First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I don't buy Darwin's theory of evolution
3946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
What "rapid evolution"? The modern human goes back as far as at least 100 000 - 200 000 years...
Besides, events of rapid evolution is covered in the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

And we see it happen in front of us.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
Your criticism toward Darwinism is flawed. There is actually way more rational criticism toward Darwinism.
One of those criticism is that evolution is not linear like in the Gundam universe; the direction of evolution depend on the niche, environment, and phylogeny of the species in question. Even Charles Darwin, himself, support the multiple possible path of evolution in his well-known documentation of several related bird species in the Galapagos island. The European imperialists believe that all non-European will become European in terms of both biology and culture; this logic is used to justify displacement by genocide and raping of non-European by claiming that it 'speed up evolution of humans'.
Another criticism is that the fitness of a trait depend on the environment, the means of survival, and its ability to work with other traits of the same individual. There is recent evidences showing that all the species of bipedal apes, which include modern humans, were historically on the verge of extinction; Homo sapiens and Homo erectus were unique among the bipedal apes in their success.
Sogno- 
47831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 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.




how did we fall so far...
Posted 1/12/17
Aliens manipulated our DNA so that we could populate the planet and become their food when they return.

14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/12/17
"the anunnaki"

...hm. What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki

"The Anunnaki are a group of deities in ancient Mesopotamian cultures"

Posted 1/12/17
Posted 1/12/17

sundin13 wrote:

"the anunnaki"

...hm. What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki

"The Anunnaki are a group of deities in ancient Mesopotamian cultures"



There are some people, like the OP, who believe that the Anunnaki were a race of aliens who came from the Moon (Earth's Moon) at one point and polluted our DNA to enhance our abilities. There are some that claim that we were slaves to them, others are certain that they're direct ancestors of the Anunnaki and are "the master race of humans on this planet" ...

It's one of those rabbit hole things. Once you hear about it, you can't "unknow" it.

On Topic:

I honestly have nothing more to say than what's been said on this thread already and wanted to clarify some of the "logic" behind introducing the Anunnaki into the OP. Evolution has significant empirical evidence to support that it functions on a micro-level and, if you follow its logic and the evidence behind it, it applies to macro-evolution as well (including our own species). Whether you choose to believe these theories is entirely up to you. Science is nothing but theories at the end of the day.
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 1/12/17

gsm642 wrote:

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.


Our textbooks imply we evolved faster than we actually did. Neanderthals had tools just as good as ours but they weren't physically as flexable so they had trouble running. They find high amounts of neanderthal DNA in all humans outside of sub-saharan Africa.

In every culture there exist a legend of "atlantis" a once great city that was buried by a rapidly rising sea. As you know in ancient and even modern cultures cities tend to be built around coast lines or rivers. We have found a few of these cities and the ones we have found are large blocky structures. When the last ice age ended the great lakes had a giant water reservoir in them that busted and had the capacity to raise global sea levels a few meters world wide. What would happen if most major cities were built upon the coast lines and within a month they all got wiped out by huge tsunamis then buried by the ocean? Before people were writing much to preserve knowledge?

This is also interesting: http://philipcoppens.com/copper.html
Sogno- 
47831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 1/12/17
i wouldn't buy it either. it's probably too expensive
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 1/12/17

sundin13 wrote:

"the anunnaki"

...hm. What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki

"The Anunnaki are a group of deities in ancient Mesopotamian cultures"



It translates into "He who comes from the heavens"

You might find this interesting, an African tribe knew the sirius better than NASA did for decades and they knew it millenia ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRxPR8TEplY
13735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 1/12/17
Don't you just love when someone tries to form an argument on a subject that they clearly don't understand?

Also I agree. We should stop teaching Darwinian evolution and start teaching Lamarckian evolution.
Ejanss 
16427 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/17

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

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.


I'll take the fake showoff politics threads over the REAL looneys. At least, with the fakes, you know when they're kidding.
62087 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / The stars.. too b...
Online
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/12/17
Theory and speculation aside, let's stick with the facts.


Successful gene-sets flourish and survive, while failed gene-sets fade and die out. The current day panda bear comes to mind. A massive frame requiring lots of nourishment, yet, the bears only eat bamboo. Unable to sustain the energy required to power their frames resulting in a failing species that barely has the energy to mate, much less anything else.

With the exception of human intervention, Darwins' is just about spot on.

But we as current day humans (Homo-sapiens) , self aware and hugely empathetic will go out of our way to save these failed gene-sets. This subsidization of failing gene-sets has grown even further with the suffrage movement. Because in general, women are far more emotionally sym/em/pathetic.

Also, not sure where you're getting us evolving to our current day form within 11,000 years lol... even Neanderthals, our closes cousins have been recorded to have lived hundreds of thousands of years ago... If you're a Theist, shouldn't you be asking your "god" these questions?
21417 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 1/12/17

Bowie-Sensei wrote:

Don't you just love when someone tries to form an argument on a subject that they clearly don't understand?

Also I agree. We should stop teaching Darwinian evolution and start teaching Lamarckian evolution.


They have found that people who's grandparents had starved during the great depression were more likely to have weight problems vs those that did not starve. They found that an expression of a gene that stores fat was being utilized more in those that had a recent starvation experience.

Also I didn't know that was called Lamarckian evolution. I believe in that heavily then lol. Lots of new research backs it up especially as we learn of the different information storage mechanisms in DNA.
Posted 1/12/17 , edited 1/13/17
Whether we evolved, were modified ,or created, I think most of as can agree the end result has been an epic failure.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.