Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution disproves Darwinism

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 12:48:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I constantly see Creationism vs Evolution, when it should be creationism vs darwinism.

I neither believe in creationism nor darwinism. I do believe in evolution.
The reason why I don't believe in Darwinism, is because evolution disproves darwinism. Although the darwinism is a theory of evolution, actual evolution disproves darwinism. There are other theories of evolution, some which predate darwinism. All of which are also flawed.

The fossiles show rapid evolution, whereas Darwin proposes gradual evolution, through natural selection.

We have yet to find a common starting ancestor for the homo genus, but our earliest known ancestor of the genus is speculated to be H. gautengensis, and the earliest confirmed ancestor is homo antecessor.

Thus the evolutionary path of the homo genus is;

Homo gautengensis (2.5 Ma)
to
Homo antecessor (1.2 Ma)
to
Homo heidelbergensis (600 ka)
to
Homo sapien (200 ka)

We have yet to find bones of more of our ancestors in the homo genus.

It took 1.3 million years to go from gautengensis to antecessor
It took 600 thousand years to go from antecessor to heidelbergensis
It took 400 thousand years to go from heidelbergensis to sapien

this points to an increase in evolutionary growth as we progress, which is contradictory of darwinism, where things are random, due to enviroment.

Since evolution has sped up, we should have seen evolutionary mutations by now, failed or otherwise, in regards to the human race. Since we have not seen this, it is fair to assume there is a spark which forces us to evolve, which we have yet to see.

We have seen many other members of the homo genus which are not ancestors but rather cousins of humans. They are often misrepresented as ancestors, such as homo erectus, and homo neanderthalensis.

The time it took to construct our DNA was also extremely fast to happen by random. It needed to be sparked. For example it would be easier to essemble a jet air plane bya tornado passing through a junk yard, than to randomly form DNA. It's more likely evolution as well as life, did not happen randomly, but rather was triggered, and formed rather rapid.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 8:38:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 12:48:19 AM, DanT wrote:
I constantly see Creationism vs Evolution, when it should be creationism vs darwinism.

I neither believe in creationism nor darwinism. I do believe in evolution.
The reason why I don't believe in Darwinism, is because evolution disproves darwinism. Although the darwinism is a theory of evolution, actual evolution disproves darwinism. There are other theories of evolution, some which predate darwinism. All of which are also flawed.

The fossiles show rapid evolution, whereas Darwin proposes gradual evolution, through natural selection.

"Gradual" versus "rapid" is a relative term. I've read "The Origin of Species" and i do not believe he mentions the speed of evolution. In fact, Darwin had no idea what caused changes in traits. It should be noted also that just because there have been advances in the theory of evolution, this does not negate Darwinism.

Darwinism predates genetics, and in fact genetics and evolutionary science were thought to conflict one another before the two theories became to complement one another.

We have yet to find a common starting ancestor for the homo genus, but our earliest known ancestor of the genus is speculated to be H. gautengensis, and the earliest confirmed ancestor is homo antecessor.

Thus the evolutionary path of the homo genus is;

Homo gautengensis (2.5 Ma)
to
Homo antecessor (1.2 Ma)
to
Homo heidelbergensis (600 ka)
to
Homo sapien (200 ka)

We have yet to find bones of more of our ancestors in the homo genus.

It took 1.3 million years to go from gautengensis to antecessor
It took 600 thousand years to go from antecessor to heidelbergensis
It took 400 thousand years to go from heidelbergensis to sapien

this points to an increase in evolutionary growth as we progress, which is contradictory of darwinism, where things are random, due to enviroment.

This doesn't say anything because this doesn't base anything on the change in genetic material.

Since evolution has sped up, we should have seen evolutionary mutations by now, failed or otherwise, in regards to the human race. Since we have not seen this, it is fair to assume there is a spark which forces us to evolve, which we have yet to see.

You haven't said anything about the pace of genetic mutation or necessarily proven that this negates natural selection. Why do you assume that other factors were necessary. Natural selection just means that those with traits that can adapt to their environment and reproduce are more likely to pass their genes. What part of the above conflicts with the theory?

