First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I don't buy Darwin's theory of evolution
1884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
The forms are becoming a bit to political with all the Obama and trump posts so I thought I would try and lively things up a bit. The main reason I don't by Darwin's theory is because of one simple reason time. We have evolved to quickly in the last 11,000 to 12,000 years for it to be natural selection which right there goes against Darwin's theory because it should happen gradually over time. Considering the dinosaurs where here for 150 million years and are still around to and still evolving I don't by Darwin's theory. I think a lot of it has to do with religion because if humanity dates are pushed back 100 million years or more there goes nearly all the worlds religions and creation mythology's. The only one that fills in the gap is the slave creation mythology The anunnaki added there own dna to our ancestor homo erectus to create a slave specie's to mine gold This is right around the time when we had a quantum leap in evolving and we still are today.. We were strong enough to do the work but to stupid to operate the machines required so the combing homo erectus dna with there own creating a smarter race of humans. This explains the quantum leap in evaluation we have had in the past 12,000 years or so. Not only that but when you look into Darwin he once said a elephant could evolve into a whale giving enough time. Also the reason why no one has challenged Darwin's theory is because the human race becomes and enigma with out it. I should also mention that in Africa they found complex mines that are equivalent to modern day mining techniques that are very deep and very old and completely depleted of gold a few years ago.
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
Off topic: I Appreciate the change of topic.
On topic: Want to know why I don't want to read the whole thing? Hint, this one's deeper than the spacing.
5225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Alberta, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
The flaw in your argument which I see is that we have not 'evolved' quickly in 12,000 years. The changes rapid changes which humanity has gone through in the last 15,000 years or so since the founding of the first cities and formulation of societies are due to memetic propagation.

Memetic change and growth is basically the spread and retention of information. As a tool using species a strong advantage we have is the ability to learn and pass on that knowledge. We see something another does, we incorporate it, then we share it.

Growth through information incorporation and adaptation is very slow in loose fragmented populations but speeds up in tighter communities. As humanity learned to domesticate crops and animals, larger communities were possible. Trade between communities became possible. Language was able to develop allowing more complicated information sharing. Information and memetic propagation was able to speed up. The ability for a teacher to write a book and share their knowledge through generations. We can learn how to teach our younger generations faster and faster. Even modern inventions like telephones, and the internet is continuing to speed up this effect. Not all of it is useful and advances humanity, memes, as a good example.

We are still basically the same creatures as we were a million years ago on a physical and genetic level. However, the society we have built around ourselves, the collective knowledge base, and twisting of the world to suit our needs, THAT is what is rapidly changing.
Posted 1/12/17
I add that the current methods we use to determine various dates and whatnot are subject to change at any moment. Technology is hardly perfect, and we will see the numbers shift as we advance. One day; dinosaurs we wiped out ___ _______ years ago. The next; ___ _______ years ago. Don't put too much weight on the data we have at the moment, because it's hardly absolute. Paleontology, archeology, etc... have made incredible strides in the last century, but most certainly haven't reached the apex of potential.
Posted 1/12/17

aeb0717 wrote:

I add that the current methods we use to determine various dates and whatnot are subject to change at any moment. Technology is hardly perfect, and we will see the numbers shift as we advance. One day; dinosaurs we wiped out ___ _______ years ago. The next; ___ _______ years ago. Don't put too much weight on the data we have at the moment, because it's hardly absolute. Paleontology, archeology, etc... have made incredible strides in the last century, but most certainly haven't reached the apex of potential.


Did you mean to suggest humans could have wiped out the dinosaurs?
6758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
∞ / AI / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

Did you mean to suggest humans could have wiped out the dinosaurs?


I suggest that we were the dinosaurs.
Posted 1/12/17

Sir_jamesalot wrote:



Did you mean to suggest humans could have wiped out the dinosaurs?


Ha! I wish. Then, my toddler exploits to find dinosaurs would be less pathetic. Not much is worse than finding out that I was 65+ million years late to the party. I certainly don't mind dwindling that number.
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17

Ocale wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

Did you mean to suggest humans could have wiped out the dinosaurs?


I suggest that we were the dinosaurs.


Not me, My ancestors were fish.


aeb0717 wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:



Did you mean to suggest humans could have wiped out the dinosaurs?


Ha! I wish. Then, my toddler exploits to find dinosaurs would be less pathetic. Not much is worse than finding out that I was 65+ million years late to the party. I certainly don't mind dwindling that number.


