Alternative to evolution and creationism

[outhouse]

Wikipedia is not an authority on scientific matters, anyone can edit that website.

wrong or people such as yourself would try.

at every angle they are shot down and the material refused

 

[EarthAlive]

wrong or people such as yourself would try.

at every angle they are shot down and the material refused

Yes I do edit wikipedia I am sure many people do, but anything relating to Darwin, Darwinism or the neo-darwinism aka the mainstream theory of evolution, is guarded like a holy script! It is censored and un-reliable can't get anywhere near those pages, not that I would want to look at them anyway. I create articles for real scientists who are not scared to speak out against the Darwinist dogma. See for example the article on wikipedia: James Le Fanu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[camanintx]

They start off as embryos in these ponds, it is not evolution. The frog is a frog not turning into anything else, study the life-cycle of the frog, it has never evolved into anything else. According to this theory of independent origins every organism on earth came from these ponds independently and organisms do not evolve into anything else, they are fixed, no evolution at all. All species have a separate origin.

How do all of the orthologous ERV's we share with other animals fit with the theory of separate origins?

 

[EarthAlive]

How do all of the orthologous ERV's we share with other animals fit with the theory of separate origins?

Genetic material is apparently shared within the ponds, and then the organisms leave these pools independently with no evolution.

 

[Riverwolf]

Darwinian dogma? Evolution pages guarded? In my experience, hyperbole like that isn't used until arguments are starting to be lost: since logic is failing, emotions are appealed to via supposedly powerful words that are designed to sway people by their simple use.

Sounding more and more like the entire reason for this theory is that someone REALLY wanted to be "different", and evolution was too "mainstream."

 

[EarthAlive]

Darwinian dogma? Evolution pages guarded?

RiverWolf I don't quite think you understand wikipedia, it is not a neutral place for scientific knowledge. It is a multi-million $ run business, the owner Jimmy Wales is a staunch atheist, self described "materialist" etc etc, and so are many of the wikipedia admins, most of these admins run "skeptic" websites. Wikipedia is not a neutral website for alternative theories, they only like the mainstream theory aka neo-darwinism, anything which challenges that is either heavly edited or deleted infact there is even something on wikipedia called the wikipedia fringe board, where they report and monitor any theory which the admins and most of the users call "crackpot". Take for example the wikipedia page of Dr. Senapathy, it was nominated for deletion many times, abused, a couple of darwinists in the editing section were even putting swear words yes the s*** word about Senapathy and his book calling him a crank etc and abusing his wikipedia article. Most wikipedia editors do not like alternative theories or evidence which contradicts their own beliefs, it challenges their narrow minded world-view of Darwinism, reductionism or materialism and any evidence which goes against their views is ignored and or supressed. And by the way most mainstream theories are supported for politcal or social reasons, very little are usually true. We have had the fallacies of Marxism and Freudism, now we have the fallacy and dogma of Darwinism. It is a religion which refuses to actually look at the evidence, it starts with assumptions.

 

[Riverwolf]

RiverWolf I don't quite think you understand wikipedia, it is not a neutral place for scientific knowledge. It is a multi-million $ run business, the owner Jimmy Wales is a staunch atheist, self described "materialist" etc etc, and so are many of the wikipedia admins, most of these admins run "skeptic" websites.

Sources?

Wikipedia is not a neutral website for alternative theories, they only like the mainstream theory aka neo-darwinism, anything which challenges that is either heavly edited or deleted infact there is even something on wikipedia called the wikipedia fringe board, where they report and monitor any theory which the admins and most of the users call "crackpot". Take for example the wikipedia page of Dr. Senapathy, it was nominated for deletion many times, abused, a couple of darwinists in the editing section were even putting swear words yes the s*** word about Senapathy and his book calling him a crank etc and abusing his wikipedia article.

When was this?

Most wikipedia editors do not like alternative theories, it challenges their narrow minded world-view of Darwinism, reductionism or materialism and any evidence which goes against their views, they get scared by it so they ignore or supress it.

Again, sources?

And by the way most mainstream theories are supported for politcal or social reasons, very little are usually true. We have had the fallacies of Marxism and Freudism, now we have the fallacy and dogma of Darwinism. It is a religion which refuses to actually look at the evidence, it starts with assumptions.

Again, sources?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Darwinian dogma? Evolution pages guarded? In my experience, hyperbole like that isn't used until arguments are starting to be lost: since logic is failing, emotions are appealed to via supposedly powerful words that are designed to sway people by their simple use.

Sounding more and more like the entire reason for this theory is that someone REALLY wanted to be "different", and evolution was too "mainstream."

Agreed.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Genetic material is apparently shared within the ponds, and then the organisms leave these pools independently with no evolution.

You've misunderstood a few things. You make it seem as though "man" was one of these organisms that left the pools but the evolutionary time line does not match. You have to demonstrate, with evidence, that there were pools and that man existed in or around the precambrian era. To demostrate the ToE is invalid you will have to validate a time line independent from the fossil record to show that all life existed at the same time.

 

[painted wolf]

Where did all the ponds go?

We still have new species evolving out of old ones, like the London Underground Mosquito.... but where is the pond it came from?