We have seen many other members of the homo genus which are not ancestors but rather cousins of humans. They are often misrepresented as ancestors, such as homo erectus, and homo neanderthalensis.


The time it took to construct our DNA was also extremely fast to happen by random. It needed to be sparked. For example it would be easier to essemble a jet air plane bya tornado passing through a junk yard, than to randomly form DNA.

Do you have data to support this. Again, this is the genetic view of evolution, which is not necessarily Darwinism. There is actually data to back up theories that rapid mutations can occur:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's more likely evolution as well as life, did not happen randomly, but rather was triggered, and formed rather rapid.

Evolution=/= Origin of life.

The origin of life is still an active field of research.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 11:10:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
this points to an increase in evolutionary growth as we progress, which is contradictory of darwinism, where things are random, due to enviroment.:

I assume you are referring to punctuated equilibrium in reference to evolution "speeding up" (whatever that means), but I'm unclear on what you think Darwinism is if not evolution. Can you expound please?

Since evolution has sped up, we should have seen evolutionary mutations by now, failed or otherwise, in regards to the human race. Since we have not seen this, it is fair to assume there is a spark which forces us to evolve, which we have yet to see.:

We are evolving all the time, which is what accounts for variations in skin tone, eye color, hair color, height, weight, etc. Much of this is due to genetic isolation, others are point mutations that add up over time. Most mutations are imperceptable on the genetic level. It would be like trying to actively watch your fingernails grow. The gradations are so slight, but they build upon each other over time.

The time it took to construct our DNA was also extremely fast to happen by random. It needed to be sparked. For example it would be easier to essemble a jet air plane bya tornado passing through a junk yard, than to randomly form DNA. It's more likely evolution as well as life, did not happen randomly, but rather was triggered, and formed rather rapid.:

What are you basing your opinion on?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work. Some at the time proposed that it could progress in spurts. Evolution is adaptation to environment based upon selection of random variations in traits. It makes sense that a relatively rapid change in the environment of a particular organism would rest in more rapid change.

Each human has an average of 70 genetic mutations. There is a theory that humans have evolved in the past 10,000 years in response to the rise of civilizations. It seems possible to me.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 1:27:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 8:38:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 12:48:19 AM, DanT wrote:
I constantly see Creationism vs Evolution, when it should be creationism vs darwinism.

I neither believe in creationism nor darwinism. I do believe in evolution.
The reason why I don't believe in Darwinism, is because evolution disproves darwinism. Although the darwinism is a theory of evolution, actual evolution disproves darwinism. There are other theories of evolution, some which predate darwinism. All of which are also flawed.

The fossiles show rapid evolution, whereas Darwin proposes gradual evolution, through natural selection.

"Gradual" versus "rapid" is a relative term. I've read "The Origin of Species" and i do not believe he mentions the speed of evolution. In fact, Darwin had no idea what caused changes in traits. It should be noted also that just because there have been advances in the theory of evolution, this does not negate Darwinism.


The 3 points of Darwinism states;

1.) Organisms vary, and these variations are likely inherited by their offspring.
2.) Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive (many do at least).
3.) On the average, offspring that vary strongly in directions favored by the environment will survive and propagate. Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations by natural selection.
http://www.rae.org...

Darwin proposed that the more a species populates the faster it evolves, through natural selective breeding and survival of the fittest. He proposed that the strongest of the species would survive and produce more offspring, thus causing a gradual change.

The problem with this is that scientific studies show random selective breeding doesn't last more than a few generations before reverting back. You need deliberate selective breeding in order to keep the changes. Such as with dog, where the selective breeding is deliberate, and they are not allowed to breed with random dogs, which would revert them back to the original.
http://www.rae.org...

The process of evolution through random selective breeding is slow and gradual, and now has been proven impossible. Once you eliminate this All that is left is "Darwin's theory of extinction", which would agree with.

Darwinism predates genetics, and in fact genetics and evolutionary science were thought to conflict one another before the two theories became to complement one another.

