re: A Scientific dissent from Darwin

quote:

---

A theory isn’t an idea? It can certainly be more but for my purposes I said idea.

---

There is a whole lot of controversy over evolution, despite what the naysayers in this thread have to say.

If you look, you can find some very qualified people who question the whole thing, without invoking god, or gods, or aliens, at all.

Whether evolution is a correct theory is still open to debate.

But...

Consider dogs. This isn't an argument for intelligent design. But any breeder can tell you you can induce very significant changes to the nature of a line of dogs with selective breeding. Seems like ten generations is the number I've seen the most.

So I personally don't know what's up with it.

But I can tell you, that if you look, you can find quite a bit of debate about evolution. Not just from those who approach the matter from a religious standpoint, but also from those who think the mechanism couldn't possibly have produced a good bit of what we see around us.

On a related note, there is also a debate about the probability of life arising. Some people have estimated that you couldn't reasonably expect to see it happen during the lifetime of the universe.

Of course space is BIG, and obviously we are here.

But anyway, that classic theory that lightning bolts on the primordial earth formed organic molecules from various elements, and some of thos molecules just randomly collided until one magic day we had a self-replicating molecule is probably wrong.

I read something about how the odds go way up in clays, but it was pretty wonky, something to do with the molecules being confined to a plane within the clay.

Anyway, we aren't going to settle anything here.

You really need to state what unquestioned scientific theory you're talking about vs climate change. Too broad of a brush in that statement. Painting with too broad of a brush however, exposes holes in some chapters of Darwin AND climate change.

I'm open to certain tenets of Darwin and some of the arguments re climate change as long as both aren't left in the hands of those who are dyed green on the left.

JMHO, the reaction against intelligent design is so obvious in the concept and notion itself....That this world and universe could actually be created by the Creator. Funny or not, such a simple declaration causes more emotional responses than intelligent ones.

quote:

---

---

Great example of intelligent design. Humans took shitty arse natural bananas and selectively bred them.

I knew this board is a bit screwy when it comes to science but this is just laughable and pathetic.

There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. It’s of course fine to be skeptical but to be dismissive of evolution as a whole is just lazy ignorance and inexcusable in the internet age.

Take one sliver of the mountain of evidence— the fossil record. Unless you believe that the fossil record is all a fabrication to dismiss intelligent design, it alone provides the evidence that life on this planet has changed drastically over billions of years. Unless the intelligent designer’s method of creation is via evolution the evidence clearly does not favor a singular creation event for life on the planet.

quote:

---

Just look at your hand. The fingers are not all the same length? Why? Each finger is composed of multiple bones. Why not one?

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting theories do not change and cannot be modified because that’s what it sounds like you age suggesting. And being rather insulting as you do so. 

Of course they do... but they get more accurate over time, not less. 

Take the earth... at one point, the prevailing theory was that it was flat, and then the ancient Greeks theorised that it was round. 

---

I particularly like how this idiot contradicts himself in his very first sentence. Lol, talks about how theories only get more accurate over time then mentions how flat earth theory was proved wrong. I'm dying laughing that people think theories are the gold standard and can't be questioned or disproven.

quote:

---

Take one sliver of the mountain of evidence— the fossil record. Unless you believe that the fossil record is all a fabrication to dismiss intelligent design, it alone provides the evidence that life on this planet has changed drastically over billions of years

---

According to Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science that spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, this is false.

quote:

---

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never -seen- in the rocks.

---

LINK

Dr. David M. Raup, another paleontologist from Harvard, also says:

quote:

---

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.

---

LINK

quote:

---

There is a mountain of evidence for evolution.

---

Yes, there is. But is it good evidence and why do evolutionists continue pushing this evidence when it has been disproven?

---

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

---

Most of the "missing link" evidence for evolution of apes into man has been proven to be false. Scientists have also created entire creatures out of a single bone (gigantopithecus, helicoprion). Evolution may be true, but the evidence simply isn't there. Evolutionary scientists have been forcing data into a preconceived box for decades.

quote:

---

Lots of evolutionists are surprisingly agreeable to intelligent design, as long as the intelligence isn’t God.

---

Lots of politicians would vote for wall funding if it wasn't called a wall!

quote:

---

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes.

---

Oh, and FWIW, this is an example of your source/author trying WAY too hard.

Perhaps one can accept that Australopithecus afarensis "was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright" if one ignores differing skull anatomy, differing dental anatomy, differing pelvic anatomy, differing upper extremity anatomy, differing digital anatomy, etc. between A.afarensis and Chimps.



Perhaps one can accept that A.afarensis was a chimpanzee if one oddly focuses solely on inner ear "anatomy" which aside from its isolated irrelevance can only actually be determined in Australopithecines by extrapolation. But that would rate an overall fail in comparative organismal anatomy.

quote:

---

So what you are saying is, that one the most widely unquestioned scientific theories gets debated more honestly than climate change within scientific circles?

---

Which theory is that, the theory of gravity? Certainly you're not referring to the long-contentious theory of evolution.