Darwin's Theory | True?

[Valjean]

What Darwin Didn't Know About Evolution

How about this, is it recent enough for you to consider?

Did you actually read the article, Loaai?
Do you think biology still relies on Darwin?!

Why is it that so many religious people keep referring to "Darwinism?" A high school student today knows more about evolution than Darwin ever dreamed. Modern biology does not revolve around Darwin.

Medicine no longer relies on Galen. Astronomy no longer relies on Copernicus. Physics no longer relies on Ptolemy.

 

[Valjean]

Well, according to what you just said a simple guys like me would say.. If we follow Darwin's theory shouldn't all creatures that live right now evolve from a single unicellular organism? But before this unicellular organism does Darwin's theory apply then?

What aspect of Darwin's theory are you referring to? Natural selection, or are you trying to tie it in with abiogenesis?

Natural selection doesn't apply before there was anything to select from.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, according to what you just said a simple guys like me would say.. If we follow Darwin's theory shouldn't all creatures that live right now evolve from a single unicellular organism? But before this unicellular organism does Darwin's theory apply then?

Your moving the discussion. Both the science of evolution and abiogenesis are based on the same science based on objective verifiable evidence. The science of abiogenesis is very new and it has only been 50 years or since we have enough knowledge in genetics and the advances in organic chemistry and our knowledge of the environments of the early earth. Both are strongly driven by environmental conditions and changes in the environment.

Recent discoveries of fossils of colonies of primitive single celled organisms, and layers of organic carbon residue in the environments like mid-ocean ridge associated with abiogenesis.

 

[Valjean]

Well, here lies the problem, All atheists believe creationists are just illiterate and can't study a single branch of science which is obviously incorrect, In fact all modern physics and biology theories were written by creationists who still till now disbelieve a lot of other theories simply because it does not include enough proof.
Not every theory is correct until a practical experiment is held to prove the main point of it, until then scientists cannot say that a thoery is a fact.

Apologies for any offense. My remark was disrespectful.

We see so many strong opinions here on RF by posters who have little or no knowledge about the issues they're discussing, and we see the same faulty, long debunked arguments, the same links, the same erroneous facts, and the same logical errors -- over and over. If I had a dollar for every time some variation of "it's only a theory" has been posted here I'd be a rich man.

Science doesn't accept a fact or theory until it's been tested. Everything remains hypothetical till there's enough "proof," as you put it. One of the most important steps in the scientific method is trying to disprove one's own hypotheses, and inviting others to criticise it.

This is why science is so successful, so uniformly accepted and why it has so transformed the world in the past 200 years.
Tradition doesn't count, nor authority, nor common knowledge, nor ancient writings, nor 'the obvious' or common sense.
It's also why don't have hundreds of different scientific doctrines and denominations. Scientific knowledge is the gold standard. It's the same all over the world.

 

[paarsurrey]

Darwin's Theory | True?

Darwin did not create any Evolution, it was already created by G-d and nature was working accordingly since creation as set by G-d, Darwin only discovered it, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

It's behind a paywall for me, but it looks like it is recent enough.

And how does that support what you want to say?

I can't figure out what it's supposed to support. It just contrasts Darwin's meager knowledge with today's biology. Maybe it's meant as a criticism of 'Darwinism' and of 'evolutionists'' imagined reliance on it as sacred knowledge.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Darwin's Theory | True?

Darwin did not create any Evolution, it was already created by G-d and nature was working accordingly since creation as set by G-d, Darwin only discovered it, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Well, that is at least a more reasonable assessment than the one usually given by creationists.

 

[Valjean]

Single celled creature, how did it originate from the first place? I think you are the one who should reconsider his information. What is your scientific explanation of this single celled creature and it's origin?

Now this is a whole different field of study, and has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution. It's a very active field, but also very new, so the answer to your question isn't yet known.
Google abiogenesis. There's a lot of information out there.

 

[shunyadragon]

Darwin's Theory | True?

Darwin did not create any Evolution, it was already created by G-d and nature was working accordingly since creation as set by G-d, Darwin only discovered it, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Darwin was one of several scientists to propose evolution as the explanation of the history of life on earth before an during the life of Darwin, some were friends of Darwin and corresponded with him about evolution. Darwin was the first to present a coherent theory based on limited evidence that could be expanded on, and confirmed by later scientist as more evidence was gathered and research over time.