There was a reason Darwinism and Genetics does not agree.

We have yet to find a common starting ancestor for the homo genus, but our earliest known ancestor of the genus is speculated to be H. gautengensis, and the earliest confirmed ancestor is homo antecessor.

Thus the evolutionary path of the homo genus is;

Homo gautengensis (2.5 Ma)
to
Homo antecessor (1.2 Ma)
to
Homo heidelbergensis (600 ka)
to
Homo sapien (200 ka)

We have yet to find bones of more of our ancestors in the homo genus.

It took 1.3 million years to go from gautengensis to antecessor
It took 600 thousand years to go from antecessor to heidelbergensis
It took 400 thousand years to go from heidelbergensis to sapien

this points to an increase in evolutionary growth as we progress, which is contradictory of darwinism, where things are random, due to environment.

This doesn't say anything because this doesn't base anything on the change in genetic material.

Yes it does there is a 1% difference in DNA between heidelbergensis and sapiens. 1% is allot. Mice and humans also have a 1% difference in DNA. The DNA is just expressed differently.
Chimps and humans have a 2% difference in DNA.

Since evolution has sped up, we should have seen evolutionary mutations by now, failed or otherwise, in regards to the human race. Since we have not seen this, it is fair to assume there is a spark which forces us to evolve, which we have yet to see.

You haven't said anything about the pace of genetic mutation or necessarily proven that this negates natural selection.

Yes I have. It took 400 thousand years to go from heidelbergensis to sapien. When evolution is motivated by the need to survive as Darwin suggests than it would take much longer to evolve. Darwin also proposed that the more populated a species is the faster it evolves. We are far more populated than our past evolutions could ever dream of, yet we have yet to evolve into Homo superior.

Why do you assume that other factors were necessary. Natural selection just means that those with traits that can adapt to their environment and reproduce are more likely to pass their genes. What part of the above conflicts with the theory?

Which is gradual, and evolution is not gradual. Further more, random selective breeding is unsustainable. The changes don't last more than a few generations. Unless the population was dieing off at a extremely fast pace random selective breeding would be impossible.

We have seen many other members of the homo genus which are not ancestors but rather cousins of humans. They are often misrepresented as ancestors, such as homo erectus, and homo neanderthalensis.


The time it took to construct our DNA was also extremely fast to happen by random. It needed to be sparked. For example it would be easier to essemble a jet air plane bya tornado passing through a junk yard, than to randomly form DNA.

Do you have data to support this. Again, this is the genetic view of evolution, which is not necessarily Darwinism. There is actually data to back up theories that rapid mutations can occur:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rapid mutations is what I am arguing. Darwin proposed Natural Selection as the driving force behind evolution which is wrong. It may be he driving force behind extinction, but not evolution.

"The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747." ~ astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe

"The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight…." ~ Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colo State U

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution." ~ Dr. Klaus Dose

It's more likely evolution as well as life, did not happen randomly, but rather was triggered, and formed rather rapid.

Evolution=/= Origin of life.

The origin of life is still an active field of research.

But finding out the origin of life can unlock the mysteries behind our evolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.

Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 1:42:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 11:10:45 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
this points to an increase in evolutionary growth as we progress, which is contradictory of darwinism, where things are random, due to enviroment.:

I assume you are referring to punctuated equilibrium in reference to evolution "speeding up" (whatever that means), but I'm unclear on what you think Darwinism is if not evolution. Can you expound please?

Since evolution has sped up, we should have seen evolutionary mutations by now, failed or otherwise, in regards to the human race. Since we have not seen this, it is fair to assume there is a spark which forces us to evolve, which we have yet to see.:

We are evolving all the time, which is what accounts for variations in skin tone, eye color, hair color, height, weight, etc. Much of this is due to genetic isolation, others are point mutations that add up over time. Most mutations are imperceptable on the genetic level. It would be like trying to actively watch your fingernails grow. The gradations are so slight, but they build upon each other over time.

Where are all the new races? If we are constantly evolving, where are the new raes?

