Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong
Options
Comments
-
All that says is that the tree of life as a concept is inaccurate. It does not say that evolution is false. The New Science article goes on to say that a better metaphor for the evolutionary history would be a web.
-
All that says is that the tree of life as a concept is inaccurate. It does not say that evolution is false. The New Science article goes on to say that a better metaphor for the evolutionary history would be a web.
You are just not digesting the material..........
Again a web without "common ancestors".........
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. ...
-
Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.
BecauseThe tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking
In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.
Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.
Again, the article does not say evolution is false. -
Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.
BecauseThe tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking
In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.
Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.
Again, the article does not say evolution is false.
Again......
The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......
Has failed to describe the origins of life.........
A better way to describe them is as a tangled web..........
Which eliminates "common ancestors"......
Thusly..........
Debunking the theory that one species evolved into many...............
-
The evolution of a wack poster. This dude has the stench of a once dead now risen poster. I can't put my finger on it.
-
Look how quick this homotional ? flagged me. lol. I didn't even finish typing out my thoughts.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »The evolution of a wack poster.
LOL.....
? boy......
I remember you crying to the mod's about how I hurt your feelings.........
Begging for me to get banned.......
Run along......
Out of my thread ? ...............
Before you get embarrassed again.................
-
FuriousOne wrote: »The evolution of a wack poster.
LOL.....
? boy......
I remember you crying to the mod's about how I hurt your feelings.........
Begging for me to get banned.......
Run along......
Out of my thread ? ...............
Before you get embarrassed again.................
No such thing happened. I do recall speaking about your ? rants though. Case in point. -
Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.
BecauseThe tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking
In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.
Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.
Again, the article does not say evolution is false.
Again......
The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......
Has failed to describe the origins of life.........
A better way to describe them is as a tangled web..........
Which eliminates "common ancestors"......
Thusly..........
Debunking the theory that one species evolved into many...............
Evolution doesn't describe the "Origins of life"
It reaches on diversity and change over time.
You can't even get the topic right -
Again......
The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......
Has failed to describe the origins of life.........
except evolution does not deal with the origin of life
-
LOL......
It does however state that one species evolved into many...........
NO???????
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The evolution of a wack poster.
LOL.....
? boy......
I remember you crying to the mod's about how I hurt your feelings.........
Begging for me to get banned.......
Run along......
Out of my thread ? ...............
Before you get embarrassed again.................
No such thing happened. I do recall speaking about your ? rants though. Case in point.FuriousOne wrote: »@IRS you're wise enough to know that that's not how you win an argument. It's cute and funny when used properly but his activities were borderline stalking. Dude was reckless towards everybody and he was polluting threads with his wackness. It's not like Kai didn't offer him proper rebuttals in the thread in question. What was the point of him doing all that extra ? like stalking her in other threads and ? up the debate thread, trying to intimidate other mods?
Get the ? out of my thread.......
I stalked no one........
Lying ? ? ............
A bunch of evidence for you to respond to........
But like always.......
You come with your feelings.......
Tenderhearted ass ? ..........
-
@kai
Do yall ban ? for excessive flagging???????
cause this ? @FuriousOne........
Is out of control.......
Wacking scriptures......
Have you no shame ? ????????
-
Abiogenesis - look it up.
We've caught you in your undercover trolling.
-
Seriously, are these posters trolling? please tell me they trolling!
If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"
Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?
Why does everybody think this has something to do with religion?
Imma break it down real quickly for the remedial:
Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.
Only dumb religious people say "evolution is a lie"
.......what they mean to say is:
Evolutionary theories (Darwin's or any others) have proposed that every living thing has a common ancestor, however they haven't been able to prove it nor will they ever prove it.
NOW!
With absolutely no religious bias, scientists have discovered that Darwin's tree of life theory is incorrect, thus making it even harder to substantiate claims of all living things having a common ancestor.
The FACT that this is a STRICTLY SECULAR development in biological science is what makes it a HUGE lauce for the anti-creationists.
-
The True Flesh wrote: »Seriously, are these posters trolling? please tell me they trolling!
If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"
Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?
Why does everybody think this has something to do with religion?
Imma break it down real quickly for the remedial:
Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.