 

[Valjean]

Darwin's Theory | True?

Darwin did not create any Evolution, it was already created by G-d and nature was working accordingly since creation as set by G-d, Darwin only discovered it, I understand. Right, please?

Darwin discovered/described one of the major mechanisms driving change.
The mechanism -- natural selection -- is automatic and doesn't need any supernatural intervention or guidance to operate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Darwin discovered/described one of the major mechanisms driving change.
The mechanism -- natural selection -- is automatic and doesn't need any supernatural intervention or guidance to operate.

To be more accurate Darwin was not the first nor only scientist to discover/describe the mechanism of natural selection.

https://www.google.com/search?q=NAt...ome..69i57.9944j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858. Wikipedia."

There are others too, but one of my standard jokes is that we should call it the Wallace Theory, or the Wallace/Darwin Theory, or maybe include other scientist work in this field at the time of Charles Darwin such as Thomas Malthus who wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" (1798).

Maybe we should call it the Malthus/Wallace/Darwin Theory. Oh wait! Darwin's father was also influential in proposing the theory, therefore we should call it the Malthus/Wallace/ Darwin/Darwin Theory.

Well, ah . . . about 100 BC Lucretius maybe should be included. Oh well.

 

[rational experiences]

Go well.

Nup. Not instructed by a scientist.

 

[rational experiences]

When science says evolution they actually claim design as studied by the human self. At the age their own life owns.

Yet the information by year terms are expansive.

Sex and development in environmental conditions is how his human healed. The Bible thesis healing.

When science can burn out huge cold atmospheric gas mass. State it fallout by nuclear converting. Then preach replacement of cold water lost as ice put it back. Preach other gas mass by saviour star masses stone occurred for returned gas mass lost. Replaced gases gone. It was relative science advice.

Order by design says science. I claim such and such cell is the lowest design via my own imposed human advice as compared to everything i compare.

I talk design actually.

A human survived in human life only for 100 years as the conscious thinker claiming by his thoughts that he speaks on behalf of a creator.

Is only present constantly reclaiming study as a model in a human 100 year life span. The info he studied not equal to his bio presence. A human.

Sex the reason he re owns scientific status.

In reality his conscious self had sex to conceive with a females ovary his own life. Creator human theme in natural reality. By 2 very small living cells factual self conscious advice.

The cells he talks about survive in presence like he does.

If he says they survived longer in the atmosphere than what he does. Maybe you want to own their life span rationally.

Science might claim. The presence of energy I think billions of years old. His owned self might be thirty years old.

And you die one day and no longer think.

How could you claim you are right to think claiming your thoughts are correct without group support?

Then why did a healer medical biologist have to argue against a string thesis nuclear biologist theory?

The exact argument?

A God earth evolution theory.

If a human says my parents came directly out of spirit from eternal. Quote the eternal lost into activated burning is God history energy and mass.

Science human aware conscious wisdom. Where and why did it all begin,? A question.

We survived as a converted eternal spirit for about 100 years because eternal burnt by a mass history that we taught was God. Eternal being we were converted by had nearly destroyed the eternal body.

Conscious claimant is human.

Says I came from a place of.spirit. says creation was a mass removed out of that spirit.

Isn't our 100 year biological presence the proof that we knew a spiritual body changed its own self. For the spirit self to eventually inherit the change?

Reason to believe.

Science machine parts inside earth fusion proving all natural life above ground had been previously destroyed.

Radiation effect. A lesser body is always gained in the effects of.

For human life to claim it returned out of spirit again after the ice age.

Evolution theory has no place in biblical medical no man is God statements. String theories.

To think.

Water in dinosaur history held in atmosphere. Dinosaur body blood nothing like ours.

Their life destroyed by womb spatial vacuum effect of overheated irradiated space.

Ice gained.

Huge held cloud amassing effect removed heated past atmosphere.

Heavenly gas mass holding ability changed.

Humans thinking claim. We then returned into life and reincarnated.

So where did we come from?

Did a dinosaur convert into an ape that converted into a human?

All comments done by the highest being a human.

