Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page Science Disproves Evolution
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-06-11   #781
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,853
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 3,265
Man you're lucky we can't step outside and settle this via fisticuffs.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Online   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-11   #782
prometheus
Darkness Incarnate
 
prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,462
prometheus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 47,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah View Post
Man you're lucky we can't step outside and settle this via fisticuffs.
Resorting to quote mining now. Why don't you quote what I actually said in that paragraph in my words?

Last edited by prometheus; 09-06-11 at 17:26.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-11   #783
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,853
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 3,265
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Online   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-11   #784
SilentShade
The King Douche
Admin
 
SilentShade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
SilentShade will become famous soon enoughSilentShade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,473
I like the Eternal Universe Theory, the Universe reinvents itself akin to Dr. Who
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-11   #785
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 727
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 170,463

Fully-Developed Organs 1


All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a). Macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only “horizontal” (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity. Also note that all creationists agree that natural selection occurs. While natural selection does not result in macroevolution, it accounts for many variations within a very narrow range.

Science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizards. We also see birds. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-11   #786
SilentShade
The King Douche
Admin
 
SilentShade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
SilentShade will become famous soon enoughSilentShade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,473
Hmmm. So they just found some bones that are 2 million years old. That does not jive with the six thousand year old Earth you creationists speak of They think it may be a huge step toward figuring out how we came to be. I love how science is very patient and takes its time.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11   #787
Devins
Face in the Mist
 
Devins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 32
Devins is on a distinguished road
Credits: 2,446
Been afk a few days.

In the paradigm of deism, gravity and matter exist in a system of cause and effect. God is a self-moving soul(system) and does not. I've asked if beings who exist in the former see in causality and can only trace this back to the point of their systems creation, how and if they could see or understand the latter. Your unequivocal assumption is it's possible, and your response is that you trace it back further.(Even though the question was based on the premise that it's clearly impossible to see beyond a closed-system with cause and effect.)

But none of that even matters, because the entire fucking idea was created for the sole reason that you've admitted deists do not base beliefs and theories on evidence but that it simply feels logical to them, and that you assert these sorts of ideas can be tested and proven one day. If your back to claiming deists base extrapolations on evidence than these speculations are meaningless and all you need do is show me the evidence. Substituting one paradox for another and claiming the prior as it's proof is beyond ridiculous and doesn't cut it for me.

If you think we'll one day find evidence to extrapolate from, than I'd at least agree we could possibly use that evidence to prove your peculiar brew of assumptions. If your question all along was whether or not you have the one true religion and if we think evidence will one day show up for it, I think I speak for everyone when I say NO. Pretty sure myself and nearly everyone else on the planet doesn't think that.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11   #788
prometheus
Darkness Incarnate
 
prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,462
prometheus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 47,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade View Post
Hmmm. So they just found some bones that are 2 million years old. That does not jive with the six thousand year old Earth you creationists speak of They think it may be a huge step toward figuring out how we came to be. I love how science is very patient and takes its time.
Dyshade, the old bones are just God fucking with you!
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11   #789
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,853
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devins View Post
If your question all along was whether or not you have the one true religion and if we think evidence will one day show up for it, I think I speak for everyone when I say NO. Pretty sure myself and nearly everyone else on the planet doesn't think that.
You're ducking the question, are you going to stop raping cats or not?
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Online   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11   #790
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,069
There is not empirical evidence surrounding the existence of god, there is however, evidence to back up evolution.

The bottom line is this: Pahu is full of shit, piss and wind.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11   #791
prometheus
Darkness Incarnate
 
prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,462
prometheus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 47,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenina View Post
There is not empirical evidence surrounding the existence of god, there is however, evidence to back up evolution.

The bottom line is this: Pahu is full of shit, piss and wind.
It's absurd... An omnipotent designer that can't even divide the cross sectional area of a jaw bone by sixteen is impossible to understand.

On the other hand, a selection pressure curtailing the growth of a jaw bone to allow for superior cranial development that was not matched by a similar selection pressure on a decrease in the size of the teeth is easy to understand. Increased pattern recognition filtering is a hell of a survival advantage, and having crooked teeth, while inconvenient and not always very aesthetic and sometimes even painfully uncomfortable, is very seldom life threatening.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11   #792
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 727
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 170,463

Fully-Developed Organs 2


There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-11   #793
prometheus
Darkness Incarnate
 
prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,462
prometheus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 47,208
Quote:
For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).
And it could well be that this is exactly what did happen. Ever noticed the vestigial forearms that upright walking dinosaurs had?