It's more likely each race evolved independently, around the same time frame. Many evolutionists have proposed this before, so I'm not the first to believe this.

If evolution is that slow, than explain our previous evolutions, which were faster.

Also Weight differences have nothing to do with evolution

The time it took to construct our DNA was also extremely fast to happen by random. It needed to be sparked. For example it would be easier to essemble a jet air plane bya tornado passing through a junk yard, than to randomly form DNA. It's more likely evolution as well as life, did not happen randomly, but rather was triggered, and formed rather rapid.:

What are you basing your opinion on?

Statistics, and scientific studies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 3:46:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To clarify, Darwin's theory arose from watching different types of fiches on different islands.

Darwin's theory explains that finches that could not live in the environment died. This is a extinction theory, and is correct.
Darwin than further theorized that the need to adapt to the environment allowed for the finches to evolve. This is wrong, and was based on speculation.

For Darwin to be correct about Natural Selection, being the driving force behind evolution, the time it took for humans to evolve would have been much longer. Further more, the environment has changed more in the last 200 thousand years than it did for the transition from 600 ka to 200 ka. So why haven't we evolved yet?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 4:12:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe Evolution is not guided by natural selection, but rather through chemical reactions.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

Specifically, do you mean something happening to germ cells inside living organisms? Something happening to DNA during mitosis? Sunlight mutating the DNA in your skin cells? Epigenetic mutation?

You mention tadpoles. Are you referring to neotonization through "chemical reactions" in the endocrine system?

Or is this about neo-lamarckian epigenetic transfer between generations?

"Chemical reaction" is the biological equivalent of "thingie." You need to be more specific.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.


You mention tadpoles. Are you referring to neotonization through "chemical reactions" in the endocrine system?

There was a study which showed that when tad poles grow up in a cold environment, they thrive in cold, and do bad in warm ponds. But when the same species of tad pole grows up in warm ponds it's the reverse.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.


You mention tadpoles. Are you referring to neotonization through "chemical reactions" in the endocrine system?

There was a study which showed that when tad poles grow up in a cold environment, they thrive in cold, and do bad in warm ponds. But when the same species of tad pole grows up in warm ponds it's the reverse.

What we know from scientific study of DNA in germline cells is that mutation rates can be speeded up or localized in DNA, but there aren't certain actions which lead to a particular mutation.

Instead, you get 1,000 variations, but one of those variations is that particular one you are looking for.

Natural selection culls the 999 so that the phenotype effects of the 1 increases over generations.

As to your example with tadpoles, that's simply an example of good evolutionary mutations. First, understand that heat during pregnancy is much more significant for reptiles/amphibians than humans. In alligators, heat can determine the GENDER of the offspring.

That said, it shouldn't be too surprising to learn that tadpoles gestating in a cold environment may develop differently from tadpoles gestating in warm environments. In fact, we would predict that the most evolutionarily successful species of tadpole would be one whose trait development are more sensitive to initial environmental conditions.

I think you may be confusing epigenetics information transfer with genetic information transfer. Take a quick look at the article below, is this the kind of "chemical reaction" you mean?

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 5:57:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.

Bottom line, it disproves Darwinism, and we need to revisit the topic, and find the true cause of evolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 6:11:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 5:57:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.

Bottom line, it disproves Darwinism, and we need to revisit the topic, and find the true cause of evolution.

Epigenetics has been a well-accepted part of evolutionary theory for nearly three decades.

You're a little late to be claiming it "disproves" what we know of evolutionary theory.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 6:25:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 6:11:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:57:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.

Bottom line, it disproves Darwinism, and we need to revisit the topic, and find the true cause of evolution.

Epigenetics has been a well-accepted part of evolutionary theory for nearly three decades.

You're a little late to be claiming it "disproves" what we know of evolutionary theory.

I said it disproves Darwinism.

Darwinism proposes that natural selection causes evolution, through selective breeding of those that are most likely to survive. Science points to a must faster pace of evolution, which disproves Darwinism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 6:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 6:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:11:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:57:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.

