Evolution has been Debunked

[GaiaGirl95]

http://chelan.com/lake-chelan-wa/ in the link is an attack quoted from a newspaper witness entry in the late 1800's in which a traveler was attacked by a legendary cryptid, known as a dragon. It is clearly described as having hind-legs, fore-legs, and in between, a pair of wings, overall making the animal a six-limbed vertebrate.

Evolution says that vertebrates evolved from a fish that had 4 ''limbs''. Therefore, according to evolution, dragons cannot exist. The circumstantial evidence says otherwise and science refuses to recognize dragons as a species because of the threat to the theory of evolution.

 

[spidergoat]

http://chelan.com/lake-chelan-wa/ in the link is an attack quoted from a newspaper witness entry in the late 1800's in which a traveler was attacked by a legendary cryptid, known as a dragon. It is clearly described as having hind-legs, fore-legs, and in between, a pair of wings, overall making the animal a six-limbed vertebrate.

Evolution says that vertebrates evolved from a fish that had 4 ''limbs''. Therefore, according to evolution, dragons cannot exist. The circumstantial evidence says otherwise and science refuses to recognize dragons as a species because of the threat to the theory of evolution.

An anecdotal report is not evidence.

 

[billvon]

Evolution says that vertebrates evolved from a fish that had 4 ''limbs''. Therefore, according to evolution, dragons cannot exist.

And apparently neither can elephants or spider monkeys, each with five useful "limbs."

 

[GeoffP]

http://chelan.com/lake-chelan-wa/ in the link is an attack quoted from a newspaper witness entry in the late 1800's in which a traveler was attacked by a legendary cryptid, known as a dragon. It is clearly described as having hind-legs, fore-legs, and in between, a pair of wings, overall making the animal a six-limbed vertebrate.

Evolution says that vertebrates evolved from a fish that had 4 ''limbs''. Therefore, according to evolution, dragons cannot exist. The circumstantial evidence says otherwise and science refuses to recognize dragons as a species because of the threat to the theory of evolution.

I think it's more because of the threat posed to sanity. Has someone collected any physical evidence? A footprint, even?

 

[Aqueous Id]

http://chelan.com/lake-chelan-wa/ in the link is an attack quoted from a newspaper witness entry in the late 1800's in which a traveler was attacked by a legendary cryptid, known as a dragon. It is clearly described as having hind-legs, fore-legs, and in between, a pair of wings, overall making the animal a six-limbed vertebrate.

What you mean is that there is legend of such an attack, which invalidates it as a subject worthy of zoology and relegates this instead to the field of psychology. There are many well known causes of psychotic hallucinations, just as there are behavioral aspects to the kind of personality that enjoys inventing stories to amuse children. Still another personality type is that of a person who picks such stories up and treats them as more than fables and legends. For that we reserve the word "naive". I don't exactly have a word for the person who takes it a step further and posts it as a topic in genetics.

Evolution says that vertebrates evolved from a fish that had 4 ''limbs''.

No it doesn't. Fish are vertebrates. Vertebrates evolved from Chordata, which possess the precursor to a spinal column known as a notochord. Among them is are the spineless fishes such as lancelets. You meant to say quadrupeds evolved from true fish. In fact there are fish alive today which can perambulate on their fins, dig in the sand and mud with their fins, and breathe air to some degree -- all of which are the "missing link" traits between aquatic fish and amphibians. Perhaps you'd be more at ease with the observation that amphibious quadrupeds evolved from purely aquatic ones.

Therefore, according to evolution, dragons cannot exist.

No, dragons can not exist because they were born in fables, not in the DNA of any actual animals. Besides, it's paleontology, not evolution, which reveals that flying reptiles such as Archeopteryx once existed, and it's zoology, not evolution, which reveals that various lizards have adapted precursors to flight akin to parasailing. The quadrupedal anatomy evolved entirely as a best means of paddling water.

