Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
Panda
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 534 of 760 (620018)
06-13-2011 8:09 PM 		Reply to: Message 532 by shadow71
06-13-2011 7:59 PM

Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
shadow71 writes:
​
...there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution...
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
​
No?
I thought not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 7:59 PM shadow71 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 9:08 PM Panda has replied
Panda
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 544 of 760 (620032)
06-13-2011 9:13 PM 		Reply to: Message 543 by shadow71
06-13-2011 9:08 PM

Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
shadow71 writes:
​
Panda writes:
​
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
No?
I thought not.
Yes I do. I will be posting scientific papers in the future.
So that is a 'No' then.
​
I didn't think you did, and you proved me correct.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 9:08 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
Panda
Member (Idle past 3739 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

Normal Thread Display
Message 577 of 760 (620509)
06-17-2011 11:19 AM 		Reply to: Message 576 by zi ko
06-17-2011 11:10 AM

Re: do we need a new ev. theory?
zi ko writes:
​
I agree. Science is just going ahead. But where is there that strikingly simple easy belief that classical Darwinism expllains life's diversity? I think now somebody is legitimate to think twice before accepting such a claim.
Even your use of 'classical' in the phrase 'classical Darwinism' shows that you realise that the Darwinism concept has been up-dated.
​
Anyone saying "Darwin was completely wrong!" or "Darwin was completely correct!" would be wrong.
He is not famous for being 100% correct.
He is famous for pointing us in the right direction with high accuracy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by zi ko, posted 06-17-2011 11:10 AM zi ko has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by zi ko, posted 06-20-2011 12:02 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024