Bottom line, it disproves Darwinism, and we need to revisit the topic, and find the true cause of evolution.

Epigenetics has been a well-accepted part of evolutionary theory for nearly three decades.

You're a little late to be claiming it "disproves" what we know of evolutionary theory.

I said it disproves Darwinism.

Darwinism proposes that natural selection causes evolution, through selective breeding of those that are most likely to survive. Science points to a must faster pace of evolution, which disproves Darwinism.

Natural selection acts upon epigenetic variation just like natural selection acts upon genetic variation.

Epigenetics influence the variety of mutations and the effect the environment has on mutations.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on epigenetics if you think it can single-handedly drive evolution or even act independently of natural selection over generations. We're talking about the methylation order of existing DNA strands.

Those who take a simplistic, high school biology textbook view of evolutionary theory might think that the caveats of epigenetic information transfer poses some sort of unbeatable problem.

I highly suggest this book if you want a more up to date understanding of Evolutionary Theory:

http://www.amazon.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 6:55:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 6:38:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:11:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:57:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.

Bottom line, it disproves Darwinism, and we need to revisit the topic, and find the true cause of evolution.

Epigenetics has been a well-accepted part of evolutionary theory for nearly three decades.

You're a little late to be claiming it "disproves" what we know of evolutionary theory.

I said it disproves Darwinism.

Darwinism proposes that natural selection causes evolution, through selective breeding of those that are most likely to survive. Science points to a must faster pace of evolution, which disproves Darwinism.

Natural selection acts upon epigenetic variation just like natural selection acts upon genetic variation.

Epigenetics influence the variety of mutations and the effect the environment has on mutations.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on epigenetics if you think it can single-handedly drive evolution or even act independently of natural selection over generations. We're talking about the methylation order of existing DNA strands.

Those who take a simplistic, high school biology textbook view of evolutionary theory might think that the caveats of epigenetic information transfer poses some sort of unbeatable problem.

I highly suggest this book if you want a more up to date understanding of Evolutionary Theory:

http://www.amazon.com...

The description of the book says;
"Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations."

Are you talking about Darwinism or a tweaked NeoDarwinian theory? If you are not talking about Darwin's theories, but someone else's tweaked version of Darwinism, than you are speaking of NeoDarwinism, not actual Darwinism, and we are discussing two very different topics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 10:01:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 6:55:30 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:38:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:11:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:57:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:52:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:29:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 5:07:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:30:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 4:15:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 3:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 2:14:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/2/2011 1:36:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 11:35:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Darwinism" is not a defined concept, so discussion is unfounded.

At the time Darwin proposed Evolution, there was discussion of how fast the process could work.


Darwin didn't propose evolution. Evolution came before Darwin. Darwin proposed evolution was driven by natural selection.

Evolution does not = Darwinism

This misconception is starting to really piss me off. It's as if no one studies history.

Evolution came 1,000 year before Darwinism and was a common concept before he was born. Even though opposed by the church.
http://www.decodingtheheavens.com...

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600's by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

The 18th century was riddled with various theories of evolution. Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a 18th century evolutionist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Darwin wasn't the first one to theorize about it, but he did solidify the theory.

So do you not agree with natural selection?

Darwin didn't solidify it, he simply proposed a better theory than the previous ones. This does not mean he is right, and we should not settle on his theory. New theories should be formed, as Darwin's theory is outdated, and highly flawed.

Change it to Darwin's theory of Extinction and I'll agree with it. Natural Selection does not explain evolution, and raises more questions than answers when compared to what we know today.
We should revisit the cause of evolution, and form a new theory which better explains evolution.

Then explain to me why animals are perfectly adapted to their environment If it were not for natural selection. To state that natural selection is not occurring, is to state that evolution occurs independent of environment.

studies on species which are introduced into environments that they are not native to, shows that they Rapidly evolve. This points to rapid evolution through chemical reactions.

Studies on tad poles also supports the idea that evolution is caused by a chemical reaction through environment, rather that the environment causing species to die off, and mutations to survive through a slow process of natural selection as Darwin proposed.

