Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
751 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, nwr, Percy (Admin), Phat, vimesey (6 members, 745 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,332 Year: 6,444/6,534 Month: 637/650 Week: 175/232 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 29 of 195 (151546)
10-21-2004 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
06-24-2004 4:05 AM


As to knowing how complex nature can be, that was obvious long before Darwin's time and does not require incorporation of the supernatural to explain it...

This is untrue, to my knowledge........before Pasteur (who post-dated Darwin's theory, by a bit), it wasn't even known that there WAS microscopic life, much less how complex it was. People saw mold grow on meat and maggots pop out of it and assumed that life spontaneously emerged. What they didn't know (as Pasteur discovered) was that the mold was caused from microscopic bacteria......and the maggots were baby flies.......and they both had genetic codes which EMBARASS the most power computers in the world today.

in fact, nothing in science benefits from incorporating or postulating mythical supernatural causes.

This is not true. Ancient texts prove to be highly reliable time and time again......remember back in the day when Voltaire mocked the "fictional" Hittites spoken of in the Bible? Remember when Troy and the Trojan wars were thought to be pure myth? And, more recently, many ancient civilizations are being discovered which account for both the "myths" of Atlantis and Noah's flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 06-24-2004 4:05 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 10-21-2004 8:49 AM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 8:54 AM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2004 12:00 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 30 of 195 (151547)
10-21-2004 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
10-19-2004 9:43 PM


I think one of the testaments to Darwin's genius is how little he actually would have had to change.

From punctuated equilibrium to heredity to the Big Bang theory, this is simply untrue.......because scientists HAVE had to change it plenty to keep it viable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2004 9:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 10-21-2004 10:28 AM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 10-21-2004 11:01 AM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2004 11:42 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 33 of 195 (151551)
10-21-2004 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
06-30-2004 12:57 AM


Darwin did deal with macroscopic complex systems, namely the mammalian eye. He was amazed at the complexity of the organ, but he found that every step of eye evolution was present in living organisms, starting with a photosensitive spot right up to a lensed eye with a retina. He felt that evolution does address complexity, and explains it well in that evolution would add layers to already existing systems, therefore building up complexity over time.

I could see a flukishly complex organ evolving once or twice, but 35 seperate times, as is the number which I've heard quoted? A similar deal with limbs as well.

Not to say that this invalidates Darwin's theory, but it certainly makes it more difficult.........because irreducibly compex systems can't be accounted for entirely by natural selection......it would have to be largely on luck that they evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 06-30-2004 12:57 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 34 of 195 (151554)
10-21-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by CK
10-21-2004 8:49 AM


As the idea of the flood has been destroyed more times that I can remember on this board - if you have something new to add - please let us know what it is.

The melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age caused world wide flooding. Some recent discoveries lead some (non-theistic) people to believe that the world's first civilzations existed at that time.

I'll elaborate in a bit, if you like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 10-21-2004 8:49 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 10-21-2004 9:06 AM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 67 by AdminNosy, posted 10-21-2004 11:02 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 35 of 195 (151555)
10-21-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
10-21-2004 8:54 AM


PaulK, I've always been taught that it was Pasteur that had discovered microscopic life, and that the idea of spontaneous generation was common place in Darwin's time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 8:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:12 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 38 of 195 (151559)
10-21-2004 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by CK
10-21-2004 9:06 AM


I saw documentaries on them on the Science Channel........I'd have to imagine there's stuff online about it too though. There are speculations that the Jamon people, who were the ancestors of the Japanese, were actually civilized themselves. There's also believed to be an under-water city built in what was once the Indus valley.......but then was later flooded during the glacial melting.

But most convincing of all are the accounts of a man who believes that Atlantis was actually an ancient Meso-American civilization.......that guy had a TON of proof for his claim, such as the fact that it's geographically west of Greece (as Plato claimed), that the Alto-Plano area of South America is the only area in tyhe world that matches Plato's description of Atlantis' geography, Plato names orichalcon (a natural ore of part gold and part copper) as being mined in Atlantis, and the Alto-Plano region is the only area in the world where orichalcon is found, anthropological proof that the boats the Meso-Americans had at the time could have traversed the Atlantis, etc., etc. I'm suprised his theory is even still in debate which as much evidence seems to match up with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by CK, posted 10-21-2004 9:06 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2004 9:35 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 39 of 195 (151561)
10-21-2004 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
10-21-2004 9:12 AM


PaulK, still, spontaneous generation of life was an assumed fact in Darwin's day, and the level of complexity of microbes was not known.......two points which hurt his theory even today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:20 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:32 AM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 10-21-2004 9:36 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 40 of 195 (151562)
10-21-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:17 AM


Oh, and Charles, the Black Sea was a lake with inhabitants that lived by it before the glacial meltings.......I'm frankly suprised that the idea of glacial meltings being the world wide flood spoken of Biblically hasn't been proposed before, as it's a universally accepted instance of world wide flooding which could have at least been handed down in oral tradition.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:17 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 42 of 195 (151564)
10-21-2004 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
10-21-2004 9:20 AM


Which one's Hancock, the Jamon and Indus Valley guy (who had some interesting, but not overwhelming evidence for his claims) or the Atlantis guy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:37 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 46 of 195 (151569)
10-21-2004 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Mammuthus
10-21-2004 9:35 AM


I've heard no proof to back that claim up.......other than that it was destroyed by a tsunami.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2004 9:35 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2004 9:42 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 48 of 195 (151571)
10-21-2004 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
10-21-2004 9:32 AM


Nor did Darwin rely on the ideas of spontaneous generation disproven by Pasteur.

For the concept of first life, he did......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:47 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 49 of 195 (151572)
10-21-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
10-21-2004 9:37 AM


PaulK, the guy who proposed the Atlantis theory, and really has overwhelming proof to back it, was a different guy, I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2004 9:54 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 50 of 195 (151573)
10-21-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Jack
10-21-2004 9:36 AM


How exactly do you think the complexity of microrganisms hurts Darwin's theory? I believe the nature of complexity found in them strongly supports his theory.

Because it makes the problem of first life incredibly hard........especially with the extremely limited time span.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 10-21-2004 9:36 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Jack, posted 10-21-2004 9:54 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 10-21-2004 11:07 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 52 of 195 (151575)
10-21-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Mammuthus
10-21-2004 9:42 AM


What does the documentation say, and who was it by?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2004 9:42 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2004 9:46 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 55 of 195 (151579)
10-21-2004 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Mammuthus
10-21-2004 9:46 AM


I'm guessing that the former holds that life sprung from inanimate chemicals........which isn't necessarily evolutionary theory, but it's usually combined with evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2004 9:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022