The circumstantial evidence says otherwise and science refuses to recognize dragons as a species because of the threat to the theory of evolution.

The circumstantial evidence merely suggests that this is why you got banned.

When you come back from your timeout, feel free to tell us what is the actual source of your angst against science.

 

[wellwisher]

I don't think Gaia Girl is against science, but only the narrow definition of evolution, as is currently sales pitched. Let me reason what I mean.

If we assume dragons were born within fables, like Aqueous ID suggests, then these stories and characters originally evolved within the matrix of the human mind. They came to be via processes within the brain. They evolved within the biology of neuro-circuits. It is not conclusive whether this product of the imagination had a connection to the DNA, or whether it was from free will which was able to override the DNA. However, the fact that dragons appears in so many cultures, many with little historical connection/interaction at inception of the fables, (east and west) suggests a collective human connection which points to the DNA.

In other words, rather than a physical change due to evolution such as eye color, there are also personality, instinctive and perception changes due to evolution that are less visible, like eyes, except though the written and oral traditions which describe these changes. In modern times, public education has the students to itself for 6 hours per day and can program them to any fantasy they wish. But back when dragons were around (so to speak) there was no public education. The programming was much looser, yet these stories impacted and persisted; natural osmosis.

As such, like physiology which becomes the foundation of further evolution (four limbs) these mental images or neural circuit types became the basis for the evolution of the mind. Maybe the definition of evolution is too narrow and this was the point.

 

[Seattle]

I'm sure that wasn't the point and the definition of evolution isn't too narrow...it is what it is. Science isn't ignoring anything. When there's something to test it's tested.

Let's not pretend there was anything intelligent about the original post that started this thread

 

[exchemist]

I don't think Gaia Girl is against science, but only the narrow definition of evolution, as is currently sales pitched. .

On the contrary, there is ample evidence that GaiaGirl is either anti-science or is simply a troll (the only remaining doubt being whether his objective is to annoy people in general or just scientists in particular). If you look at the other threads he has posted and the manner in which he has conducted the ensuing "discussion", this should be plain.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't think Gaia Girl is against science, but only the narrow definition of evolution, as is currently sales pitched. Let me reason what I mean.

If we assume dragons were born within fables, like Aqueous ID suggests, then these stories and characters originally evolved within the matrix of the human mind.

Well, evolution as currently pitched is concerned with reality. I don't think this was her point, but if it was, it's entirely irrelevant. She's free to her own opinions but what we're trying to do is describe the world as it exists, not how fantasy might perceive it. Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Write4U]

I don't think Gaia Girl is against science, but only the narrow definition of evolution, as is currently sales pitched. Let me reason what I mean.

If we assume dragons were born within fables, like Aqueous ID suggests, then these stories and characters originally evolved within the matrix of the human mind. They came to be via processes within the brain. They evolved within the biology of neuro-circuits. It is not conclusive whether this product of the imagination had a connection to the DNA, or whether it was from free will which was able to override the DNA. However, the fact that dragons appears in so many cultures, many with little historical connection/interaction at inception of the fables, (east and west) suggests a collective human connection which points to the DNA.

Dragons used to exist, we can show this from fossils. They were just not bestowed with magical powers except size and strength. They still do exist, just on a smaller scale.

In other words, rather than a physical change due to evolution such as eye color, there are also personality, instinctive and perception changes due to evolution that are less visible, like eyes, except though the written and oral traditions which describe these changes. In modern times, public education has the students to itself for 6 hours per day and can program them to any fantasy they wish. But back when dragons were around (so to speak) there was no public education. The programming was much looser, yet these stories impacted and persisted; natural osmosis.

I believe the commonly accepted spiritual beings are named Tulpa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
Alexandra David Neel did an lifetime research into the ability of creating a (meta) physical being with the mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_David-Néel

As such, like physiology which becomes the foundation of further evolution (four limbs) these mental images or neural circuit types became the basis for the evolution of the mind. Maybe the definition of evolution is too narrow and this was the point.

