Darwin is an idiot.

I will not try to sway ignorance with facts and logic, however I can share some information with those of you who would like brush up on current findings.

reply to post by Theophorus


He left and didn't become a minister.

Also in 1851 he completely lost his faith when his daughter Annie died.

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

Humans have voluntary breath control, this enables speech. Animals have reflexive breath control.

That is incorrect. Any terrestrial animal that can swim has voluntary breath control i.e. dogs and monkeys. Aquatic mammals like whales have reflexive breath control but even that can be argued to be semi-voluntary.

The animal chooses to swim and the swimming reflex package causes breathing to stop in emergencies, I am assuming. In general, land animals that swim keep their heads above water. No other land mammal (besides man) swims below the surface, needing to hold its breath. Why would any land mammal need to hold its breath?

Do you know that animals can hold their breath?

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

Humans have voluntary breath control, this enables speech. Animals have reflexive breath control.

That is incorrect. Any terrestrial animal that can swim has voluntary breath control i.e. dogs and monkeys. Aquatic mammals like whales have reflexive breath control but even that can be argued to be semi-voluntary.

The animal chooses to swim and the swimming reflex package causes breathing to stop in emergencies, I am assuming. In general, land animals that swim keep their heads above water. No other land mammal (besides man) swims below the surface, needing to hold its breath. Why would any land mammal need to hold its breath?

Do you know that animals can hold their breath?

Except dogs do dive and go under the surface. Beyond "doggie-paddling" this dog swims and fetches underwater.

Elephants Swimming

This monkey is swimming to cool off and for fun.



Edited to add: Another video of a dog swimming underwater

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by GenerationXisMarching

 

"even they came from one single celled organism"

Question: Where did this one single celled organism come from?

Every cell has a bi-lipid membrane enclosing it. The cell's skin if you will. The bi-lipid membrane forms spontaneously when phospholipids are put into water. Like soap bubbles. Over time some soap bubbles got chemicals inside of them that did chemical reactions.

In the probable pre-life Earth, (or some other planet if life came from an asteriod), all of the chemicals that are inside of living things now, were floating and drifting freely in the ocean and atmosphere. It has been demonstrated (in the 1950's) that basic chemicals will combine into amino acids, lipids, and DNA from;
random chemical reactions,
lightning,
mixing (at the shoreline and in storms),
heat (sun and volcanos) and
cosmic radiation

acting in combination.

When enzymes began to form, the process accelerated, and enzyme combinations inside of phospholipids became, at some point, the first life. This proccess has the potential to create many different kinds of cells or enzyme combination packets-- such as mitochondria or the DNA nucleus itself.

Theory of Abiogenesis

reply to post by Semicollegiate


To add to that recent study's suggest that clay vesicles provide an ideal container for complex organic molecules.In a way you could say we are from dirt.
Source:www.sciencedaily.com...
The research by the Harvard Materials Research Science and Engineering Center.

reply to post by CandiceZ


Are you joking to get some spirited debate? Nobody seriously disputes Darwinism these days except crackpot Creationists. Are you pushing "Creationism" praytel?

Originally posted by CandiceZ
Can I just clear this up please -


I am NOT religious at all. I think religion is the mother of all conspiracies and a form of control. Although I dont have a problem with people who are religious (before you all beat me with a stick.) unless they try to force their views. I do feel quite sorry for the deeply religious though.
I am not a Creationist. Like I have said before, I agree mostly with the concept of Intelligent Design.
I do not agree with Darwin's theory. That is it.

So what you believe is that all creatures were made as they appear today. Fair enough, but there is apparently proof things are otherwise, so how can Darwin be an idiot if he just thought of something logical--which has somesort of evidence or proof to justify his belief? Really do you have any sort of proof or evidence to justify your view? Or are you just trying to be logical?

reply to post by CandiceZ

Originally posted by CandiceZ
I am not a Creationist. Like I have said before, I agree mostly with the concept of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is creationism. And why do you agree with Intelligent Design?

I do not agree with Darwin's theory. That is it.

And you've not provided and legitimate reason why you disagree with it, you've merely demonstrated a massive ignorance of it.

reply to post by bootsnspurs33


Paragraphing, please use it in the future.

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
I am AMAZED at the sheer volume of words you've used, to demonstrate your lack of knowledge,

Irony.

Darwin's 1st year @ Edinborough he jumped around so much they almost made him take it again (anatomy,geology,& "beetle collecting" year 2, he called his doldrom (wasn't satisfied w/ his studies). year 3, theology & NATURAL history. He did NOT have a degree in natural philosophy, he was called a philosopher because he studied theology.

And yet he managed to go about collecting data in what is considered to be one of the greatest journeys in the history of field biology.

