stories you refer to are incredibly flexible and involve a complex plan that didn’t have a plan. I wouldn’t even write fiction like this.
 
Again, one picture is worth millions of years worth of… It boggles the mind.

Ed

And we now know that dinosaurs tasted like chicken 😉
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Evolution has not stopped. Poaching is causing elephants to evolve smaller tusks or no tusks at all for one large scale example.
Click to expand...
What I mean the evolution between genuses. Why it stopped? Otherwise for instance embryo evolve and that is very usual. And why new embryos do not get formed by chances any more? Because a new alive come into being from a present germ. Why new ones from scratch do not grow any more? Did that stop?

Indeed that never happened by chances. God created all specieses.
 
Macro evolution occurs because of micro evolution. Its inevitable. As long as you accept the existence of micro evolution it does not make sense to deny the potential of macro evolution. The two go hand in hand.
 
Last edited:
Anyone see a problem here?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top