Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong

Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
edited February 2013 in The Social Lounge
This thread was established for the sole purpose of "debunking" or "proving" that the theory of evolution is bogus......

And the engine of scientific racism................

All comments are welcome......

However......

Before you speak, know that in this thread, everyone, even a clown, is responsible for the words of their voice..........

Not to be standoffish.....

But I have advanced degrees in anthropology, and actually study this type of shit........

I believe that this is a G&S topic........

But will move to the R&R in a few days.............

Paleontologists Use 3-D Models to Rewrite Evolution

tetrapod.jpg

"Using a new modeling method, researchers bombarded these 360-million-year-old fossils with high-energy X-rays in order to make 3-D models of the ancient remains.......

The results made paleontologists do a 180. Literally......

The previously believed orientation of the backbone was, in fact, backward. Those vertebrae that paleontologists had thought faced forward were actually facing the rear, and vice versa.

The skeletons of these first four-legged creatures have long been used to show how the spine evolved. Paleontologists for the last 150 years have therefore theorized about spinal evolution based on an inaccurately pieced-together structure........

With the new findings in mind, paleontologists will now need to rewrite the story of early tetrapods and the evolutionary history of the development of other vertebrate species—humans included."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=42382&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews#.USlPyWdnCSo
VIBEFuriousOneA.J. Trillzynski
«13456720

Replies

  • Gold_CertificateGold_Certificate Posts: 13,332 ✭✭✭✭✭
    How does this involve Darwin?
    FuriousOneLUClEN
  • PremeerPremeer Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    darwin the genius scientist that supports evolution was wrong?!?


    i woulda never guessed ...........
  • WishboneJonesWishboneJones Infinity- 0 Posts: 21,083 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here's a idea, log off and go play in the sprinklers
    Bodhi
  • Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
    edited February 2013
    How does this involve Darwin?

    This.....

    New_Scientist_cover.jpg

    "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
    with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
    grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
    evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
    Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
    within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
    by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
    the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
    evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
    That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
    biology needs to change."
    http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

    On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.

    1859_Origin_F373_fig02.jpg

    The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...


    From tree to web

    "As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."

    texas409
  • Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
    INB4 kai comes in a rages like a scorned swordfish.

    I am up for up for an intelligent debate.......
  • DMTxTHCDMTxTHC Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Quick! somebody tag Oceanic! lol..
    PremeerDrew_Ali
  • PremeerPremeer Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    if kai supports evolution then she just lost all her beauty cuz that is ugly.
  • ohhhlaohhhla Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2013
    Hahahaha, silly negro.

    Evolution can't be disproven.
  • SixSickSinsSixSickSins Unbothered Supreme. I HATE WHITE PEOPLE.Posts: 8,031 Regulator
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    INB4 kai comes in a rages like a scorned swordfish.

    I am up for up for an intelligent debate.......

    So do I. I'm sure I will enjoy the ensuing responses, though.
    Drew_Ali
  • Gold_CertificateGold_Certificate Posts: 13,332 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    How does this involve Darwin?

    This.....

    New_Scientist_cover.jpg

    "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
    with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
    grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
    evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
    Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
    within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
    by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
    the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
    evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
    That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
    biology needs to change."
    http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

    On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.

    1859_Origin_F373_fig02.jpg

    The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...


    From tree to web

    "As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."

    So how does this involve the article in the first post of this thread?
  • Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
    edited February 2013
    So how does this involve the article in the first post of this thread?
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    This thread was established for the sole purpose of "debunking" or "proving" that the theory of evolution is bogus......

    And the engine of scientific racism................

    I believe that this is a G&S topic........

    But will move to the R&R in a few days.............

    I will be compiling evidence here that sheds doubt on evolution and Darwinism......

  • ohhhlaohhhla Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This isn't a intelligent conversation.

    It's ID-iots supporter trying to his/her hardest trying to disprove something that's a fact.

    We all share a common ancestor which happened to be a Black Woman.

    And Change over time does occur.

    Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.

