I've seen evolutionary theory referred to as a "mega-theory" before because it is composed of several theories joined together to explain the current diversity of life. Natural selection, sexual selection, Muller's ratchet, genetic drift, symbiogenesis, epigenetics, the founder effect, and so on are all processes and theories incorporated into the modern version of evolutionary theory. They are not mutually exclusive but rather complement one another because they explain different parts of it. Front-loaded evolution, however, is not a part of the accepted version of modern evolutionary theory.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
These are not separate theories of evolution. They are different mechanisms of change. They're all part of the same, evolving, theory of evolution.
Well in the book of Jasher says that in the days of Noah that they were mixing the seeds (genetic modifying); and so, who knows. Here's a nice video about someone's theory of what could have happened.
Yes, but they are theories in themselves. Theories within a larger theory.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I agree with the late curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,
I believe in evolution if it is defined as merely change, that if we went back to the cretaceous we'd see that some things were different, (and some were not)-
but not Darwinism- that's something completely different and very poorly supported
I believe in evolution if it is defined as merely change, that if we went back to the cretaceous we'd see that some things were different, (and some were not)-
but not Darwinism- that's something completely different and very poorly supported
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Plus, it really is not an "...ism" since Darwin's hypotheses were neither a religion nor a philosophy.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
As Darwin did, natural selection of random variation, reasonably smooth steady transitions between species, the prediction that the gaps observed in the fossil record were not real but artifacts
Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Which Darwinism...
That of Charles Darwin or that of his grandfather Erasmus.
http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family
evolution is not about a choice of how it occurs, as there are many contributing factors, with probably more still to be discovered.
That of Charles Darwin or that of his grandfather Erasmus.
http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family
evolution is not about a choice of how it occurs, as there are many contributing factors, with probably more still to be discovered.
Didn't Darwin write about natural and sexual selection? You don't think these can be engines of change?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
selection of what?
where you have a significant design improvement as a given, natural selection goes without saying, it's why the Mustang outlived the Pinto (natural and sexual selection there I think?
)So we know design improvements can be made by following design goals, but achieving millions of significant design improvements all through blind luck is another matter
i.e. focusing on 'natural selection' of a better design, rather than the engine of the original change itself, is something of a distraction from the core problem I think
Can't the original change be sexual, eg: a litter of puppies with different coat lengths or colors? Couldn't the environment then favor one over the other?
That's what Darwin was talking about, and these are pretty obvious mechanisms of change. So what is your objection to "Darwinism?"
That's what Darwin was talking about, and these are pretty obvious mechanisms of change. So what is your objection to "Darwinism?"
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Again, what was the engine of the significantly advantageous modifications-- that are then transferred sexually? without them there is no advantage to select-
and again I have the same objections Darwin did to his own theory, that drastic alterations, new complex designs -not merely the ideal longer coat examples- but new functional complex organs, would require a reasonable span of intermediate transitional forms- not just appear 'as if planted with no evolutionary history' as Dawkins observes!
-must run will respond later though
The whole purpose of sex is to mix things up, genetically. That's the engine of the modifications.
As far as the fossil record, we sometimes see a clear series of transitional forms and sometimes not. Finding any fossil at all is remarkable.
Darwin knew little of the mechanisms of evolution and certainly nothing of genes. He described natural selection, which, in a stable environment, is, in fact, a slow process. He knew nothing of faster mechanisms.
As far as the fossil record, we sometimes see a clear series of transitional forms and sometimes not. Finding any fossil at all is remarkable.
Darwin knew little of the mechanisms of evolution and certainly nothing of genes. He described natural selection, which, in a stable environment, is, in fact, a slow process. He knew nothing of faster mechanisms.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Mixing up pre-existing useful advantages- you are using the example of merely tweaking a parameter that determines coat length, and hence you have pretty much a 50 50 shot at a change that is least hypothetically advantageous right?
An analogy being, you can hit three random keys on a piano and have a good chance at hitting a chord that sounds nice- given that the piano is already precisely tuned for that purpose
while 3 totally unguided random frequencies have effectively a 100% chance of sounding horrible
So micro v macro is a big deal, there IS an inherently fundamental difference.
It was very compelling, intuitive to note that classical physics perfectly described an apple falling from a tree- so why not extrapolate this out to account for all physical reality?
why not write off the concepts of mysterious unpredictable underlying forces, specific parameters, highly specific blueprints guiding it all- as the realm of religious idiots?
Those idiots were absolutely correct in their objections to classical physics, and for exactly the right reasons. Simple laws cannot account for the complexities of physical reality- which would instantly collapse under those laws, into the simplest homogeneous state those laws alone describe. Simply adding a lot of time and space for simple laws to work, just creates a lot of nothing for a long time
So the devil is in the details, I admit there is no slam dunk super intuitive case here,
wanted to say a bit about fossils to- must do that later- for some reason I don't get your alerts?
Well, there is an politician that were campaigning about making Evolution theory into facts. And so somebody need to tell him and corporation that is sponsoring him to let them know that it is facts, not assumptions anymore. Do you know what are facts? Facts is something that is proven to be that cannot be change or disputed over. Like the sky is blue, that is a fact, not an assumption. But theories has sent a lot of people into prison for life that weren't true, but the little amount of factual evidence that they had pieced together to come up with their own theory which are assumptions. And so if you want to go around claiming that evolution is facts but not a theory; and so then that you go should go to one of them science boards and complain to them about changing theories into facts.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
What is this idiot's name?
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
I literally burst out laughing at this
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
One can almost feel ones IQ dropping while reading this combination of words.