So what is your reason despite all the evidence like DNA, fossil, and the way all life is structured into groups?
can we talk for a second about how evolution is a complete crock of shyt?
- Thread starter CarbonBraddock
- Start date
That is my reason; the more we are learning about DNA, molecular biology, the verified findings of the fossil record, etc, etc, etc, all point to the fact that Darwinism, and Neo Darwinism are not tenable.
Did you not see my previous post where I shared a link to the November 2016 Royal Society of London Conference where the leading evolutionary scientists in the world came to the consensus that modern teaching of Darwinism can no longer be defended
The Royal Society of London is the oldest and most august (respected and impressive) scientific body in the WORLD. It goes all the way back to the 17th century and had Sir Isaac Newton was one of it's presidents.
Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution...
When you have the leading evolutionary biologist in the world saying this Darwin SHYT can't be scientifically defended anymore, what else do you want for evidence bruh
New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Royal Society
What did he say breh? Don't leave us hangingThat is my reason; the more we are learning about DNA, molecular biology, the verified findings of the fossil record, etc, etc, etc, all point to the fact that Darwinism, and Neo Darwinism are not tenable.
Did you not see my previous post where I shared a link to the November 2016 Royal Society of London Conference where the leading evolutionary scientists in the world came to the consensus that modern teaching of Darwinism can no longer be defended
The Royal Society of London is the oldest and most august (respected and impressive) scientific body in the WORLD. It goes all the way back to the 17th century and had Sir Isaac Newton was one of it's presidents.
Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields have produced calls for revision of the standard theory of evolution...
When you have the leading evolutionary biologist in the world saying this Darwin SHYT can't be scientifically defended anymore, what else do you want for evidence bruh
New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives | Royal Society
What did he say breh? Don't leave us hanging
Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller was the opening speaker
His key points:
Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types
The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation.
Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.
Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.
You're welcome
Now come and ask your buddies from this thread who were
for cac Darwinism to come in and
Home | The Third Way of Evolution
Gerd B. Müller | Evolution scientist | The Third Way of Evolution
Last edited:
Bruh he didn't say anythingAustrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller was the opening speaker
His key points:
Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types
The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation.
Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.
Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.
You're welcome
Now come and ask your buddies from this thread who werethis away...
Home | The Third Way of Evolution
Gerd B. Müller | Evolution scientist | The Third Way of Evolution
Not 1 argument about why evolution is false. And also you do know that evolution happened long before Darwin and Cacs existed? you can't keep attributing evolution to them.
I'm going to sleep now, so I'm not wasting my time with the rest of this thread. Just let me know when he actually answered you, and I'll start there tomorrow
the cac mamba
Veteran
could be bullshyt, who knows
but as long as this is your alternate explanation
i'll pass on this bullshyt too
but as long as this is your alternate explanation
i'll pass on this bullshyt too
the cac mamba
Veteran
yeah, this isn't what happens with christianity tho
what percentage of christians are taught to fear god when they're young and impressionable enough that their parents can get them to believe in santa claus? 98? 99?
edit: you know what, im actually impressed by this lack of self awareness :jaymelo: whatever superstitious bullshyt you quote me with will be repped
Last edited:
Take It In Blood
Banned
Who in here has defended christianity??yeah, this isn't what happens with christianity tho
what percentage of christians are taught to fear god when they're young and impressionable enough that their parents can get them to believe in santa claus? 98? 99?
edit: you know what, im actually impressed by this lack of self awareness :jaymelo: whatever superstitious bullshyt you quote me with will be repped
Why do yall keep deflecting to religion when asked to prove macroevolution??
This is a serious question. If you cant answer it and you're gonna deflect to more religious nonsense, please just ignore my post thanks
Notice how nobody dapped your postI'm going to sleep now, so I'm not wasting my time with the rest of this thread. Just let me know when he actually answered you, and I'll start there tomorrow
That's for a reason
You probably should have kept reading before posting
Take It In Blood
Banned
Evolution would be easily falsifiable if we found something like Bunny Rabbit fossils in the same exact place where Jurassic Era fossils are.
It's been tested and examined in every way possible to the point where you've got to be pretty much perverse to deny it at this point. The DNA alone is enough
the only people really left on the defensive are those with religious backgrounds (who often times don't place as much importance on demanding evidence for their own beliefs as they do these things ironically)
there's very few/if any pure skeptics who don't accept it on the basis of sheer skepticism
It's been tested and examined in every way possible to the point where you've got to be pretty much perverse to deny it at this point. The DNA alone is enough
the only people really left on the defensive are those with religious backgrounds (who often times don't place as much importance on demanding evidence for their own beliefs as they do these things ironically)
there's very few/if any pure skeptics who don't accept it on the basis of sheer skepticism
Take It In Blood
Banned
recent