The reason why we haven't evolved again must be because the conditions are not right.

What exactly do you mean by chemical reactions?

When the conditions are met, it sparks a rapid chemical reaction in the animal's genetics, which either mutates, or changes the expression of DNA.

So stuff happens.......

You do realize that chemical reaction doesn't mean much right. Your body is reacted constantly. Everything that goes around in cells is the result of chemical reactions.

Bottom line, it disproves Darwinism, and we need to revisit the topic, and find the true cause of evolution.

Epigenetics has been a well-accepted part of evolutionary theory for nearly three decades.

You're a little late to be claiming it "disproves" what we know of evolutionary theory.

I said it disproves Darwinism.

Darwinism proposes that natural selection causes evolution, through selective breeding of those that are most likely to survive. Science points to a must faster pace of evolution, which disproves Darwinism.

Natural selection acts upon epigenetic variation just like natural selection acts upon genetic variation.

Epigenetics influence the variety of mutations and the effect the environment has on mutations.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on epigenetics if you think it can single-handedly drive evolution or even act independently of natural selection over generations. We're talking about the methylation order of existing DNA strands.

Those who take a simplistic, high school biology textbook view of evolutionary theory might think that the caveats of epigenetic information transfer poses some sort of unbeatable problem.

I highly suggest this book if you want a more up to date understanding of Evolutionary Theory:

http://www.amazon.com...

The description of the book says;
"Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations."

Are you talking about Darwinism or a tweaked NeoDarwinian theory? If you are not talking about Darwin's theories, but someone else's tweaked version of Darwinism, than you are speaking of NeoDarwinism, not actual Darwinism, and we are discussing two very different topics.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The closest thing to "neo-darwinism" is the modern synthesis. I've never heard of any "darwinist" or "neodarwinist" as you describe them.

I'm talking about the current state of evolutionary theory. Variation with natural selection. Epigenetics is a form of variation where you find feedback chains between the environment and phenotype in a prenatal state. It's only a shocking discovery for creationists and those very new to the science.

Epigenetics challenges the idea that DNA is only source of variation and that DNA mutation rates are uniform throughout the choromosome. It doesn't challenge natural selection.

Perhaps "Darwinism" is Evolutionary Theory as learned by creationists or IDers in high school while "neo-darwinist" is evolutionary theory as learned in undergrad or graduate classes.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 11:30:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I read the cited article by Bergman. It's pretty much standard creationist nonsense repackaged for the umpteenth time. He says that Darwinism is disproved because populations bred experimentally revert back to their previous forms after some few generations. That's no doubt true if the environmental selection mechanism is removed. If that didn't happen the theory would have a problem, because natural selection depends upon environment. Plant any animal breeders are only trying to refine secondary characteristics, not get species to survive in a radically differe3nt environment.

He claims that since no new species have emerged from selective breeding that there is problem. A new species depends upon a genetic mutations in the DNA of reproduction, which one expects to observe only with large populations over very long time periods. New species have been observed to occur in nature in modern times, so we know it happens.

He says that no transitional forms between species have been discovered, which of course is not true. There are all sorts of transitional fossils. Moreover, DNA provides a better proof of common ancestry than fossils.

BTW, this thread should be in the Religion forum. It's unrelated to politics or science.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:07:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 11:30:05 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I read the cited article by Bergman. It's pretty much standard creationist nonsense repackaged for the umpteenth time. He says that Darwinism is disproved because populations bred experimentally revert back to their previous forms after some few generations. That's no doubt true if the environmental selection mechanism is removed. If that didn't happen the theory would have a problem, because natural selection depends upon environment. Plant any animal breeders are only trying to refine secondary characteristics, not get species to survive in a radically differe3nt environment.


1.) I'm not a creationist. I'm not even Christian. I'm simply a believer in rapid evolution.
2.) Just because the conclusion is wrong does not make the empirical science wrong.
3.) Time is needed for new features to develop. If the risk is great enough that the species would die without developing the new features, than the entire species would die, before having a chance to evolve. If the change was slow, giving time to evolve, the old species would not die, and resulting in the new species reverting back to the old.

