Evolution? How?

Biliskner wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Chronological ordering:
1.Darwin goes to Galapolas.
2.Darwin sees many different species.
3.Darwin "makes up" Darwinism/Evolution to explain different species.
4.Does Darwin see the species EVOLVE from one into another? No.

Wrong, dead wrong. Im getting a strange feeling that you are some undergrad student , whose got a "sort of " knowledeg of the major subject but has not spent time in considering what you write.
Darwin began with copious notes well before the Galapogos . His acquaintence with his own grandfathers work, his own dabbling in the clergy, his time on the pampas, his time on the Galapogos, his detailed and copious notes and specimens of finches that he pored over for about 30 yeARS. fINALLY , HIS friends mediate a term of agreement for publication between hhe and Wallace. Then, the years of modification of his theory and 2 more publications and a revision.

Without the benefit of detailed understanding of genetics this man came up with, what is arguably the most important discovery of the millenium.

FFS.

0.Darwin reads/comtemplates his grandfather's work.
1.Darwin goes to Galapolas.
2.Darwin sees many different species.
3.Darwin "makes up" Darwinism/Evolution to explain different species.
4.Does Darwin see the species EVOLVE from one into another? No.

I saw on a show on the discovery channel that Darwin borrowed his theory of evolution from another naturlist who wrote a book on the subject much earlier.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

patiodog wrote:
So how is that lowlier than, say, a tapeworm? Or an anemone, which doesn't move at all?

For lowest form of life on the planet, I vote for the flu virus which attacked me (without provocation I might add) last month. Tape worms are ugly, and anemonae's look like snot when they're out of the water, but the flu just sucks.

Snakes are really cool, very highly evolved and elegant. And anemonae's may look like snot when they're out of the water, but they can be fantastic when they're submerged.

See how much you know about snakes on the Snake quiz

All in all, I would say, "There are no 'lower' life forms, only limited views"

The snake is the lowest "form" of a creature... That includes tape worms and even sperm. Now a mature woman is elegant (and some men) Smile

but a snake or dinosaur? I do not think Dinosaurs are "elegant" rather hideous and crude in both intelligence and function.

0 Replies

The following is a good link that explains brains and intelligence of dinosaurs - and much more. Happy hunting and learning. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/anatomy/Brain.shtml

0 Replies

Quote:

I saw on a show on the discovery channel that Darwin borrowed his theory of evolution from another naturlist who wrote a book on the subject much earlier.

Darwin didnt borrow,or base , he and Wallace had a correspondence and Wallaces "paper" which was a teeny piece of the story published first. Darwin published his work as a full blown theory and was miles ahead of Wallace. Today its fashionable to call it ten Darwin/Wallace theory but to many of us , thats a bunch of PC revisionist crap. Anyway Wallace took his career in a totally different direction as he feared the Soapy Smiths and the power of the Churches. Wallace became a practitioner of spiritual divination. His lifes end was kind of nutty.

0 Replies

Quote:

If this IS an evolving universe, shouldn't there be hundreds, thousands or even millions of planets throught the galaxy with intellegent life. Space should be filled with radio signals from all these other planets that were formed at the same time as earth, yet SETI has yet to hear a peep.

Only if you ignore ALL science would this make sense. Lets see what's wrong with your statement.

Earth has put out radio signals of any quantity for less than 100 years. A very short time period. Will earth still be putting out radio signals in 100 years? Hard to say as we move to other technologies. Seti can only check for patterns in radio signals based on how earth uses radio technology. 20 years ago we probably wouldn't have noticed patterns that are now used for digital signals. Your assumption that all intelligent life would be putting out recognizable radio signals is probably not true.

Secondly, the output of earth's radio signals is very small compared to the large output by natural forces in the universe. A quasar would more than drown out earth's signals even a few light years from here. We have a hard time hearing the signal from our probes that are out past Jupiter. Now compare that strength to the strength we would get from the closest yellow star which is 43 light years away. Signals weaken over distances and more and more background noise creeps in.

Would you care to explain why you think all radio signals from other planets would be instantly recognizable and would be guaranteed to reach Seti's radio telescopes?