    But about Natural selection he wasn't wrong.
    And_So_It_BurnsLUClENkingblaze84jono
  • Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
    ohhhla wrote: »
    This isn't a intelligent conversation.

    It's ID-iots supporter trying to his/her hardest trying to disprove something that's a fact.

    We all share a common ancestor which happened to be a Black Woman.

    And Change over time does occur.

    Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.

    But about Natural selection he wasn't wrong.

    Perhaps you should read what has been posted before you comment.................
    ohhhlagnsnawledge_godmiamivice305
  • PremeerPremeer Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ohhhla wrote: »
    This isn't a intelligent conversation.

    It's ID-iots supporter trying to his/her hardest trying to disprove something that's a fact.

    We all share a common ancestor which happened to be a Black Woman.

    And Change over time does occur.

    Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.

    But about Natural selection he wasn't wrong.

    everything about evolution is a theory... or did you forget that part.
    kingblaze84
  • DMTxTHCDMTxTHC Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ohhhla wrote: »
    ID-iots

    LOL.. your wordplay didn't go unnoticed..
    Ajackson17LUClEN
  • Gold_CertificateGold_Certificate Posts: 13,332 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    So how does this involve the article in the first post of this thread?
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    This thread was established for the sole purpose of "debunking" or "proving" that the theory of evolution is bogus......

    And the engine of scientific racism................

    I believe that this is a G&S topic........

    But will move to the R&R in a few days.............

    I will be compiling evidence here that sheds doubt on evolution and Darwinism......
    I see.

    So you are arguing against specific theories of how biological evolution rather than arguing against the fact the biological evolution occurs?
    LUClEN
  • ohhhlaohhhla Posts: 10,339 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2013
    Do you know what a theory is in Science???

    Atomic Theory
    Cell Theory
    Gravity is a theory
    Platonic Theory

    And etc.

    Theory is the graduation point in science.

    The Theory of Evolution is Science greatest discovery.

    Take your equivocation ass out of here.
    Supreme_GentlemanzombieAjackson17A.J. Trillzynskijono
  • PremeerPremeer Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    since when did a theory become fact?

    1st strike. 2 more and you will be certified retarded.
    700And_So_It_Burns
  • Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    So how does this involve the article in the first post of this thread?
    Drew_Ali wrote: »
    This thread was established for the sole purpose of "debunking" or "proving" that the theory of evolution is bogus......

    And the engine of scientific racism................

    I believe that this is a G&S topic........

    But will move to the R&R in a few days.............

    I will be compiling evidence here that sheds doubt on evolution and Darwinism......
    I see.

    So you are arguing against specific theories of how biological evolution rather than arguing against the fact the biological evolution occurs?

    In the first instance, I am arguing that new research has shown that previous evolutionary theories were incorrect and have to be rewritten.......
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=42382&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews#.USlPyWdnCSo

    The second illustrates that the "Tree of Life" accepted by many scientists.........

    Has now been shown to be an "antiquated" system of describing life-systems.......
    http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html

  • Drew_AliDrew_Ali Posts: 1,403
    edited February 2013
    @100 Prime .......

    I got this........
    Dr. Stitch
  • PremeerPremeer Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    negative... a THEORY is just ideas that attempt to explain something.. a fact is something that is proven. nothing about evolution is proven. strictly opinions. weak opinions that hold no weight.

    cant be a fact when these "facts" are constantly shifting and changing.

    only 1 truth is the truth forever and been the truth since its been spoken.. thats God. if you want the truth, seek God.

    if you want to be lied to, and lead in the wrong direction, and pulled this way and that way with their constant evolving theories, then stick with baseless science.

    you know just as much as he does.. and you dont know a thing.
    Ajackson17rageblackgod813franknittisilverfoxxAnd_So_It_Burnsgem$tonewaterproof
  • PremeerPremeer Posts: 2,946 ✭✭✭✭✭
    strike 2, 1 more and you are certified retarded.
    gem$tonewaterproof
«13456720
Sign In or Register to comment.