And what about plants? How do plants crawl out of these ponds?

wa:do

 

[idav]

Most wikipedia editors do not like alternative theories or evidence which contradicts their own beliefs, it challenges their narrow minded world-view of Darwinism, reductionism or materialism and any evidence which goes against their views is ignored and or supressed.

Most editors worry about the content being truthful so if someone tries to edit thins that are wrong they are removed. I've seen this done when people are going in editing stuff they know nothing about. I can only imagine what an anti-darwin would feel is being "supressed". You were showing articles that show counter points but were specific to certain authors and their view points which I'm sure they would want to protect.

 

[EarthAlive]

You've misunderstood a few things. You make it seem as though "man" was one of these organisms that left the pools but the evolutionary time line does not match. You have to demonstrate, with evidence, that there were pools and that man existed in or around the precambrian era. To demostrate the ToE is invalid you will have to validate a time line independent from the fossil record to show that all life existed at the same time.

Firstly you say prove the existence of these pools, but how do you believe life started on earth? Most evolutionists buy into this chemical pond or primordial soup theory, this soup theory is even mentioned in school textbooks, Senapathy just takes it a few steps further, I find it odd that you all support abiogenesis on this forum but oppose the idea of chemical pools. As I said before I do not believe any of these soups ever existed, I support biogenesis, I am not argueing for this theory, I just think it does raise some valid points, so I do not have to demonstrate the existence of chemical pools, infact the existence of these pools would be hard to prove even if they did exist.

There are two scientists who argue for this independent origins theory, Senapathy argues for abiogenesis, and Schwabe is more interesting he argues for biogenesis. You would need to read up on their theory to understand all of these details.

You say give evidence for man existing in or around the precambrian era but theres evidence even pushing man back further than that, infact we can even push man back even further to around two or so billion years ago. But this would be part of my own view of life on earth etc and I did not come to this forum to discuss my own views and do not want to dish that kind of knowledge out. However If you see my threads, I simply listed some alternative theories to the mainstream evolution model and discuss some of them in an overview.

 

[outhouse]

Yes I do edit wikipedia I am sure many people do, but anything relating to Darwin, Darwinism or the neo-darwinism aka the mainstream theory of evolution, is guarded like a holy script! It is censored and un-reliable can't get anywhere near those pages, not that I would want to look at them anyway. I create articles for real scientists who are not scared to speak out against the Darwinist dogma. See for example the article on wikipedia: James Le Fanu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all topics are protected. its not garded like holy script. its people must have valid information to make changes.

theist or non-theist cannot get in and tamper with valid science to protect their scripture.
And people with their own agendas cannot tamper to push personal opinions

 

[outhouse]

Firstly you say prove the existence of these pools, but how do you believe life started on earth? Most evolutionists buy into this chemical pond or primordial soup theory, this soup theory is even mentioned in school textbooks, Senapathy just takes it a few steps further, I find it odd that you all support abiogenesis on this forum but oppose the idea of chemical pools. As I said before I do not believe any of these soups ever existed, I support biogenesis, I am not argueing for this theory, I just think it does raise some valid points, so I do not have to demonstrate the existence of chemical pools, infact the existence of these pools would be hard to prove even if they did exist.

There are two scientists who argue for this independent origins theory, Senapathy argues for abiogenesis, and Schwabe is more interesting he argues for biogenesis. You would need to read up on their theory to understand all of these details.

You say give evidence for man existing in or around the precambrian era but theres evidence even pushing man back further than that, infact we can even push man back even further to around two or so billion years ago. But this would be part of my own view of life on earth etc and I did not come to this forum to discuss my own views and do not want to dish that kind of knowledge out. However If you see my threads, I simply listed some alternative theories to the mainstream evolution model and discuss some of them in an overview.

these two crackpots are going off into pseudoscience, end of story. Theres nothing to discuss except fantasy and imagination on their level.


we know what the first life forms were, this is not a mystery at ALL.

there could have been small pockets of unknown bacteria but life didnt get beyond that at a point that we didnt know.

as long as you dont look at evolution like a ladder you will be fine, you dont have a bad take on things other then pushing pseudoscientific views on us

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Firstly you say prove the existence of these pools

I never said "prove" anything. I said you'd have to produce evidence of the pools and that "man" specifically emerged from them. Just in regards to us mere humans you'd have to demonstrate how male and female humans emerged from them. Either male and female are separate or they "were" A-sexual. If they were separate then (why?) and how was this possible? Did the pool know (LOL) to produce one male and one female? If they were A-sexual at first then how and when did humans stop being A-sexual and become what we are now?

These are just some of the problems you'll have to deal with when trying to take this IOH seriously. Evolution, in regards to the diversification of life, answers these questions.

how do you believe life started on earth?

The question is irrelevant. Your charge is against the TOE. The Theory of Evolution is not about the origins of life as it deals with the diversification of life on this planet. Hypotheses dealing with the origins of life we have plenty of but evidence for it there is none. We have an abundant of evidence for Evolution. Even if you buy into the IOH you still have to accept that Evolution is happening.

