Oracle wrote:
I don`t believe in it. I am going to post something that someone else wrote on a different forum but I agree with what it says.
Quote:
When Darwin first published his little theory, little existed to prove it or disprove it.
However, one could say that it's been disproven. Personally, I think that it's alive, but only barely.
You see, Darwin proposed and hoped for there to be a sort of "general branching out" kinda thing, with fossils leading into what would be the next evolutionary step...etc. etc.
However, so far, this is not the case. Most of the specimens used to try and prove it have been found to actually be false. And I jest not.
Another of it's weakpoints is it's main ingrediant: time. Time to evolve, that is. So far, as far as humans are concerned, very little evidance that is defiantely, beyond a doubt older then like fifteen thousand years is scarce. Which makes one wonder if there is a "missing link".
The term "missing link" refers to the supposed step between man and ape. So far, this "missing link" is the main thing people point to when arguing against Evolution. As long as no one finds it, Evolution remains a theory. And yes, it is a theory; it is not proven and is not techincally yet Scientific Fact, contrary to what tecahers's may say. (It's considered scientific fact when it's proven...)
By the way, I hope no gets mad. I'm using a debating tone here, not a flaming voice. I can be a lot meaner then this.
On a final note, I am dubios about Darwin's little theory for three reasons:
1. It's a little unlikely, to my lowly mind.
2. It's association with Humanism makes me wary of it.
3. Most of the proof that has been given in recent times has been found severely wanting.
However, we know that Evolution is possible on a small scale. You know, like Adaptations. There's a difference.
awesome. none of your own material.
typical religious nub who is new to the game.
on facebook because of me and like 7 other people smashing arguments, they have closed most religious discussion boards due to people being offended, to be fair, some of the people were really militant and used more attacks then anything else, swearing was pretty heavy there.
Quote:
When Darwin first published his little theory, little existed to prove it or disprove it.
actually, he spent several years aboard the beagle collecting evidence. this evidence was so compelling that he quickly deconverted from his views of a literal translation of genesis in the bible.
from mendel (dunno spelling, he is the father of genetics), he learnt that traits could be inherited and came across the only logical assumption. natural selection.
natural selection would allow positive traits to pass on while negative traits would die out through competition.
over time, it would only be logical that the species would change as the environment changes. eventually becoming completely different.
Quote:
You see, Darwin proposed and hoped for there to be a sort of "general branching out" kinda thing
100% wrong. he knew that traits could be passed on, but back then there was no such thing as DNA or specialized genes.
he merely needed more evidence to concrete his theory. which couldnt possibly be provided at his time.
in other words. he was a genius beyond his time.
Quote:
However, so far, this is not the case. Most of the specimens used to try and prove it have been found to actually be false.
archaeopteryx was a dinosaur with feathers. this showed that dinosaurs had feathers. it wasnt even close to a bird as some would say, in fact it was so useless it was an evolution dead end and its line died out completely without adjusting to the changing environment.
Quote:
Another of it's weakpoints is it's main ingrediant: time. Time to evolve, that is. So far, as far as humans are concerned, very little evidance that is defiantely, beyond a doubt older then like fifteen thousand years is scarce. Which makes one wonder if there is a "missing link".
litaaatilak or something like that. it shows a fish with MASSIVE pectoral fin with muscle spaces enough for it to "walk" if a fish did adapt enough to get onto land, the species filling in such a niche would do it at a pace that no transitional fossils would exist and if such a fossil did exist it would probably be looked warily at rather then with excitement.
you do know what an ecological niche is?
when there is an open niche, species quickly try to fill in this uncontested gap of easy living resulting in survival of the fittest but with a catalyst. this niche can open when there is a vaccuum (ie. no natural predators allowed pigeons to explosively fill urban areas and they become completely cut off from their previous habitat, rock cave things. however they compete with like 3 other bird species showing that an empty niche is really a really full niche)
because the species is in a new niche, it must adapt to change. eventually becoming so different it can no longer naturally conceive offspring with its older diverging species
Quote:
The term "missing link" refers to the supposed step between man and ape. So far, this "missing link" is the main thing people point to when arguing against Evolution. As long as no one finds it, Evolution remains a theory. And yes, it is a theory; it is not proven and is not techincally yet Scientific Fact, contrary to what tecahers's may say. (It's considered scientific fact when it's proven...)
you have no idea what you are talking about.
elementary biology states that a missing link is the organism between two species along the evolutionary line.
see titilaalik or something.
if you really want it, ask again and ill give you the wiki when i find it.
theory? EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE USED TO EXPLAIN A GROUP OF FACTS IS A THEORY
atomic theory?
first it started all atoms were solid spheres, this was accurate at the scientific knowledge at the time.
then it became thompsons plum pudding model
then rutherford got round orbitals
then shrodinger got quantam physics running which quantam theory has 0 proof but is yet to be disproven by current scientific method.
THEORYS CAN CHANGE.
IT IS ACCURATE FOR NOW. WHEN IT IS WRONG YOU CAN CHANGE IT. it is what makes it more accurate then GODDUNIT.
theory of gravity? pfft its just a theory
theory of relativity? pfft einstein is wrong.
theory of atom? pfft wrong
quantam theory? no proof GTFO.
scientific method is wonderful in this way. it allows for accuracy to update.
for now. evolution is 99% correct. overwhelmingly supported by scientists. dont bring this BS up again.
Quote:
On a final note, I am dubios about Darwin's little theory for three reasons:
1. It's a little unlikely, to my lowly mind.
2. It's association with Humanism makes me wary of it.
3. Most of the proof that has been given in recent times has been found severely wanting.
However, we know that Evolution is possible on a small scale. You know, like Adaptations. There's a difference.
your mind is too lowly
humans are animals deal with it, we are specially smart mammals. DEAL WITH IT. WE HAVE ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR DEAL WITH IT
recent proof has shown new species of bacteria.
there is no micro macro evolution.
THERE IS ONLY EVOLUTION
adaptions eventually result in more species through speciesiation.
i suggest you find out what evolution is exactly.
it is the theory of how speciesation occurs.
ORIGIN OF SPECIES by darwin. NOT. ORIGIN OF LIFE. thats abiogenisis
nor. ORIGIN OF MUTATIONS. nor ORIGINS OF PONIES. nor ORIGINS OF TABLES.
origin of species.
notice the hard tone. im getting rid of silly here.
if you wish to continue, bring something that takes longer then 5 minutes for me to make it look stupid
