Like what? What are the viable alternative theories? Can you name one?I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.
Like what? What are the viable alternative theories? Can you name one?I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.
Like what? What are the viable alternative theories? Can you name one?
No, almost every day, more facts supporting ToE are found. = Not dying, but growing stronger.Evolution is a dying scientific theory. I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.
Evolution is a dying scientific theory. I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.
Just because we don't yet have a scientific alternative to evolution doesn't mean that there isn't an alternative scientific theory. It just means that we haven't discovered it yet.
But for what it's worth, please see this link (10 alternatives to evolution):
http://listverse.com/2013/03/08/10-alternatives-to-evolution/
Do you find enjoyment out of making up these fantasies? This type of 'stuff' should be in the fringe section.I would conclude that a new human species evolved, about 6000 years ago, based on very profound and wide spread behavior changes due to changes in neuron water potential, which can impact both the brain and/or the genetics. The equilibrium changes many things at the same time so there is integration.
Of which, what 8 of 10 are religious in nature? So, creationism. I'm going to go out on a limb here and can 'morphic resonance'.
'Better matches experience from our day to day lives' - what, the day to day existence over which the central argument of theists is that evolution cannot be observed?
I never like the genetic mutation model, as applied to evolution, even if this can explain fossil data well and it can be done in the lab. If we assume random changes in the DNA, this will lead to more real time defects than it will lead to useful changes. The genetic change in not random if the dice are loaded by the water.
Evolution explains our development from single cell organisms to current organisms quite well. We see it in use every day; indeed, principles from evolution are used in everything from crop hybridization to computer programming. We can see organisms evolve in the lab, and we can even see very basic synthetic life evolve. It is growing quite quickly.Evolution is a dying scientific theory. I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.
sorry, i can't retract something that someone else said james.Moderator note: leopold has been banned from sciforums for 1 week for knowingly telling lies.
Specifics:
James R:
Ayala thinks evolution occurs by natural selection, just as Darwin said. Ayala is not a Creationist.leopold:
he sure didn't feel that way at the conference.James R:
This is false and you know it. Telling deliberate lies is a breach of sciforums site rules - something that can get you banned from the forum. You will therefore apologise to everybody here for attempting once again to lie about this matter.leopold:
read the article for yourself then if you don't want to hear it from me. .... the quote is in the referenced article james, i'm sorry if you don't like it.Ayala gave a talk at the conference that accepted evolution. There is no quote in leopold's article, or anywhere else, from Ayala saying that he thinks that evolution by natural selection is false, or that he has Creationist views.
leopold will apologise for this lie upon his return to sciforums.
Having trouble with your comprehension of that command leopold?JamesR said:leopold will apologise for this lie upon his return to sciforums.
i recently found corroborating evidence for why ayala said what he did.
the science article refers to these gaps as "typical".
this implies that there could be transitional fossils.
the attached file goes one step further than that james
pay close attention to what niles eldridge has to say about the record.
but wait, he retracted, he was on drugs, he was a creationist.
i ran down a couple more sources too, i need to find them first though.
HEIL HEETLA ! !leopold will address the following matters upon his return or be banned again.
Here's your kiss leopold...HEIL HEETLA ! !
ALL HEIL DER FEWER ! ! !
i don't respond well to threats james.
i will respond to you post, but not under threat of ban.
kiss it.
The guy who said it said he didn't say it. So you can keep saying it, but we all know it's not valid and just makes you look like an asshole.sorry, i can't retract something that someone else said james.
ah, but it is relevant geoff.geoffp said:The location of the argument is irrelevant:
well, it seems to me that we have 3 factions vying for power.you clearly have some other mechanism in mind, so go ahead and propose it.
why aren't you a moderator geoff?I think it should be clear that I, among any member of SF, am probably about the most likely to deal with such a proposal fairly and on basis of the evidence.
i believe what i have presented is supported geoff.Where it's believable or supportable, I will say so.
i've given two different views of the conference and there are at least 2 more to be found.I only care about evidence.
thanks geoff.I don't want you to be banned.
what about MY frustration geoff?I do understand the frustration that some members of SF have in discussing this issue with you.
maybe.The issue is hugely irrelevant.
yes, and how do you resolve them in the face of the science article and the file i uploaded?There are nearly millions of articles on organic evolution at every level conceivable
the complete absence of transitional fossils is a non issue?Or, more fairly, that you refrain from making such sweeping comments, which appear to be groundless. The misquote is a complete non-issue:
correct.Even if a single evolutionary biologist felt that micro-evolution was not well supported, so what?
oh but it is geoff, the uploaded file is proof of the sorry state of the record.The evidence is evidence enough. It is hardly reasonable to pin the rationality of neoDarwinianism on a single dissenting opinion, which is not even a dissenting opinion in point of fact.
like i said, most of the bucking and kicking is coming from the graudalists.There are several schools of evolutionary thought, and they do not agree with each other either. Are they, then, with far more 'supporters' than even a misquote of Ayala might suggest, wrong? Unlikely.
sorry, it wasn't a quote mine, the words was printed verbatum in an issue of science.The answer is that it is simply another quote-mine. They happen. They are ignored, and so they ought to be.
the major problem with revising evolutionary theory is the creationists.Evolution is a dying scientific theory. I think we need a new theory which better matches experiences from our day to day life and that better explains life.