Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Big Bad Voodoo

Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory

237 posts in this topic

I'll let the thread speak for itself I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let the thread speak for itself I think.

Or you should wrote " ...". as you did on my black hole argument. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emma are you affraid to look trough telescope?

1:57/1:57 say -yes Im. :cry:

Lets stick with old mistake rather then hearing new voice.Amen.

Here is interesting article imho.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=239451

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Charles Darwin:) "...given the right evolutionary pressures and enough time, a polar bear can evolve into a whale-like species..."

Priceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you should wrote " ...". as you did on my black hole argument. :yes:

I was tempted.

Emma are you affraid to look trough telescope?

1:57/1:57 say -yes Im. :cry:

Lets stick with old mistake rather then hearing new voice.Amen.

Here is interesting article imho.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=239451

Except evolution isn't an "old mistake".

As for the interesting article, thats how science works. It is ultimately self-critical. If that didn't happen, it would never advance.

Also, I think its a tad misleading. Its about Human evolution, not the theory as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priceless.

*sigh*

Firstly, Darwin didn't say that. Secondly - what exactly is the problem with it?? You have yet to actually give a counter argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priceless.

Like Emma said, Darwin didn't say that. You can't just make stuff up and write it as fact.

"given the right evolutionary pressures and enough time, a polar bear can evolve into a whale-like species..."

There is a word missing. Its species. It should look like this:

"Given the right evolutionary pressures and enough time, a polar bear species can evolve into a whale-like species."

Everyone else reading this topic knew thats what Emma meant when she wrote it. So either you knew and chose to make fun of it for one little word missing, or you really have no understanding of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Please don't tell me he thought I meant that *an individual bear* can turn into a whale????

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Please don't tell me he thought I meant that *an individual bear* can turn into a whale????

Thats what he is implying in sure, going off his signture, Id assume he mean 1 bear, can transform into a whale... Its the very thing alot of creationists or people that discount evloution seem to not understand.

The best way Evloution was taught to me was with Colours.

Example... Please tell me in the range of colours, does the colour actuall change? - point out to me were the colour is changed from Red to orange for exampe?

http://www.google.co...,r:62,s:0,i:279

The answer is there is no single point that the colour 'changes'. More that it merges, or evolves over the peroid of colours to eventually be Orange.

Red and by adding a little yellow each time, its slowly tranforms itself into a litler red, until it eventually is now orange.

This is how evolution works, DNA is mutated and the species slowly generation by generation changes, to eventually be another species.

Kind Regards,

Me :)

Edited by The Id3al Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin died in 1882..why would anyone in their right mind want to debate his theories when we now have a vast mountain of information that expanded his original thinking? For what we knew at the time his ideas were revolutionary however over time some of them were incorrect and some were based on archaic biological knowledge. A lot of time has passed so why "the L" are you hung up on Darwin. It's like saying NASA and the moonlanding is BS because someone said the moon was made out of cheese. Theories evolve (no pun intended) so why are you attempting to debate things Darwin supposedly said? So what if he said them? With the knowledge he had the time they were good theories but we have come leaps and bounds in evolutionary biological thinking since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Please don't tell me he thought I meant that *an individual bear* can turn into a whale????

Ammy, Im glad that you got something right such as concept of generations. I guess lecture help a little.

That goes for your hommies as well.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you will be done with experiment, or have courage to look trough telescope and read my post we can continue with conversation. :st

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Please don't tell me he thought I meant that *an individual bear* can turn into a whale????

Hey Ammy, allow me that I try do readings like you.

I know that she didn't know that's what she meant when she wrote it- she was thinking of individual bear.

Tell me if I got it right.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Jesus. Please don't tell me he thought I meant that *an individual bear* can turn into a whale????

The most popular definition of evolution has become "A lion turning into a bear", or "monkeys turning into humans in a matter of a few hours".

I don't know much about evolution, but I know this much that change happens in species and large change requires very long time. People who claim to know more about evolution than scientists who have spent their whole life studying this should at least enlighten themselves with the very basic definition of the issue.