He claims that since no new species have emerged from selective breeding that there is problem. A new species depends upon a genetic mutations in the DNA of reproduction, which one expects to observe only with large populations over very long time periods. New species have been observed to occur in nature in modern times, so we know it happens.


Never said it didn't happen. What I'm saying is evolution happens without the involvement of natural selection. Natural selection is a good extinction theory but not a good evolutionary theory.

The mutant Genes is in the minority, and if breeding is random than the mutant gene is less likely to be pared with another mutant gene, and thus fades away before the extinction can occur.

Assuming enough mutant genes exist at the time of the extinction, seeing as mutations are rare and have harder times finding mates, they would have to be favorable mutations in order to survive.

Studies on evolution point towards rapid evolution which has nothing to do with natural selection.

With rapid evolution the environment causes a biological change in the genetics.
This does not effect a minority but rather the entire population, which has the same genetic preposition to the mutation.

If the species is unable to evolve because there is no genetic preposition, than they would not evolve, and would go extinct.

statistically Darwinism poses a problem. Where as rapid evolution does not.

He says that no transitional forms between species have been discovered, which of course is not true. There are all sorts of transitional fossils. Moreover, DNA provides a better proof of common ancestry than fossils.

There are many fossils of cousins, but transitional species are scarce. Many that were thought to be transitional species ended up being cousins, after further testing. Currently there are only a couple of transitions for the homo genus both of which I listed in the original post.

BTW, this thread should be in the Religion forum. It's unrelated to politics or science.

I not once mentioned religion. This should be in the science forum, but I listed it in politics because Darwinism has become political issue.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:16:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 10:01:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:55:30 PM, DanT wrote:

The description of the book says;
"Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations."

Are you talking about Darwinism or a tweaked NeoDarwinian theory? If you are not talking about Darwin's theories, but someone else's tweaked version of Darwinism, than you are speaking of NeoDarwinism, not actual Darwinism, and we are discussing two very different topics.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The closest thing to "neo-darwinism" is the modern synthesis. I've never heard of any "darwinist" or "neodarwinist" as you describe them.

I'm talking about the current state of evolutionary theory. Variation with natural selection. Epigenetics is a form of variation where you find feedback chains between the environment and phenotype in a prenatal state. It's only a shocking discovery for creationists and those very new to the science.

Epigenetics challenges the idea that DNA is only source of variation and that DNA mutation rates are uniform throughout the choromosome. It doesn't challenge natural selection.

Perhaps "Darwinism" is Evolutionary Theory as learned by creationists or IDers in high school while "neo-darwinist" is evolutionary theory as learned in undergrad or graduate classes.

Darwinism is Darwin's original theories.

Neo-Darwinism is a modified version of Darwin's evolutionary theory that eliminates elements of the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics and pangenesis that were present in Darwin's formulation; this theory originated with August Weissmann, after incorporating Mendelian genetic principles.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 10:25:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You people seem to be under the impression that one must subscribe to Darwinism in order to believe in evolution.
Even though evolution predates Darwinism by a millennium.

this is like saying one must believe in multiverses in order to believe in the universe. It's simply not truem many people believed in the universe before the idea of multiverses, and many people believed in evolution before darwinism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 11:38:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Where are all the new races? If we are constantly evolving, where are the new raes?:

That's a very sophomoric approach to how evolution works. Isolating genes is what precipitated the proliferation of disntinguishable racial traits. The fact that human beings migrate more and interbreed more often is what is muddling racial differences. So, we're moving away from that to a very large degree.

With that said, "Mestizo's" are perfect examples of a race that is relatively new. Mestizo's are a blend of European, Spanish genes with Indo-American genes. There was no such thing as an "Hispanic" 600 years ago.

More to the point, however, is that assimilation plays a very large part in this. It was once questioned, "What happened to Neanderthals?" Were they killed off? Did they die of other reasons and become extinct?

