Darwin's Theory is False

This is a "science" forum woody, and YOU posted it under the religion section.
Goes to show what your agenda is, and where your fear comes from.
 
Woody said:
Guthrie says: Oh wow! Woody's tests have been fulfilled! By bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance! Who would have thought it!

Woody says: Is this genetic or is it just tolerance to poisons being developed by individuals? Animals and humans have a pretty remarkable ability to develop tolerance. Consider Harry Houdini -- he acclimated himself in ice-cold water to overcome hypothermia.
Click to expand...
Its genetic, shown to be so by examination of the genes and experiments on what structures are changed in the bacteria by the different genetic code. Whereas your point about tolerance is missing the point entirely. Even assuming you are correct, Houdini did not evolve tolerance, because evolution is the changing of genes over several generations, and the loss of those with a less than fit genetic complement. Or, to put it more simply, if Houdini had a hundred children, and one of them had some genetic change that made him more able to tolerate cold than the others, and a gigantic ice age overtook the earth very suddenly, killing half of those who didnt have the genetic changes, then after a few generations, the humans left would mostly have the genetic changes I have mentioned, that make them better able to live in the cold.

But you should know all that anyway.

Oh, and do you have any evidence that Houdini could and did acclimatise himself to overcome hypothermia, and what physiological studies do you have to prove that?
 
Since we're in the religion forum, I assume that Woodys point is that Darwinism is a false religion. Which I entirely agree with. 100% agree in fact.
 
Woody said:
but what should I expect from athiests on a religion forum anyway?
Click to expand...
this is I believe a science forum called sci(ence)forums, consisting of 27 sub-forums, seven are totally science two are science tecnology.
four are Philosophy, and religion is one fourth of that.
 
Woody said:
I caught the frog in a reed thicket, I had him in my possession the whole time, and nobody else knew about him but me. Nobody else had access to him and the cigarette butts were odviously floaters from the run-off that goes into the creek (no ash or tobacco remaining on them). They were not full strength in nicotene, probably floated a while and then washed up on the creek bank. Maybe the wind blew them around, and the frog thought they were bugs, who knows?
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like an animal perfectly adapted for its environment to me, Woody. Did God make a mistake in its perfect design?

Geoff
 
Woody said:
Guthrie says: Oh wow! Woody's tests have been fulfilled! By bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance! Who would have thought it!

Woody says: Is this genetic or is it just tolerance to poisons being developed by individuals? Animals and humans have a pretty remarkable ability to develop tolerance. Consider Harry Houdini -- he acclimated himself in ice-cold water to overcome hypothermia.
Click to expand...

Actually, not just antibiotic resistance, but wholesale change in cellular morphology.

That be: thems bacteria descended from the same line looked a-mighty different after a couple hundred generations of selection, mmm-hmm.

Same-o for cats and dogs and "setch".

Mmm-hmm.

Geoff
 
Hey Spurious - what made you pick those studies, dude? I know some of those guys. Where you working? Or what with?

Geoff
 
Most of the stuff is just ripped of "science" breakthrough of the year. 'Natural selection in the wildI used to own till I misplaced it. Teeth used to be my business (evo-devo), now I am studying another appendage. One that is predominantly present in males.
 
Question for Creationists: If diseases like the flu change/modify each year, that must mean God is regularly introducing new diseases. explain please.
 
And this... Cavemen have been proved to have lived. only idiots would doubt that.

Yet Adam % Eve were the first ..... so he made the perfect couple... just to then think.
" hmm .. actually i'll make them apes and let them do it themselfs.... " nasty b*stard aint he.
 
Is "fitness" really so confusing?

I think confusion comes because fitness is always relative to an environment. What makes an animal "fit" in one environment might well make it "unfit" in another.

For example, take a bunch of bacteria. Put them in an acidic environment. Then, those which are better adapted to acidic environments will be "fitter" than those which aren't. Now put the same bacteria into a basic environment. Chances are, the acid-adapted bacteria won't do as well as other bacteria better adapted to the new environment.
 
Originally Posted by Woody

As I said in the beginning -- all I asked for was a definition of "survival of the fittest" that's provable in logic. Look what I got instead. It's amazing that it's taken literally hundreds of posts to get there. Nobody proposed an example -- just the same old B.S. and name calling. Pretty poor.

That is how this whole misunderstanding began, from misinformation about evolution on this forum -- but what should I expect from athiests on a religion forum anyway?
Click to expand...
How novel, a chimp which can manipulate a keyboard, and actually has the cheek to criticize evil 'athiests' who have corrected his blatant misconceptions about basic evolutionary theory. It's just a pity that you can't reason with this creature.

Oh well, as Marie Antoinette once said: "If they have no brain, then let them eat cock." I think. Well, she said 'something' along those lines, anyway, and I find the quote relevant to this discussion. Cease trying to educate Woody, and let him eat cock.
 
Last edited:
S/M says:
Do you have a point? Never heard of genome theory btw. But then again I am just a biologist for a living.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a microbiologist can explain it better:

Genome Theory of Disease

I welcome you to join me on a gentler, kinder forum that debates creation and evolution. Where the debates aren't so onesided like they are here, and where people show a little more respect for one another. Maybe it's not for you for whatever reason but you're welcome anyway. :)

EVC Forum

Here are a couple of the rules:

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. -- amen to that

I'm going to a civil forum. Bye y'all.

Have a great life!
 
Last edited:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics. -- amen to that
 
Originally Posted by Woody
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. ”

S/M said:

Did you ever read your own first post on this thread?


Darwin's theory of evolution is logically flawed. I'm not the first to bring it up. I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity. The "cause" of evolution has not really been proven.

http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm

http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest


The author of the first two technical papers is waiting for someone to provide a satisfactory definition of "natural selection." He has been waiting years for someone to accomplish this.
Click to expand...

I must say I was quite specific, I asked for a cause of evolution, as did the author of the papers. That's the bottom line in the technical papers. Perhaps you just weren't paying attention. Maybe that's why you went on a rant, I don't know.

For the dozenth time, that's all I ever asked for was a definition from you or anyone else concerning a cause of evolution.

So why can't you and everyone else just get over it?

I provided the third link about "survival of the fittest" so anyone could understand that there are two positions in all fairness. I like to try to understand both sides, and I just assumed others thought likewise. I knew I might give an antagonist some ammunition to use against me (which you did) but I was willing to take the risk to get an answer.


S/M
That wasn't what you were talking about earlier.
Click to expand...

Woody: No, not exactly what I meant, but not everything is fully understood about genomes yet, and that is what I meant. You said you never heard of genome theory before, and it does exist. As I recall you made a point about it on two occassions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top