Most evolutionists buy into this chemical pond or primordial soup theory, this soup theory is even mentioned in school textbooks

I work for a local school district and have never seen it in the text books we use. Even if you did see it you must understand that they would not insist the notion is evidence of. Science doesn't work that way. At best Independent Origin is a hypothesis. Even if such was true you and others still fail at disproving Evolution. Evolution can work with or without Independent Origin hypotheses.

Senapathy just takes it a few steps further, I find it odd that you all support abiogenesis on this forum but oppose the idea of chemical pools.

These guys speculate is all. I read a lot of what you posted and looked for other writings and none of it has moved beyond hypothesis.

As I said before I do not believe any of these soups ever existed, I support biogenesis, I am not argueing for this theory, I just think it does raise some valid points, so I do not have to demonstrate the existence of chemical pools, infact the existence of these pools would be hard to prove even if they did exist.

Then it's a waste of a thread on this hypothesis. It verges on pseudoscience.

There are two scientists who argue for this independent origins theory, Senapathy argues for abiogenesis, and Schwabe is more interesting he argues for biogenesis. You would need to read up on their theory to understand all of these details.

Wait, wait...are you serious..? You're assumption is that I haven't read up on them. I'm familiar with what they propose as well as the work that was done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey back in the 50's. I get it. I understand it all very well. None of it shows any evidence that evolution did not occur.

You say give evidence for man existing in or around the precambrian era but theres evidence even pushing man back further than that, infact we can even push man back even further to around two or so billion years ago.

This ought to be good. Please list your evidence.....

 

[camanintx]

Genetic material is apparently shared within the ponds, and then the organisms leave these pools independently with no evolution.

By what process does this genetic material combine into a new organism capable of leaving the pond?

 

[EarthAlive]

I said you'd have to produce evidence of the pools and that "man" specifically emerged from them

Dirty Penguin let me try and explain this. Christian Schwabe is over the age of 80 now, and he has not written many publications on his theory, he has a book out but the book costs over 100$, not many people have read it, and only half of it (if that) is found on the internet. Let me try and explain his views about the origin of man from what I have read.

Basically as Schwabe does not believe in any kind of evolution, yes hes saying that all species on earth including man came straight out of these chemical ponds, no common descent. He says that everything on earth came out of the ponds 3.5 billion years ago. So according to Schwabe Man is 3.5 billion years old. - But here is the thing, according to Schwabe man did not always exist in his present form. According to Schwabe man was originally a "pro-form" which are basically invisible little cells which are formless. For an example think of little tiny seeds before they germinate. Now according to Schwabe over millions of years man will not be visible, he will not be in his present form like he is now, according to Schwabe we will not be able to find evidence in the fossil record for man 3.5 billions of years ago because man was a tiny little "pro-form" cell in a pond.


Now according to Schwabe the "pro-form" of man has slowly become visible into the present condition become more materialised as the time goes on and we eventually see evidence for him in the fossil record. Schwabe has diagrams in his book of the increase in body size from invisible to our current size. So man has always existed on earth. Man was always there, and has grown from a cell like state to his present condition, like all other species on earth.

 

[camanintx]

According to Schwabe man was originally a "pro-form" which are basically invisible little cells which are formless.

Has Schwabe or anyone else presented any evidence for these "invisible little formless cells"?

 

[idav]

Has Schwabe or anyone else presented any evidence for these "invisible little formless cells"?

Ahem....invisible. No evidence necessary.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dirty Penguin let me try and explain this. Christian Schwabe is over the age of 80 now, and he has not written many publications on his theory, he has a book out but the book costs over 100$, not many people have read it, and only half of it (if that) is found on the internet.

Wait, wait....Are you serious trying to make an argument from ignorance here? Why would you make an argument based off of a book you haven't read? This is why I said I'm familiar with his views. His claims are baseless because they present no testable evidence. At least Miller/Urey's experiment was some what promising but still could not be said to be the definite conditions...

Let me try and explain his views about the origin of man from what I have read.

Why bother? You clearly haven't read his book nor do you, by your own admission, ascribe to his view.

Basically as Schwabe does not believe in any kind of evolution

And this is unfortunate. But he is free to believe whatever he wants even if biology says he incorrect.

hes saying that all species on earth including man came straight out of these chemical ponds, no common descent.

He says that everything on earth came out of the ponds 3.5 billion years ago. So according to Schwabe Man is 3.5 billion years old. - But here is the thing, according to Schwabe man did not always exist in his present form. According to Schwabe man was originally a "pro-form" which are basically invisible little cells which are formless. For an example think of little tiny seeds before they germinate. Now according to Schwabe over millions of years man will not be visible, he will not be in his present form like he is now, according to Schwabe we will not be able to find evidence in the fossil record for man 3.5 billions of years ago because man was a tiny little "pro-form" cell in a pond.


Now according to Schwabe the "pro-form" of man has slowly become visible into the present condition become more materialised as the time goes on and we eventually see evidence for him in the fossil record. Schwabe has diagrams in his book of the increase in body size from invisible to our current size. So man has always existed on earth. Man was always there, and has grown from a cell like state to his present condition, like all other species on earth.

I want really really respond to all of this but there is just too much wrong in his view to get into.