How could you claim we are not telling the truth. When God string theories try to claim their evolution biology by string correct. Yet their info extends into to know God. To build a machine. React it and then involve removal of the bio form.

By reactive increased radiation in full knowledge that God in natural form never achieved an end. Of bio existence.

Versus spirit remaining as an eternal self in the highest spirit body?

Motivation for removing earth mass presence. The theme God created our sacrificed life from ground state fission reaction?

The argument is spirit being history of presence versus God science to machine string theory against presence existing.

It was never about God. The argument is human practiced science invention claiming I know everything.

 

[icehorse]

The argument is human practiced science invention claiming I know everything.

Assuming a typo here: Scientists are MUCH more likely to admit what they do not know than religious people are.

 

[Bear Wild]

To be more accurate Darwin was not the first nor only scientist to discover/describe the mechanism of natural selection.

https://www.google.com/search?q=NAt...ome..69i57.9944j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858. Wikipedia."

There are others too, but one of my standard jokes is that we should call it the Wallace Theory, or the Wallace/Darwin Theory, or maybe include other scientist work in this field at the time of Charles Darwin such as Thomas Malthus who wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" (1798).

Maybe we should call it the Malthus/Wallace/Darwin Theory. Oh wait! Darwin's father was also influential in proposing the theory, therefore we should call it the Malthus/Wallace/ Darwin/Darwin Theory.

Well, ah . . . about 100 BC Lucretius maybe should be included. Oh well.

This is often overlooked. Darwin however presented the concepts in the first coherent theory of his time. Wallace had a strange take on humans contrary to evolutionary theory. I have read his books and letters. Darwin presented a better presentation of the information in my opinion.

Malthus made important observations on humans but did not provide the biological coherence for the theory of evolution as stated by Darwin. Now doubt he had an influence on Darwin however.

 

[rational experiences]

Assuming a typo here: Scientists are MUCH more likely to admit what they do not know than religious people are.

God theism. String theists.

You assume you know how space created as a scientist. As if space is your consciousness. A thinker.

Science human. Owned itself highest spiritual health human self presence historic first.

Consciousness human. In mind quotes theism. In same mind said science reactive invention will destroy sacrifice life. Warned self don't do science.

Quotes. I was innocent of knowing what I never knew. Self status included in the converting of God mass by cosmological womb space theism.

I do not know what a non number is. Or what conditions a never ending number would be. Own no experience.

Why I quoted I was innocent in the effects to be self changed also.

Says I want a machine thesis design based on a spatial activated thesis.

To think.

Info already says yet you do not know.

Experiment is his answer. Then I will know.

Machine reaction however is only active by his designed building of it. His conscious control of it.

Reactive theism. About natural only.

Machine. How it reacts. Only in his button pushing.

Status reaction. Begins and ends.

He wants reaction with no end by constant presence.

Only out of space owns that condition.

If. Reaction begins and ends. Then he quotes cell presence. Yet he does not want it changed.

So says natural will replace it like a bio life remains constant.

Only for 100 years.

Energy reactive information not 100 years.

In design to own end. Means highest natural presence in its own cell value.

If you wanted to use it. It would disappear.

If you wanted it re replaced same machine. Same design. Same reaction. Apply again. Same result. Design machine does not evolve change.

But did it change,? Yes overheated. Both machine status overheat to blowing up.

Gas heated exploded.
Conscious self lives conscious in a gas state.

Which does not impose to be held constant. Or to own no end. Which is the reaction quantum. To be ended but highest.

Natural space ended a reaction. Then re owned a highest state for a cooled form.

Conscious thinking from a cooled form.

To own a cell. It is its highest presence. Was completed.

Word end has another scientific sinister theme. I will force it to end. When it was complete.

Termed lying in Science as any status a scientist.

 

[rational experiences]

Well, that is at least a more reasonable assessment than the one usually given by creationists.

A theist evolution theory is that creationist.

What you seem to overlook a string theory from God the stone.

No man is God the status.

Which owns no support of any theory.

Rationally.

A human living in self aware life attacked irradiated occult detailed phenomena.

Meaning artificial. God the stone was not applying self mass nuclear conversions. Humans were.

A medical science biological advice was given.

Which is not an evolution theory.