It is also VERY clear IF you would read his book instead of just saying you have that he considered the different human races as being either more or less evolved than others w/ blacks being almost sub human to him.

I have read his books, please show me where he thought people were more or less biologically evolved. Sure, he might have had his opinions about societal evolution, but that's a different story.

Also, please show me how this invalidates the basic idea of evolution.

As for there being evidence for & of evolution, only if you are DELIBERATELY trying to decieve other's or have been decieved by others by switching from micro-evolution to macro-evolution as it suits you.

There is evidence of evolution, both micro and macro. Hell, I keep asking what the barrier is between micro and macro evolution, yet nobody ever gives me an explanation.

Now, i'm sure you'll come back w/ yet another meaningless tirade full of verbage and empty of intelligence or you will resort to name calling, your mindless blather bores me, & either way you'll still be wrong.

You do realize that you've been engaging in personal attacks from the beginning, right?

You've given not a single piece of actual evidence, merely empty and incorrect opinions. You are wrong, I can show you're wrong.You can't show that you're right in the slightest.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Scientist have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules this is a fact...

Incorrect, there have been all sorts of experiments that give credence to the idea that have been repeated ad nauseum.

Really? I seriously have not heard of any experiment that came up with living molecules, better google it now That is a huge fact with big impact, I think that that would really put a lot of credibility to non-intelligent design. Better get researching...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by CandiceZ

 

Originally posted by CandiceZ
I am not a Creationist. Like I have said before, I agree mostly with the concept of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is creationism. And why do you agree with Intelligent Design?

I do not agree with Darwin's theory. That is it.

And you've not provided and legitimate reason why you disagree with it, you've merely demonstrated a massive ignorance of it.

I think it depends on which dictionary you use, on my computer dictionary it says that Creationism is the beginning of life as described in the book of Genesis. Intelligent Design is not in the dictionary, but the term implies that the Creation was by Intelligent Design, whether or not it was by what the book of Genesis or Christianity says.

I agree with the second point. Sometimes it is hard to explain what you believe.

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
I am AMAZED at the sheer volume of words you've used, to demonstrate your lack of knowledge …

Irony, thy name is bootsnspurs33, volume two…

I’m going to break your mischaracterization of his educational history down year by year to show how you’re either completely misinformed or are fabricating things.

Darwin's 1st year @ Edinborough he jumped around so much they almost made him take it again (anatomy,geology,& "beetle collecting" …

This is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. He was sent to Edinburgh by his father, who hoped he would become a doctor. Instead, he hated the lectures and was distressed by the surgical aspect. So he bailed on his classes and spent his time learning taxidermy, complete with its anatomical teachings, instead. Oh, and the entomology (as much as you'd like to belittle it so you can pretend it doesn't count as science) took place later.

year 2, he called his doldrom (wasn't satisfied w/ his studies).

Yes, he was still completely dissatisfied with his medical studies. So be bailed on his classes, again, and joined the Plinian Society, a natural history group. He studied the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates and got to present some of his findings at one of the group’s meetings. He also spent some time learning botany at this point.

year 3, theology & NATURAL history.

Heh, yeah… theology. His dad got sick of him “wasting” his education on non-medical fields of study, so he pulled Charles out of Edinburgh and stuck him in Christ’s College with the hope he’d at least become a parson. Only he still hated the course of study that was being chosen for him and this is when he picked up his penchant for entomology. He actually got some of his work published in Illustrations of British Entomology. If you’d like to claim that he studied natural history instead of natural philosophy, that’s fine by me – natural history is the scientific study of plants and animals.

He did NOT have a degree in natural philosophy, he was called a philosopher because he studied theology.

This doesn’t make him any less a scientist in his day. Newton, Hooke, Boyle, Galileo, Cassini, Darwin … all men of science before people were labeled as scientists. But the only one you seem to have a problem with is Darwin. Two thumbs up for obvious hypocrisy.

It is also VERY clear IF you would read his book instead of just saying you have that he considered the different human races as being either more or less evolved than others w/ blacks being almost sub human to him.

You’re confusing Darwin’s views on societal evolution vs biological evolution. Of course he believed that some societies were more advanced than others. But one of the key debates in this area of science in Darwin's time was whether or not the different human races were different species or not. Darwin opposed the racist doctrine of polygenism and believed that all human beings are the same species. He questioned whether race was really even a useful classification. Keep in mind that he was in the minority in these beliefs during his time. So if you're looking to accuse someone of being a racist, maybe you shouldn't point to the guy that believed that race in terms of differentiating humans from one another wasn’t even a valid concept. Maybe you should point to other anthropologists and biologists of mid to late 1800's who disagreed with Darwin.

From Darwin’s The Descent of Man:

Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.

Darwin was in the minority for having these beliefs.