Last edited by prometheus; 09-11-11 at 06:16.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-11   #794
prometheus
Darkness Incarnate
 
prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,462
prometheus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 47,208
Quote:
“Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?”
This is one of the most soundly debunked arguments against evolution.

What good is an imperfect half caecum?

Yet every human being alive has one, with no obvious purpose except to make thousands of us face death needlessly from appendicitis every year...

Did Bog make a mistake?



Why do creationists need enemies when they have friends like the preposterous performing popinjay Pahu strengthening the Darwinian case with their every imbecilic utterance?

Last edited by prometheus; 09-11-11 at 06:15.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-11   #795
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 727
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 170,463

Distinct Types


If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.”


Figure 5: Duckbilled Platypus. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group (a). Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual
species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic
[evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.” Denton, p. 132.

b. “...no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-11   #796
SilentShade
The King Douche
Admin
 
SilentShade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
SilentShade will become famous soon enoughSilentShade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,473
Well you obviously evolved from deranged religious roots that have no idea how to properly extrapolate scientific evidence in order to postulate your ideals.

Creatures evolve. Why they do this is scientific theory, yet they do evolve. Intelligent Design is flawed on so many levels even the Federal Government of The United States denied its teaching in schools due to the fact that IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

See this link if you would like to see the transcripts of the case---

http://ncse.com/webfm_send/73

Excerpt from the findings----

"To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.""

Pay attention to the " untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion" part, for that is what ID is.

Most of what Pahu has posted here is NOT BASED on any scientific findings, rather it is based on religious ideologies which pretend to parade around under a scientific guise.

In conclusion, this is another excerpt of the findings-----

""The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.""

There fore, ID is not scientific in any way, it is a religious view which is backed by religious ideology, which is forwarded by deceptive means by individuals such as Pahu as a scientific endeavor which it is most surely NOT!!!

Now I challenge Pahu to in any way retort to this reply utilizing his own words without just a copy and paste reply.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-11   #797
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 727
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 170,463

Altruism 1


Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?

a. “...the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.” Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:


“...it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do no t appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives.” Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-11   #798
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,853
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 3,265
The existence of an altruism gene (obvious simplification) in a herd of animals obviously increases the chance that that herd will survive to pass on its altruism gene.

I mean teamwork works over the long term, that's sort of a given.

Also,

Quote:
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.
lol
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Online   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-11   #799
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 727
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 170,463

Altruism 2

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).

c. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This
hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-11   #800
SilentShade
The King Douche
Admin
 
SilentShade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
SilentShade will become famous soon enoughSilentShade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,473
I doubt your intelligence Pahu, seeing as you cannot make one retort using your own words. You blandly continue to parrot an idiots words.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The last person to post on this thread is the WINNER!!! pt2 gArGOyLe^^ Topic Discussions 4130 07-22-17 12:06
Interesting Science News articles. Panthera66 Topic Discussions 3 05-28-10 08:10
the evolution debate ShotDownStar Topic Discussions 66 12-08-06 20:14
The warped minds of the wholesome christians. Lenina Topic Discussions 122 09-21-05 02:18
Science 101! SilentShade Topic Discussions 39 07-07-04 21:37

Recent Threads
sup oezoem we mished you
2 Days Ago 22:02
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Days Ago 00:19
Hey fr0g
10-20-17 02:49
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Days Ago 21:47
Fuck Snow
5 Days Ago 03:36
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Days Ago 21:46
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 15:38
by Pahu
Last post by Pahu
3 Days Ago 10:04
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 07:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Days Ago 21:32
are you gonna eat your...
11-01-17 01:43
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 03:45
Things that I'm not...
10-30-05 21:09
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 00:51
basic earthling rights
07-17-14 22:08
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 22:11
Where are the tits?
3 Weeks Ago 20:38
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Weeks Ago 21:33
Obama sends a letter.
10-19-17 22:42
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Weeks Ago 14:09
Online Users: 53
1 members and 52 guests
Dark Messiah
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 19:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community