It owned no thesis nor an argument as humans caused it due to theorising. Then building owning artificial cause and effect.

Why it was written as a statement yet owning questions and answers. Human imposed.

Natural does not own phenomena.

Contradiction.

Natural caused phenomena.
Answer to question. Who or what changed natural.

A human scientist involving his machine reaction.

Status. An occult cause. Extra radiation.

God never owned extra radiation. Ended fused.

Heavens own natural day light. Humans highest natural life support.

No extra radiation.

What released extra radiation.

God did. Natural body.

God did it says maths prophecy owner. False prophet. Maths. Human probability cause.

God did it he preached.

Who changed God. Stone mass?

The human scientist did. A contradiction to self presence.

Artificial caused.

A theist in human life. A thinker upon natural pre existing states.

Claiming God created you is a string theory.

Claiming our parents pre existed as a spirit is a spirit teaching. That quotes their presence began in the eternal. As an eternal spirit.

Who became a lesser self. A human.

God O mass was taught as historically being in the eternal. A portion of that body changed O angels fell by sound change burst and burnt cooled and evolved. As history of God.

Humans never lived God history in spatial evolution.

 

[rational experiences]

When science. Human thoughts only claim my group human. Believers. Enforced as a human An agreement to a proposed human story. Then it is all you agree upon.

Human imposed. Group status. To teach. Enforced the teaching claiming human group consensus proven right.

Yet what you research is naturally formed. And historic may have been converted in mass multi times.

Scientific advice. Radiation released multi bodies. The earth from within core to gas fusion changed. From above. Heavenly gas activated ground fall. Comets or asteroid stones burning. Or the sun.

Change. Is constant in cosmological causes. Is all that you know rationally.

No humans. No stories.

Humans alive today by human sexual intercourse. Not because a human scientist can think.

Science medical biologist as compared to God string theist...sexual conception is why human life continues.

 

[viole]

Peace Be Upon You.
So let's suppose that what Darwin said was right, Humanity has evolved from Apes, somehow it was proven scientifically that Apes were the origins of a creature that can think, understand, express his thoughts, have consciousness and choose his path in life, but then, does Darwin's theory only apply on Human beings and Apes?

May I ask what is the origins of Apes? or Maybe even the origins of origins of Apes.. May I ask the main origin of all biological creatures on Earth?
If Darwin's theory is correct then it should lead us to 1 single living organism and from this organism every other creature was developed and originated throughout thousands or even millions of years, but then we say.. what was the origin of this single creature or this single organism? Was it just a coincidence that this organism somehow developed and originated through a very complex chemical reaction and survived specifically on Earth? Have you ever wondered why humanity with all this progress in space has not yet discovered a single planet that has a single creature on it!

Is it really a coincidence that Earth is the only place where biology is present? Is it really a coincidence that the only planet among Trillions of others that has perfect conditions for living organisms is Earth? Why do you think human beings are the only creatures in this universe that know how to think, understand and have conciseness?(till now) Biology just developed?
Then why didn't it develop for Dogs, cats, crocodiles, cows, ants, bees and even Apes! Did humanity prove that an Ape can be transformed into a human?

See.. Einstein's theories were falsified a lot by other scientists when he first published them, but then it was all about the practical experiment that beat all expectations when this experiment proved that his theory was actually correct, and suddenly his theories became a fact. something we are sure of.. something we can take for granted in our future development in all fields of science.
But back to Darwin.. Did he transform an Ape into a Human? Has any scientist transformed any creature on Earth into a human? Is there something called Impossible? Can we actually go back in time?

At this point I hope you all know where this is going, what happened and what is happening to human beings is not a coincidence by any means but to prove the validity of Darwin's theory someone has to conduct a practical experiment that will shut down any other doubters and transform an Ape into a human.. Or maybe anything into a human.. Can this ever happen?

It's all an obvious answer that there is something much bigger and unimaginable behind all of this.

I don't understand what we mean with "humans evolved from apes". That is like saying "Chevrolets evolved from cars".

We are still apes.


Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Assuming a typo here: Scientists are MUCH more likely to admit what they do not know than religious people are.

I should say!
The way that evidence is applied to learning is
pretty much opposite.
Conclusion before and despite all evidence is
is vital to faith...see Job, on that.