Edited by Blood_Sacrifice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I love "debating" (arguing) with people who don't really believe in evolution... I mean, it's pointless. Countless people refuse to come out of the proverbial "shell" of what they have been raised to believe in. If it's not something they were raised to believe, then of course, they re not going to take the word of some scientist or doctor or professor. I did't even watch the movie... I've already seen these docs before... it's all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, you're asking if a bear can turn into a whale after year and years? Come on... -_- That's just being silly and you're not holding up your end of the bargain when your telling everyone to be polite and whatnot... That's like saying, "So you mean to tell me we revolve around the Sun? Oh, and we all have 12 toes, right?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... forgive my stupidity... I came into this discussion all wrong. I apologize and admit I was wrong. i just don't see why it's so hard to believe in the Darwin theory, that's all... it just seems much more plausible than any other theory that I've heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you will be done with experiment, or have courage to look trough telescope and read my post we can continue with conversation. :st

I'm not spending my time reading something that is purporting to be scientific yet only exists on blogs about "psychic children". Give me a proper scientific source.

Hey Ammy, allow me that I try do readings like you.

I know that she didn't know that's what she meant when she wrote it- she was thinking of individual bear.

Tell me if I got it right.

If you think I was trying to explain it in terms of an individual bear evolving, then you obviously have an even weaker grasp on the argument than I originally thought. And thats saying something.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then continue with reading peer reviews.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except evolution isn't an "old mistake".

But junk DNA is VERY much old mistake. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.DNA is chemical that works in envoirment, so I wonder what organism gene would build on different envorionment? On another planet.

2.What also is mysterious how some simple lifes like rice plant have more genes then complexed life forms like humans?

3.What is for junk DNA? I heard about fish that dont have junk DNA...

4.Also I heard that on some condition we can speed up evoultion?

5.And most interesting to me is that there is one animal that lived in octopus kidney and we know that animal came from much complexed animal. Devolution?

6.How genes know how to build organism?

7. Do any of you biologists here know concept of Gaia theory? If so what is your opinion on it.

Hi L I'm going to take a shot.

1) this is simple. Any organization of energy that has the ability to replicate. The only things that can exist into the future are things that by some principal can replicate themselves or hold form. DNA can hold information, replicate itself, and change its going to propel itself forward. it happens to be carbon based and I am told that carbon is good a reacting with things, I have also herd that sulfur is a good candidate for organization of life somewhere else, but there could be a lot of candidates.

2) organism that have more genetic diversity, will have more genes, it probably means they have been around longer.

3) there is no "junk" DNA. This term isn't really accepted anymore. All genes did or do have a purpose or remaine possibly because the were a mutation be did not cause a positive or negative result.

4) absolutely. Hardship speeds up evolution. If you bombard a culture of bacteria with various hardships and regrow the survivors, you are "speeding up" evolution in relation to the bacteria that was left alone. All calamitous events on earth "sped" up evolution.

5)No, there would be no such thing as devolution. If the animal appeared to loose complexity it was only evolving relative to natural selection. The circumstances favored traits that only apear to us to be less complex, in reality complexity is just a label. We call friction fire primitive, yet it's much more "complex" than a match.

6) my simply understanding of this is that it's like a giant puzzle. Certain pieces can only fit with others, this inevitably results in a very specific structure. Molecules being the puzzle pieces. Copacetic would be a good resource for this question.

7) I am very familiar with it, but I'm no biologist. I think it's a liekely possibility. Life and conciousness are said to be emergent properties of self organization. If our brain cells were concious, they would call us Gia. city's, country's, and even all of life itself working as an ecosystem and environment fit the requirements for the definition to be considered alive. It's really only a matter of perspective..... But then again so does fire. If you were a life form the size of the star beatlegeuse, you would probably consider life on earth it's own self contained organism, but probably only after you whitenessd it reproduce itself by colonizing another piece of dust.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that youll be very interested in reading this discussion

Optional={option} and content=http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=407

post-135824-0-10202100-1356212600_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is. Every link that we don't see is missing. We are a link. You could never find a transitionary species because all species are transitionary.

Everything is transitionary is cop out evolutionist use, since they never found an actual intermediary specie.

Someone said polar bears might evolve in to whales due to enviromental pressures.....based on that, why are those species on verge of extinction (enviromental pressures etc) evolve to adapt to the pressures and evolve? Why aren't certain whales evolving to land animals since their current habitat is dangerous ie whale fishing etc. Animals facing extinction just become extinct why are they not evolving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is transitionary is cop out evolutionist use, since they never found an actual intermediary specie.

Someone said polar bears might evolve in to whales due to enviromental pressures.....based on that, why are those species on verge of extinction (enviromental pressures etc) evolve to adapt to the pressures and evolve? Why aren't certain whales evolving to land animals since their current habitat is dangerous ie whale fishing etc. Animals facing extinction just become extinct why are they not evolving?

Whats your level of knowledge of evolution? Did you study it in school at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that boiled that argument down pretty quickly.

I share your pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.