My mistake, I read that wrong.
6758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
∞ / AI / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 1/12/17

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

Not me, My ancestors were fish.


The dinosaurs were the fish.
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17

Ocale wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

Not me, My ancestors were fish.


The dinosaurs were the fish.


Not all fish became dinosaurs.

I have seen a school text book that said humans may have evolved from the dinosaurs. It was not a great school.
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
Evolutionary history doesn't claim a 'quantum leap.' In fact, evolution claims the exact opposite. Species don't evolve in quantums. Perhaps you could define a single gene as a quantum, but in terms of species, the changes are gradual. If you do define single genes as quantums, however, then quantum leaps happen in literally every birth, and nearly every day. Genetic mutations happen to everyone in everyday life, and thus, by this definition, 'quantum leaps' are a natural everyday occurrence.

In case you're using the term 'quantum leap' without knowing what it means, I'll explain. In basic terms, a 'quantum' is the smallest discrete unit that cannot be subdivided. Quantum physics, for example, is the study of fundamental particles, 'parts that don't have parts.' To give another example, some physicists believe that time is 'quantized,' ie, that it is made up of discrete parts the way that film has individual slides that 'look' continuous to us. The competing theory is that time is continuous and sections can always be divided up further. Like, if you have .5 seconds, you can divide that up into .25s parts, and so on. A 'quantized' theory of time would hold that there is a section of time that cannot be subdivided--there is a 'smallest' unit of time. I mention this because you seem to sort of be implying that evolutionary theory holds that species are quantized. That is, that there was a time that non-human ancestors suddenly turned into human ones. No such time is claimed by evolutionary theorists. Your whole argument relies on this 'quantum leap' that is never claimed to have happened by the theorists. This means that this argument is a bit of a straw man.

However, your claim that human evolution happened too quickly isn't necessarily a straw-man, it's just not really in line with the facts. And more importantly, why does the verification of a scientific theory need to depend on whether it's described by mythology? I guess germ theory or electromagnetism is wrong because it wasn't described by the Babylonians, or Greeks, or some ancient tribe. Seems odd.
19306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
I stopped reading after the OP couldn't use the appropriate form of 'to'. You should have written "too political" instead of "to political". If you want people to take your opinion seriously, using the correct form is tantamount.

If you want to make a non political thread, might I suggest one which teaches the appropriate usage of their/there/they're? I have seen too many adults make this mistake.
llunga 
4267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Mᴇᴡɴɪ
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17


You just spelled evolution like evalation.
11624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/12/17
"No one challenged Darwin's theory."

Yeah, you clearly know what you're talking about when it comes to evolution.
11272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 1/12/17
Aside from the extremely poor grammar, which I can make allowances for if English is not their 1st language, the OP has completely misconstrued and conflated human societal, technological progress & adaptation, with the concept of 'evolution'.

The OP simply needs to use a search engine to look up the definition of evolution, and how Darwin's pioneering work on natural selection comprises an overly simplified partial view of what is contemporary evolutionary theory..

berkely.edu has a nice summation of how natural selection & mutation, heredity/genetic drift all play a part in 'evolution'.

It can be noted that homo sapiens as a species has NOT evolved in any conceivable sense for the last couple hundred thousand years of paleontological records to date, where the most outstanding genetic features have been the expanded pelvic region to allow for expanded infant cerebral capacity. So I'm really not sure where the OP's 11000 or 12000 year cutoff comes from, considering that Aboriginal Australians had been intelligently managing their land (flora & fauna) for the last 40000-50000 years before white man decided to sail in 200years ago & name it 'Terra Nullis'.

As for the other posts relating to 'dinosaurs' and 'fish' - there is far too diverse a spread of genetic variation in marine zoology to distinguish clear boundaries in genetic or physical traits, and thus 'fish' is not even recognised as a taxonomic grouping.

Modern Mammalian, Reptilian and Bird ancestry can all be traced collectively to 'dinosaurs' at end of Triassic (250million yrs) and throughout Mesozoic eras, but there is no current way to point at any single early marine organism from 3 billion years ago and say 'all modern life evolved from this' simply due to gaps in as-yet discovered fossil record.
In evolution, there are many dead ends on genetic branches.

That fossil record is one of the biggest jigsaw puzzles this planet has to offer, and the answer is far more complex than 42.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.