Can we use the term "evolution of the mind" or should the term be "evolution of the brain"?

The definition of the term evolution is indisputable. The problem lies in the hubris of trying to seperate life into "kinds", each with a more or less favored position in the "God's scheme of things". And of course man was at the top of kinds, created in the "image" of god.
The process of this argument is an evolutionary function. Evolution is a very simple process which allows all "kinds" of life (and anything else) to be created. It rests in the Laws of Cause and Effect and the concept of Potential (the implicate of that which may become reality).

IMO, evolution happens not only in the physical world, but also in the meta-physical world. But none of it is intentional planning, it is the function which selects greater efficiency and may start with uncertainty at the quantum scale and end with millions of species of lifeforms evolved from a random single natural event. An inevitability in the evolution (change) of everything.

 

[Michael]

http://chelan.com/lake-chelan-wa/ in the link is an attack quoted from a newspaper witness entry in the late 1800's in which a traveler was attacked by a legendary cryptid, known as a dragon. It is clearly described as having hind-legs, fore-legs, and in between, a pair of wings, overall making the animal a six-limbed vertebrate.

Evolution says that vertebrates evolved from a fish that had 4 ''limbs''. Therefore, according to evolution, dragons cannot exist. The circumstantial evidence says otherwise and science refuses to recognize dragons as a species because of the threat to the theory of evolution.

lol

 

[cornel]

I think it is adorable that this girl tried to take on evolution just to save her precious dragons(probably a Game of Thrones fan)

 

[exchemist]

I think it is adorable that this girl tried to take on evolution just to save her precious dragons(probably a Game of Thrones fan)

I don't think he's a girl. Some of us think this person posted as Mark95 or something on another forum before getting banned. But maybe I'm too cynical.

 

[pluto2]

Evolution is not a fact btw. It's just the best theory we currently have.

Personally I think it's possible that some higher being or maybe even an alien species far superior to us may have kick started life on this planet.

I know this is off topic from evolution just wanted to know your thoughts on this.

 

[Sorcerer]

Evolution is not a fact btw. It's just the best theory we currently have.

What's the next best? Doesn't start with a 'G' does it?

 

[pluto2]

What's the next best? Doesn't start with a 'G' does it?

Isn't it possible that some higher being or maybe even an alien species far superior to us may have kick started life on this planet?

 

[Sorcerer]

Isn't it possible that some higher being or maybe even an alien species far superior to us may have kick started life on this planet?

There's no proof of that, but there's plenty of proof for the evolution of species by means of natural selection. You could try Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. It's quite easy to read, actually.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Evolution is not a fact btw. It's just the best theory we currently have.

Evolution as the fact of all species that ever lived, or ever will live, is theory because it's beyond the scope of human observation. Evolution within the scope of human observation, such as the evolution that produced MRSA, is fact. Evolution is a fact; the facts of evolution are abundantly evident.

Personally I think it's possible that some higher being or maybe even an alien species far superior to us may have kick started life on this planet.

That kind of superstition has long since been rendered obsolete. You're now free to think that the Earth kick started its own biogenetic processes.

I know this is off topic from evolution just wanted to know your thoughts on this.

It certainly is more problematic than simply going with biogenesis.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution is not a fact btw. It's just the best theory we currently have.

Personally I think it's possible that some higher being or maybe even an alien species far superior to us may have kick started life on this planet.

I know this is off topic from evolution just wanted to know your thoughts on this.

That would not discount evolution, since it is only a theory of change over time. Still, whatever species seeded life here would also have evolved, if it wasn't artificial. And if life could evolve somewhere else, why couldn't it also evolve here? It's an unnecessarily complex theory.

 

[Write4U]

Isn't it possible that some higher being or maybe even an alien species far superior to us may have kick started life on this planet?

Motive?
Something like an ant-farm on a bigger scale?