Jump to content
Science Forums

Evolution Is A Theory


Vee
 Share

Recommended Posts

The truth is adaption.

All tigers were once white the sun tinted there fur, 421 is a pattern of life we are connected with all species some have different adaptive traits, but all have an exterior and interior. But apes? Sure but all anamalia has distinct similarities. Even the world itself northern hemisphere equator SH Core, scientists are getting to complex when it's actually right in front of em. Oh cats in egypt were foxes they can, detect invisible prey underneath sand/snow life i dnt one species evolving it's one's self compass creating diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Criticisms of Evolution


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell


"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."

Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:

"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/11/2021 at 10:51 PM, Viktor said:

Criticisms of Evolution


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell


"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."

Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:

"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."

Evolution does happen and I can prove it, it is literally fact/law that evolution happens as displayed by the experiment in this video. Wake up and stop believing false stuff.

 

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2022 at 9:14 PM, VictorMedvil said:

Evolution does happen and I can prove it, it is literally fact/law that evolution happens as displayed by the experiment in this video. Wake up and stop believing false stuff.

Yes the Kishony giant Petri dish demo is really cool. 

Edited by OceanBreeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/2/2022 at 8:14 AM, VictorMedvil said:

Evolution does happen and I can prove it, it is literally fact/law that evolution happens as displayed by the experiment in this video. Wake up and stop believing false stuff.

 

 

I'm not sure that's qualifiable as evolution. Bacteria have genus and species. I presume the bacteria in the experiment were able to mate with each other, thus did not undergo speciation, which is a foundational requirement to argue that evolution occurred. It appears the video describes adaptation rather than evolution. When relating to something called "The Endangered Species Act," the issue with The Endangered Species Act is that the animal is (allegedly) having difficulty reproducing for more of its species to come about. Reproducibility and specificity of mating capability appears to be a foundational aspect of something being considered its own species.

 

What bothers me about the theory of evolution is why evolution would lead to more complex life-forms rather than entropy working on satisfying the death drive (Freudian psychology) in working on making life forms that die (dead for good) faster.

When you think of universe as a block (block universe theory, supported by the theory of special relativity), then you consider it's a universe with no free will, thus leading to a lock-in physical self. No free will, no ability to interact with reality... seems very depressing making "living" beings slaves/tools of reality to experience its up's and down's until death. A mindless existence, I feel.

Yes, evolution is a theory. My problem with the theory relates to the concept of "death drive." Maybe the term is "destrado"/destrudo or "mortido." I don't really remember.

Edited by dennisfrancisblewett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dennisfrancisblewett said:

 

I'm not sure that's qualifiable as evolution. Bacteria have genus and species. I presume the bacteria in the experiment were able to mate with each other, thus did not undergo speciation, which is a foundational requirement to argue that evolution occurred. It appears the video describes adaptation rather than evolution. When relating to something called "The Endangered Species Act," the issue with The Endangered Species Act is that the animal is (allegedly) having difficulty reproducing for more of its species to come about. Reproducibility and specificity of mating capability appears to be a foundational aspect of something being considered its own species.

 

What bothers me about the theory of evolution is why evolution would lead to more complex life-forms rather than entropy working on satisfying the death drive (Freudian psychology) in working on making life forms that die (dead for good) faster.

When you think of universe as a block (block universe theory, supported by the theory of special relativity), then you consider it's a universe with no free will, thus leading to a lock-in physical self. No free will, no ability to interact with reality... seems very depressing making "living" beings slaves/tools of reality to experience its up's and down's until death. A mindless existence, I feel.

Yes, evolution is a theory. My problem with the theory relates to the concept of "death drive." Maybe the term is "destrado"/destrudo or "mortido." I don't really remember.

Adaptation is evolution.

"In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection."

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 1/19/2022 at 4:19 PM, dennisfrancisblewett said:

The main characteristic relating, in general, to reproductivity: Speciation.

Not sure I really want to get involved in this discussion, but I think there are two questions that have to be separated:

(1) Is evolution by natural selection the origin of the species we see around us now, and in the fossil record?  That was Darwin's idea and it is the unifying principle of modern biology (to the extent there is one)

(2) Does evolution happen sometimes?  Here "evolution" can refer to everything from evolution of populations of organisms to computer algorithms that employ a form of selection to optimize something.

The answer to (2) is indisputably "yes".  The answer to (1) is "yes" as well but there's much more room for argument because it's a statement about the past.  As for entropy and the second law, the fact that (2) happens immediately tells you that evolution is consistent with the laws of physics, so you cannot object to (1) on those grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 12/11/2021 at 9:49 PM, Viktor said:

The title is "A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM" but in the opening paragraph it says "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinism should be encouraged".  That is hardly a dissent!   Careful examination of the evidence for anything should be encouraged!

Also, "Darwinism" is NOT the same as evolution- it is one possible means of evolution.  Many scientists on that list disagree on some minor points with Darwin but support evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...