Evolution theory debunked?!

Evolution theory =

  • A great heap of that brown, stinky stuff!

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • In some aspects true (wich ones?)

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • In some aspects false

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • I'm not shure what evolution theory is

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Total voters
    22
I once read about a theory that said that evolution is induced, that we can choose to evolve. That would explain why we have fossils of giraffes with short necks, and suddenly they have longer necks. It's just a hypothesis, I guess. But it is obvious that the present evolution theory has a few holes in it
 
I'd say a simpler answer to the giraffe short-neck thing would be that it was a divergent species, as opposed to spontanious evolution. IE the sivathere's didn't evolve into modern giraffe's; they co-existed w/ the giraffe's ancestors, and have since gone extinct.

But...anything's possible.
 
But how the giraffes got long necks!? or they did have them since the beginning? Do you see animals with long necks? They must have evolved to get the long necks, and there's absolutely no evidence pointing at this direction!
 
TruthSeeker said:
But how the giraffes got long necks!? or they did have them since the beginning? Do you see animals with long necks? They must have evolved to get the long necks, and there's absolutely no evidence pointing at this direction!
Click to expand...

Aside for the fossils, anatomical and genetic evidence of course.
 
They must have evolved to get the long necks, and there's absolutely no evidence pointing at this direction!
Click to expand...
There's actually a good tonne of evidence pointing in that direction.
And, doubting girraffes evolved to have long necks requires evidence to be considered as well. If thats not what happened there needs to be an alternative theory, you can't just say "girraffes didn't evolve long necks" and leave it at that, something definately happened right?
Girraffes not evolving long necks has no evidence whatsoever, while girraffes evolving long necks has heaps, so its a pretty simple choice.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Aside for the fossils, anatomical and genetic evidence of course.
Click to expand...
Is there any genetical evidence (if that is really possible)...?



Dr Lou Natic said:
There's actually a good tonne of evidence pointing in that direction.
And, doubting girraffes evolved to have long necks requires evidence to be considered as well. If thats not what happened there needs to be an alternative theory, you can't just say "girraffes didn't evolve long necks" and leave it at that, something definately happened right?
Girraffes not evolving long necks has no evidence whatsoever, while girraffes evolving long necks has heaps, so its a pretty simple choice.
Click to expand...
Ok, but there's still no fossils showing the transition, are there? That's the significant evidence that we should have if the theory is right. Otherwise, we might as well create a new hypothesis...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TruthSeeker,

Sure we can prove the genetic relations of Giraffes to other mammals, we can show how the giraffe family tree evolved, even when it evolved. If the Giraffe and say the antelope had a common ancestor, gee I wonder why they look so different, the giraffe must have grow this long neck and the antelope did not, hence evolution.
 
There are no such proofs (at least what I've heard of). What actually happens is that we have a loooooong period of time with no changes and then suddenly, you have dramatic changes. That's why I believe the theory is not all correct. There's something missing here. The change occurs too fast, and the theory says that it happens very slowly. So the wuation is why that happens, and if it happens at all.
 
and what gives you the idea the change happens to fast? Many theories inside general evolution shows that speciation can happen in just a few hundred generations when the environmental pressures are right.
 
Because we don't see any fossils showing the transformations. Like for example.... we find fossils dated from 8 AD with short neck and then suddenly in 10 AD they have long necks (just an extreme example). There's no in-between.
 
The fissile record is very sketchy, only one in million animals get fossilized. How do we know this fossils you refer to are direct ancestors of the giraffe? In many causes of paleontology we have found gradual evolution, for example horses, whales, humans, reptiles to mammals, ect. One example because of a lack of evidence does not mean an exception.
 
