Login

Join for Free!
118238 members


Objections to Darwin

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby alextemplet » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:43 am

Actually, Darwin's book did mention evolution, and his entire point in writing it was to show that all life is descended from a single common ancestor. I wonder where you get your information; perhaps your sources are not quite fully credible?
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby canalon » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:53 am

Squawkbox wrote:The origin of species was actually entitled 'On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' and his book never once mentioned evolution- this word was used later by others. Are we talking about evolution within species, ie. natural selection, or evolution from one species to another because although i believe that there can be changes within a species, i dont think there is substantial evidence to support evolution from one species to another

But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby alextemplet » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:02 am

Canalon wrote:

But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.


Yes, but sadly this seemingly-obvious point is far too often missed by some of evolution's detractors.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)


Postby Linn » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:46 am

YES! :)
Squawkbox wrote:The origin of species was actually entitled 'On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' and his book never once mentioned evolution- this word was used later by others. Are we talking about evolution within species, ie. natural selection, or evolution from one species to another because although i believe that there can be changes within a species, i dont think there is substantial evidence to support evolution from one species to another


This I agree with
Linn
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby Linn » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:48 am

alextemplet wrote:Canalon wrote:

But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.


Yes, but sadly this seemingly-obvious point is far too often missed by some of evolution's detractors.


Proof?
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:34 am

alextemplet wrote:
Canalon wrote:

Quote:
But changes within a species give rise to new species after enough time... That is all what evolution is about.


Yes, but sadly this seemingly-obvious point is far too often missed by some of evolution's detractors.


Proof?


Haven't we covered this already?
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Objections to Darwin

Postby Linn » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:35 am

lilskip wrote:I'm going mind blank! What are some scientific objections to Darwin's theory of natural selection?
Thanks!


I'll try to stay on the subject and ignore certain sarcastic little remarks.

One objection is that since Darwin's theory has been linked to evidence from fossils that there should be proof. No proof has been presented
The geographic record has not given us a graduated progression of change.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby catfishjim » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:46 pm

ZakaSPFC wrote:I would like to point out that Alfred Russell Wallace came upon evolution first and Darwin took the credit for it. He was doing research in the Malay Archipelago while Darwin was crouched in a corner sobbing because he didnt know what to put in his origin of species, which he had delayed publishing for 20 years until he thought that Wallace's paper would beat him to the punch


Darwin was always convinced of the vaildity of evolution (even his grandfather believed in it in the 1700s!). But on his trip to South America, aside from the specialized Galapagos species he observed, it was geological evidence of the earth's great age that gave him what he was missing. And at the urging of Lyell, he did actually publish an outline of his theory 20 years before Wallace. Afterward, Wallace always said that his main contribution had been in motivating darwin to finally publish the full text.
catfishjim
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Austria

Postby Linn » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:46 pm

Objection #2

Natural Selection
That nature "selected" the fittest things to survive, and that these things aquired new features to help them . In other words they slowly evolved.

While it is true that fit things do survive, there is no evidence to show how they arrived.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby catfishjim » Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:40 am

Linn wrote:Objection #2

Natural Selection
That nature "selected" the fittest things to survive, and that these things aquired new features to help them . In other words they slowly evolved.

While it is true that fit things do survive, there is no evidence to show how they arrived.


???
catfishjim
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Austria

Postby Linn » Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:42 pm

to M
previously I wrote:


Think! :wink:

A lion is considered one of those fittest things.

does the geological record show their sudden arrival?
YES!

But, can we find a fossil showing the transition to a lion from a lower form, as evoltionist believe?
And, if one of those lions was more fit than an other, his offspring were still all just lions.
because they were created as is.
Genes are arranged in such a way to prevent changes. improvements such as size etc yes but not evolution.

Isnt the survival of the fittest one of the cornerstones of evolutionary faith that got the whole ball rolling?

Is it or not. Just wondering :?

To solve the above dilemma that there is no evidence of gradual change,evolutionists had to come up with an explanation. Since they could find no record showing gradual change, they theorized that it must have thus happened by jerks and starts.
Some biologists believed that new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes (punctuated equilibrium).
Whatever theory you want to go by, it still does not explain there is still that problem with the fossil record.

Keep digging for another hundred or years! :D



added just for you M :wink:
..they theorized that it must have thus happened by jerks and starts not at a steady pace, by sudden drastic changes in genes. The species maintain their "equilibrium" or stay about the same, but every once in a while there is a "punctuation" or a big jump to evolve in to something else.
Sorry that is the way I learned it a long time ago. Care to update me?

Also I had quoted Darwin, Jastrow (one of my favorite) W,R Thompson...
somewhere in these threads.
Linn
PS;
last post for a while
take care all
keep thinking :wink:
Last edited by Linn on Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby mith » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:03 pm

Genes are arranged in such a way to prevent changes. improvements such as size etc yes but not evolution.


What? Where did you get that idea? And how can a gene tell when a change is going to be in size or speciation?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests