Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by cannabis, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. Here is yet another example of how the theory of Evolution is going through evolution itself...It's always being shifted into different directions. What is presented in textbooks everywhere as fact regarding Evolution is constantly changing. Evolution cannot be considered all fact when different intended meanings and 'evidence' is being interchanged and contradictory despite Evolutions original publication in 1859? That's a pretty long time. So If theories backing up Evolution are continuously being "corrected", exactly how accurate and reliable can the whole of Evolution be considered? How far is correction going to go?

    After this complete reversal, how much faith will people place in this evolutionary assurance?

    More on the subject:

  2. i think it's safe to say that those who believe in evolution do not believe that every single person alive on the planet today came from 1 monkey.
  3. Is that really your argument and all you have to say about the thread?? :rolleyes:

    Anyway, not my point. And the same can be said for any belief system, philosophy etc.
  4. what i got from it was that instead of A -> B (one evolving into the other), it that maybe A and B lived together and the two different ones might have mated with one another at some point, and that together with gene mutations being spread throughout this "new" (or 'evolved') species. the best from both came together as one and became something new.

    however, i could counter with a few statements about debunking beliefs.

    1. how would you accept these fossils as fact since it shows two different types beings living together instead of changing into the other? the bible says there was adam and eve. but then again, god killed everyone except for moses and all the animals, so we really don't descend from adam and eve. we're the "children of moses"

    2. i thought that fossils were put here by the devil as a practical joke on all humans?

    i'll have to read the 2nd part later. i did see answersingenesis being referenced, so i might not read it.
  5. The idea is that one group could splinter into two, carry out some natural change to suit their differing environments, and continue on living. This does not contradict evolution at all. Think about Darwin's finches, as a group they came to the island together, but split into smaller groups where differences between the birds helped them survive in different niches in the Galapagos. This is evidence of species with common ancestors living in close to each other.

    Clearly, at many points in history, groups of humans have split up, moved away, changed separately, and inter-mixed. It's quite well accepted that Neanderthals and modern humans shared the land.

    Just because evolution is sometimes displayed in a graphically linear fashion doesn't mean it is central to the theory.


    Article 4 there is a bit misleading (4. LiveScience: Deep--Sea) The underwater vents are still a host to microbial life, so it's not surprising that fossils weren't reported.
  6. Absolutely, the notion of evolution has always had this probability, this simply provides more clear evidence of what has always been the most likely scenario for development. Competition, and intelligence gathering capabilities did the rest, separating the successors from the failed adaptations.
  7. I really dont wnat to sound like an asshole, but...

    This is the stupidest fucking argument against evolution Ive ever witnessed.

    "Hey guys, know the scientific method?"
    "Well, get this: EVOLUTION IS MAKING USE OF IT!"

    Or is that not what you're saying? Cause thats a whole lot of what it sounds like to me.

    No shit it changes. Whereas we had Freudian psychology, we now have psychiatry/neuroscience. Thus: BRAIN SCIENCE. IS. A. MYTH.

    Or, it underwent better change? Nahhh... I dont belive THAT for a second. How many times are we gonna let them update their stance before we realize the whole thing is a fabrication!

    Oh, but Vatican 2 and that shit is totally cool.
  8. I don't think this is neccessarily an argument against evolution, just a correction to the theory.
    Obviously we don't have a perfect explanation for evolution and never will.
    The evolutionary theory is also always evolving as more evidence is gathered and examined.
    For someone opposed to evolutionary theory cannabis, you certainly picked an odd way to argue against it.
  9. Excellent post Cannabis!
  10. cannabis, the fact that they're making revisions says that they're concerned with accounting for every little detail and making sure the theory is as accurate as possible (which is more than I can say for some other group of people) That's how science works. Even Einstein didn't formulate his theory of relativity at once. It takes time to come up with that stuff, and in the case of evolution, something that has to do with every single living organism on the entire planet, you'd think it would be actually a difficult thing to get right on the first try... give Darwin a break. He's done far more than all of us here put together.. and he did it in the 19th century. How likely is it that a theory formulated in his time, as opposed to today with all our computers and supercomputers can go perfectly unchallenged? Darwin was good, but not that good.