0 Replies

Quote:

Soapy Smiths

Of course I mean Bishop Wilberforce, Soapy Smith was the corrupt mayor of Tombstone, when it was in the territories.

0 Replies

Bili,

I find it interesting that you continue to refuse to discuss anything that Answergenisis says. You only post it as your reasoning but can't ever back it up or respond when anyone raises questions about it.

It says a lot about you.

0 Replies

Quote:

The snake is the lowest "form" of a creature... That includes tape worms and even sperm. Now a mature woman is elegant (and some men) Smile but a snake or dinosaur? I do not think Dinosaurs are "elegant" rather hideous and crude in both intelligence and function.

How elitist of you.

0 Replies

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:
The snake is the lowest "form" of a creature... That includes tape worms and even sperm. Now a mature woman is elegant (and some men) Smile but a snake or dinosaur? I do not think Dinosaurs are "elegant" rather hideous and crude in both intelligence and function.

How elitist of you.

Adam and Eve thought as you... they gave dominion over the earth to a snake.

0 Replies

That's right! Isn't it the snake that told them to eat the apple?

0 Replies

Heck, if I saw a snake on an apple tree, and it told me to eat an apple, I'd do it.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Soapy Smiths

Of course I mean Bishop Wilberforce, Soapy Smith was the corrupt mayor of Tombstone, when it was in the territories.

Thanks for expounding on that, very interesting. The show that I watched, I thought credited Wallace with publishing the idea first. Though my recollection on this is highly uncertain and you seem much more knowledgeable about it...

0 Replies

Quote:

Adam and Eve thought as you... they gave dominion over the earth to a snake.

Wow.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Heck, if I saw a snake on an apple tree, and it told me to eat an apple, I'd do it.

I believe the snake represents evil and when evil is ingested it infects the body and possesses the soul.

0 Replies

Can't happen, I'm an atheist, and we don't believe in ingestion of evil. I'm already evil - according to the religious folks.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Can't happen, I'm an atheist, and we don't believe in ingestion of evil. I'm already evil - according to the religious folks.

Well I am not judging anybody just making a general statement. I would recommend not listening to talking snakes though. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Rexred-yes, Wallace did publish firast as a sort of "deal" cooked up by Huxley brokering the pubs. Wallaces work was a mere "intro" to Darwin, but it concerened Darwin enough that he got off his butt and finished his major work. Darwins was actually a sytematics approach while Wallace (you can read his work in Quammens Island Biogeography) Its actually a very short, but originally insightful piece of work. and for that (originally) Wendt gave them both a share of the credit for initiating the theory. Theres too much in Darwin to give anyone else a share of the thought and developed theory, but it kept the two as colleagues until, when the Wilberforces started claiming major heresies afoot, Wallace split and became the spiritualist and just about divorced himself of anything biological. Darwin and Huxley carried the fight to the churchmen and Huxley confronted the George McCready prices of the US who were carrying the fight "against satanic modernistic thinking" to include the "evils of evolution". It was very political, as well as doctrinal

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Biliskner wrote:
patiodog wrote:
I have to admit that I'm not keeping up, but, um, why exactly is the snake the lowliest form of all creatures in nature?

"crawls" on its belly.

So how is that lowlier than, say, a tapeworm? Or an anemone, which doesn't move at all?

dunno. all it says is:
"So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."
- Gen 3

i think the "lowly" word was implied by whoever i quoted that from. you can find it in pages 40-60 somewhere...

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

patiodog wrote:
So how is that lowlier than, say, a tapeworm? Or an anemone, which doesn't move at all?

For lowest form of life on the planet, I vote for the flu virus which attacked me (without provocation I might add) last month. Tape worms are ugly, and anemonae's look like snot when they're out of the water, but the flu just sucks.

Snakes are really cool, very highly evolved and elegant. And anemonae's may look like snot when they're out of the water, but they can be fantastic when they're submerged.

See how much you know about snakes on the Snake quiz

All in all, I would say, "There are no 'lower' life forms, only limited views"

hey that blue amoe will look good on my phone...

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Biliskner wrote:
rosborne, you might run into more Creationists in the years to come

I guess that's possible, but for the sake of humanity, we can only hope not.

for your sake i hope you're wrong.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know