Better than fossills, we have living representations of the transitions. Ever heard of a dik dik?
There are living animals which descend from the transitional animals (transitional is a stupid word because every animal is a transitional animal).
Monotremes represent early mammals, they have some reptilian traits and are descended from animals which appeared before placental mammals. etc etc. Even without fossils all the major evolutionary moments are adequately represented in todays animal kingdom. Which is incredibly lucky really. Evolution is laid out for us as clear as day.

we find fossils dated from 8 AD with short neck and then suddenly in 10 AD
Click to expand...
Haha, not much as happened since "AD".
Humans are one of the youngest species on earth.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
The fissile record is very sketchy, only one in million animals get fossilized. How do we know this fossils you refer to are direct ancestors of the giraffe? In many causes of paleontology we have found gradual evolution, for example horses, whales, humans, reptiles to mammals, ect. One example because of a lack of evidence does not mean an exception.
Click to expand...
This is very bad, statistically...
 
I don't know about everyone else, but it doesn't seem to me that Mr. Meyer there is really debating the question of evolution, in general. Obviously evolution, as such, occurs in humans, in nature, in technology, in thought, etc... It seems to me that Ol' Stevie here is simply putting to question the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Evolution as a theory (and I believe there are a number of different forms) is actually quite specific. It is the specifics of evolutionary origins, as well as the actual evolutionary processes, that Stephen C. is putting under pressure.

SO, is this the end of evolution? It doesn't seem so. Rather, it seems that it is simply the end of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. What this man suggests, is what has been in my mind for quite some time now. However, while my conclusion is based in speculative reasoning, his seems to be based upon more practical, and applicative reasoning.
 
Last edited:
The basics of theory of Darwinian evolution: random mutation, selections of the best mutates by environmental pressures, is still completely accepted.
 
I'd suggest reading David Quammen's excellent feature article in the December "National Geographic". The header is "Was Darwin Wrong?" & the article makes it abundantly clear that he was not. Quammen also sets out the nature of a scientific theory, for those who think that evolution is "just a theory".

Intelligent Design is not a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, since it is manifestly NOT science.
 
I like Creationists and ID's always trying to debunk Evolution. I've actually NEVER heard a Christian try to prove Christian Creationism. They think that the last one left standing is the right one.

I've rarely taken my hand at debating with people who actually know what they're talking about; just because I could care less about who believes in what.
 
Evolution never happened the flood theory makes more sense than evolution. You guys study too much on evolution and hardly enough studying on the theorys that a God created the earth. Given enough time anything can happen. So of coarse its very complicated to proove wrong, but the flood theory is not so complicated and explains much in a short amount of time instead of billions and billions of years and finally there is a human. There is more proof of the Bible than of evolution.
 
Are we supposed to be familiar with the intracies of this so called flood theory?

I can't remember it being taught in school. Maybe you could give us some details.
 
Well all I can point out is that evolution is still occuring, notibly in species of Insects, Arachnids and Reptiles. The reason it's noticable is due to their life expetancy and gestation periods, basically you can have many tens, hundreds or thousands of generations of a specie within your own life time.

As for evolution as "A tree of life", you have to note that you might be able to look at a normal tree and thing that everything branches off neatly, however evolution contain alot of chaos.

For instance Horse and a Donkey mate, what do they give birth to?
An 'Ass' or 'Mule', now what happens when two Ass/Mules mate?
Well it's stated it will give birth to either a Horse or a Donkey, however if this continued as a trend over time you would end up with something thats not pure horse, not pure donkey and no longer even Ass/Mule.

As for how the creation of complex organisms was derived, well suggested is at first there could have been many mutated forms of lesser organisms, they would have been potentially very weak alone but would have found strength in numbers.
(Notibly Coral colonies are a good example of how so many small organisms could cluster together to create shelter as a whole)

The other aspect of being close together is the ability to multiply and reproduce, even mitosis. I suggest as theory that mitosis needs accompanying cells to be able to cause it's reaction, without them the reaction wouldn't occur. (My theory is if a flake of skin falls from you to the ground, it's not like within a week it's turned into the preverbial horror star "The stuff" and consuming all in sight)

I could write far more, however I think I've probably written enough to conclude that Darwinism is old in the tooth for a explaination, and technology does move use to more precise answers, however you can't rule it out as being the forfather to Evolution theory.

Just remember that Darwinism didn't just cover the substance of a creature but the life it leads too, as organisms evolve they can also become more community driven which in turn leads to alterations in what evolutionary paths they would take (Like mutants being singled out)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top