  11. lol not surprising that instead of forming a legitimate argument you rather attempt to debunk Christianity. And you didn't even read the entire sad :(
    And above you claimed that I was grouping evolutionist into the same group, yet you did the same in that post in suggesting that all Christians disregard fossils as empirical evidence...I think it's safe to say every single Christian doesn't consider that. :)

    Don't get me wrong Azimuthal, I'm not attempting to debunk the theory as a whole. I'm just pointing out flaws.

    No offense dude, but claiming that without forming an actual argument is a pretty fucking ignorant way to respond.

    As I posted elsewhere, I'm familiar with the scientific method and I'm not entirely against Evolution. That is a pathetic attempt of making me appear delusional man.

    sure but how well developed is neuroscience? People make it appear as every aspect of the brain is completely understood. And that's clearly not the case when brain disorders and diseases continue to remain uncured and questioned about. And new research and information is continuously being discovered regarding the brain and neurology.

    Again, I'm not completely opposed to evolutionary theory, how many times do i have to repeat myself? you people automatically assume whenever someone questions a part of the theory that individual is skeptical of the whole of evolution. And why? Because you're faithful that evolution is all truth.

    I understand where you're coming from bro, but evolutionist make it appear as the theory is the as all end all facts of the universe and it totally debunks all religion and opposing theories indefinantly. And that's false.
  12. Really? I do not think that evolution debunks religion, and I have never met someone who agrees with evolution who thought that way. So, I do not know where you are coming from.
  13. There's no flaw here, what's described is just a part of evolution. The names given to species that existed in the times described are just guesses, the fossil record is very incomplete.
  14. I just had to respond to the following, it does not touch upon the article as such, I did not feel that was needed, but I think what I have to say is still relevant to the thread.

    Yes, of course, what is odd about that? No one denies that science is constantly expanding and adjusting its view as new data is discovered. Science, unlike religion, is not static.

    I am not sure what you mean by that. It shifts direction as new data is discovered. Evolution is a fact, even though we do not have a complete understanding of it, we are always learning new things.

    What is presented in textbooks as fact regarding most anything is constantly changing, as, and I reiterate, new data is discovered. In someone's textbook right now Pluto is listed as a planet. :)

    A scientific theory is made up of facts, so thus, the Theory of Evolution, is one big fact.

    So, since the science theory was put forth in the 19th century it is suspect, but the Bible, which is much older, is not... I fail to see the logic in this statement.

    So, evolution is bad because people keep figuring stuff out and expanding and adjusting it, but the Bible is right because it never changes, correct? Please.

    Creationism is not science man, and I know you are not making mention of it, but I fail to see the reason for these posts if you do not intend to support Creationism. You want to show us skeptics that science is constantly evolving and discovering new things? Great, we already know that, it is something that is to be admired about science, a field where being wrong is just as good as being right, because you learn something either way. Why attack this? Can people misuse it? Yes, sure, but there are checks and balances to help make sure that does not happen. What do you have to offer instead, blind faith in a magical man who will punish you if you do some imaginary wrong? As many others have pointed out, you (universal) do not seem to question other science, only evolution. What about the scientific theories that explain your computer, our understanding of space so we can land on another heavenly body, and all the other everyday miracles science has given us? Why is that correct, but evolution wrong? Why do you pick and choose what bit of science you will not ignore, and is it the same reason why you pick apart the Bible to make it say only good things, and to allow you to comfortably believe whatever it is you want?

    On a side note... Are you not a Catholic? Does the Catholic Church not support Evolution? I fail to understand your motives, if indeed you simply want to point out that facts and data are still being discovered and understood, then, congrats, we all knew that to begin with. If you're trying to support Creationism, why bother? It is pseudoscience, and even your Church would agree.
  15. Yo thats my point dude haha

Share This Page