No. New evidence suggests that they were assimilated in to what modern man is today through interbreeding. You and I likely have neanderthal in our lineage.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 1:34:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 11:38:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Where are all the new races? If we are constantly evolving, where are the new raes?:

That's a very sophomoric approach to how evolution works. Isolating genes is what precipitated the proliferation of disntinguishable racial traits. The fact that human beings migrate more and interbreed more often is what is muddling racial differences. So, we're moving away from that to a very large degree.


I believe that Darwin is wrong, about Natural Selection being the motivating force behind evolution. Instead I think it's Phenotypic Plasticity is the cause of evolution.

That would explain why there are not new races, and would explain how races began in the first place, and why new races haven't formed.

I believe Natural Selection is a motivating force behind extinction, and thus helps shape the surviving species, but it's not the driving force behind evolution.

Phenotypic Plasticity is a new concept, as phenotypes is a new concept.
Phenotype is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment
Genotype is the genetic constitution of an individual organism.

Darwinism is a Genotypical evolutionary theory.

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment.

Darwinism claims that;
Natural Selection forces an animal to evolve through Lamarckian inheritance.

NeoDarwinism claims that;
Natural Selection causes animals to evolve through Mendelian genetic principles.

What I believe is that;
Phenotypic plasticity leads to the developmental process. The developmental process leads to the evolutionary outcome. Those that cannot adapt go extinct by natural selection, but natural selection does not drive evolution.

With that said, "Mestizo's" are perfect examples of a race that is relatively new. Mestizo's are a blend of European, Spanish genes with Indo-American genes. There was no such thing as an "Hispanic" 600 years ago.


That is Mendelian genetics, not evolutionary development.

More to the point, however, is that assimilation plays a very large part in this. It was once questioned, "What happened to Neanderthals?" Were they killed off? Did they die of other reasons and become extinct?


Neanderthals died out when Homo Sapiens migrated to their land. We killed them off by stealing their game with superior hunting tools, and possibly through war.

No. New evidence suggests that they were assimilated in to what modern man is today through interbreeding. You and I likely have neanderthal in our lineage.

Or one of our other cousins.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2011 2:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/3/2011 10:16:55 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2011 10:01:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:55:30 PM, DanT wrote:

The description of the book says;
"Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations."

Are you talking about Darwinism or a tweaked NeoDarwinian theory? If you are not talking about Darwin's theories, but someone else's tweaked version of Darwinism, than you are speaking of NeoDarwinism, not actual Darwinism, and we are discussing two very different topics.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The closest thing to "neo-darwinism" is the modern synthesis. I've never heard of any "darwinist" or "neodarwinist" as you describe them.

I'm talking about the current state of evolutionary theory. Variation with natural selection. Epigenetics is a form of variation where you find feedback chains between the environment and phenotype in a prenatal state. It's only a shocking discovery for creationists and those very new to the science.

Epigenetics challenges the idea that DNA is only source of variation and that DNA mutation rates are uniform throughout the choromosome. It doesn't challenge natural selection.

Perhaps "Darwinism" is Evolutionary Theory as learned by creationists or IDers in high school while "neo-darwinist" is evolutionary theory as learned in undergrad or graduate classes.

Darwinism is Darwin's original theories.

Neo-Darwinism is a modified version of Darwin's evolutionary theory that eliminates elements of the Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics and pangenesis that were present in Darwin's formulation; this theory originated with August Weissmann, after incorporating Mendelian genetic principles.

In that case, I don't think any "Darwinists" existed after the modern synthesis. I sure as heck haven't met any.

You'll have problems finding a modern day scientist who thinks traits are inherited via gemmules.

So it is incorrect for you to refer to anyone here as a "darwinist" if darwinism specifically excludes the use of genetics.

Unless someone in this thread claimed "traits are inherited through gemmules in a lamarckian fashion" then you have been arguing with an invisible, probably non-existent foe.

The basics of Darwin's theory remain: variation, natural selection, differential reproduction.

That remained true through the modern synthesis and remains true today when you account for epigenetics and evo-devo discoveries.