As for there being evidence for & of evolution, only if you are DELIBERATELY trying to decieve other's or have been decieved by others by switching from micro-evolution to macro-evolution as it suits you.

Trying to force a fictitious divide between microevolution and macroevolution is a typical creationist tactic and quite a dishonest one at that. It was recognized decades ago that they are the same process viewed on different scales. The only reason it ever gets dragged into a conversation is so creationists can move the goalposts regarding what constitutes macroevolution to suit their needs. What's next? You going to claim that we've never observed speciation?

Now, i'm sure you'll come back w/ yet another meaningless tirade full of verbage and empty of intelligence or you will resort to name calling, your mindless blather bores me, & either way you'll still be wrong.

Sorry if your attention span isn’t long enough, but I’m replying with references and facts that directly counter your assertions. So keep finishing your posts with little parades of emoticons to distract yourself from the lack of actual content in your replies beyond the character attacks.

reply to post by iamaperson


Well, not ones that give rise to living ones, though there have been experiments that show that the possibility is there. The big issue is the fact that we cannot do these experiments at the appropriate scales, but they do show that phospholipids form bilayer structures on their own and that amino acids can arise on their own.

There's also the interesting fact of areas of life that are...vague. I'm talking about things that don't necessarily qualify as life but do have close resemblance. Of course, this isn't really the topic of the thread.

reply to post by iamaperson


I find that those who cannot really explain what they believe haven't really bothered to examine what they believe. It's particularly obvious when there are people who reject obvious established science for no reason and call people idiots.

Also, Intelligent Design originated as an idea from within the creationist movement. It was actually proven in the Kitzmiller trial. The infamous wedge document, the early drafts of 'Of Pandas and People', early version's of the Discovery Institutes webpage etc all show that Intelligent Design is a rebranding of creationism. The new branding is 'teach the controversy' (of which there is none).

I find that those who cannot really explain what they believe haven't really bothered to examine what they believe.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How would you define "faith"? I gave you a star anyway ... ;-)

reply to post by AllIsOne


Belief without or in spite of evidence.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Your thumbs down and reply to the posters comment made it seem like there had been conclusive evidence that living things were actually created. I understand that at the moment we can't quite do the experiments, but I guess only time will tell when we will be able to. Were viruses living? (Guess that's off the topic too).

I don't think it really matters where Intelligent design is derived from, if it is separate from the Christian idea, it's separate, and therefore people who do not believe in Creationism in the Bible might still believe in the idea that there is a Creator of some sort (for example one which uses evolution as a tool).

I find that those who cannot really explain what they believe haven't really bothered to examine what they believe. It's particularly obvious when there are people who reject obvious established science for no reason and call people idiots.

I suppose you are correct. I guess some of us (not including you) post stuff without really studying what they're talking about. Darwinism might be established science, but there probably are people who could argue against it, just obviously not the OP. Evolution to me makes sense, but I can see that for some people it wouldn't. I can also see the theory to be incorrect in the long term (as in Procaryotas evolving to Eukaryotas...)

Originally posted by iamaperson
Darwinism might be established science, but there probably are people who could argue against it, just obviously not the OP. Evolution to me makes sense, but I can see that for some people it wouldn't. I can also see the theory to be incorrect in the long term (as in Procaryotas evolving to Eukaryotas...)

In order to argue against modern synthesis you'd need to show data that disagrees with it (e.g. 100 million year old human fossils). Nobody has been able to bring forth such data. Also according to current understanding prokaryotes certainly didn't evolve from eukaryotes (prokaryotes are bacteria and archaea, eukaryotes are everything else). Also eukaryotes didn't (again according to current understanding) evolve from prokaryotes, instead prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestor from which both lineages came to be. Bacteriae is the deepest rooting domain, eukarya the 2nd and archaea are the last comer. However, there was a lot of horizontal gene transfer at the time between the domains. Also some bacteria like e.g. species of planctomycetes phylum (maybe deepest branching bacterial phyla) actually have structures (various types in different species) that much resemble the eukaryote nucleus.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Also according to current understanding prokaryotes certainly didn't evolve from eukaryotes (prokaryotes are bacteria and archaea, eukaryotes are everything else). Also eukaryotes didn't (again according to current understanding) evolve from prokaryotes, instead prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestor from which both lineages came to be. Bacteriae is the deepest rooting domain, eukarya the 2nd and archaea are the last comer. However, there was a lot of horizontal gene transfer at the time between the domains. Also some bacteria like e.g. species of planctomycetes phylum (maybe deepest branching bacterial phyla) actually have structures (various types in different species) that much resemble the eukaryote nucleus.

Oh, sorry, I thought Prokaryotes were unicellular organisms, and Eukaryotes multicellular ones. So whats the LUCA then, if not Procatyotic or Eukaryotic?