Only dumb religious people say "evolution is a lie"
.......what they mean to say is:
Evolutionary theories (Darwin's or any others) have proposed that every living thing has a common ancestor, however they haven't been able to prove it nor will they ever prove it.
NOW!
With absolutely no religious bias, scientists have discovered that Darwin's tree of life theory is incorrect, thus making it even harder to substantiate claims of all living things having a common ancestor.
The FACT that this is a STRICTLY SECULAR development in biological science is what makes it a HUGE lauce for the anti-creationists.
But a common ancestory is not a lie -
-
The True Flesh wrote: »Seriously, are these posters trolling? please tell me they trolling!
If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"
Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?
Why does everybody think this has something to do with religion?
Imma break it down real quickly for the remedial:
Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.
Only dumb religious people say "evolution is a lie"
.......what they mean to say is:
Evolutionary theories (Darwin's or any others) have proposed that every living thing has a common ancestor, however they haven't been able to prove it nor will they ever prove it.
NOW!
With absolutely no religious bias, scientists have discovered that Darwin's tree of life theory is incorrect, thus making it even harder to substantiate claims of all living things having a common ancestor.
The FACT that this is a STRICTLY SECULAR development in biological science is what makes it a HUGE lauce for the anti-creationists.
You just committing a false dichotomy.
If Evolution is to be proven false, it still doesn't prove creationism.
It isn't a lauce at all.
Creationism for the 35060686048904964 times isn't even a model.
-
The True Flesh wrote: »Seriously, are these posters trolling? please tell me they trolling!
If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"
Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?
Why does everybody think this has something to do with religion?
Imma break it down real quickly for the remedial:
Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.
Only dumb religious people say "evolution is a lie"
.......what they mean to say is:
Evolutionary theories (Darwin's or any others) have proposed that every living thing has a common ancestor, however they haven't been able to prove it nor will they ever prove it.
NOW!
With absolutely no religious bias, scientists have discovered that Darwin's tree of life theory is incorrect, thus making it even harder to substantiate claims of all living things having a common ancestor.
The FACT that this is a STRICTLY SECULAR development in biological science is what makes it a HUGE lauce for the anti-creationists.
It isn't a lauce at all.
Creationism for the 35060686048904964 times isn't even a model.
Loose translation = Lauce..............
-
@kai
Do yall ban ? for excessive flagging???????
cause this ? @FuriousOne........
Is out of control.......
Wacking scriptures......
Have you no shame ? ????????
So you falsely accused me of begging for your downfall but you over here doing the same thing. Lol. Cornball ass ? . The flagging shall continue.
I got 5 troll flags and they are all by the same dude. Don't cast stones ? . -
I guess this post will make 7. That's a lucky number.
Edit: oh, you not trying to bless the ? ? -
Without [the tree concept] the theory of evolution would never have happened.
BecauseThe tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking
In other words, had Darwin not come up with the tree of life metaphor, he might not have been able to explain his theory of evolution. The metaphor was central to his theory.
Today, we know more about evolution so we can afford to replace the concept with a more accurate depiction of how evolution works.
Again, the article does not say evolution is false.
Again......
The article illustrates that what was once known as tree of life.......
Has failed to describe the origins of life.........
A better way to describe them is as a tangled web..........
Which eliminates "common ancestors"......
Thusly..........
Debunking the theory that one species evolved into many...............
? , this thread has been presented to you by: when morons misunderstand
for the millionth time, illustrating it as a tree is misleading, it is much more like a web, intricately connected. there's no linear common ancestor path, it branches off. basically we have to rewrite how we explain the evolutionary past. nowhere at all does any of the stuff you posted negate the theory of evolution itself, and that's super obvious.
you are just mistaken
@kai
I missed this one in the midst of all of @FuriousOne's trolling.......
It is never good for a debate to fall into the realms of name calling.......
This thread is actually presented to you by Allah.............
Through me and the research of many evolutionary scientists.........
You can interpret the material however you like.........
However......
The research shows.......
A web without "common ancestors".........
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. ...
-
-
The irony of this ? @FuriousOne accusing me of "polluting threads"..........
I thought you weren't into name calling? Remember, I said all that after your downfall. I was analyzing your ? ways which led to your ban. You're polluting this site with this repetitive nonsense. How many times you gonna make this topic? Ol re re, rerun ass ? .
http://youtu.be/cjlXDRT18QA