[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 12:41 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Darwin's theory is bullshit. And you have to prove it is true before it can be acepted. There is no proof. NO NEW SPECIES AT ALL IN 5000 YEARS, STARTING FROM BILLIONS OF SPECIES. SO SPECIES DO NOT FORM AS DARWIN SUPPOSED. Again, I repeat, mutations are always ver rare and just produce sick individual that natural selection immediately wipes out from Earth. The most "fit" and "strong" individuals are those with less mutations and with a DNA closer to the typical and ideal DNA of their own species. Each species is very strictly coded in DNA and in CELL to prevent it could change into another species. So actually it's just the opposite of the wrong theory of evolution. Species are a kinf of crystalization of archetypal ideas that exist in a etheric/astral/spiritual world, and when right time comes and planet is ready, gods and angels allow those "ideas" or "programs" to take life on Earth. [Reply]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 12:42 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Read books by the great scientist Giuseppe Sermonti. He is not creationst but he proves theory of darwin is wrong. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 2:28 PM by john_frink	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Species are a kinf of crystalization of archetypal ideas that exist in a etheric/astral/spiritual world Well, this theory is totally self-evident and does not require any further proof. /s [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:09 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	no, it is not self evident, it is absurd and self-contradicting [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:12 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	<mega-facepalm> [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:14 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	franco, you do realize he was referrng to your theory, don't you? The point is, exactly how did this spiritual realm you describe come into existence? And if you say someone created that, then who created that, etc. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:17 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	franco, you do realize he was referrng to your theory, don't you? awww...why'd you have to clue him in?...this was getting hilarious, I almost fell out of my seat :) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:18 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yeah, we could all laugh at him, but i wanted him to share the joke on himself. It seemed more cruel that way. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:53 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	spiritual realms are created by gods and crystalise from more elevated spiritual realms. High on all of them of course there is the True Source, that is the Absolute Spirit, Thee Great Spirit, God,Jave', Shiva, Tao, Universal Love/Compassion. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 4:56 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Universal Love/Compassion. In that case, she definitely won't mind if create nanobots and neural prosthetics. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 5:35 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	oh yes she will mind a lot. It will never happen. In 2012 a spiritual age will start. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/04/2009 5:43 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	oh yes she will mind a lot. It will never happen. In 2012 a spiritual age will start. So you're saying she doesn't love nanobots and neural prosthetics? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/06/2009 8:33 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	So what you're saying Franco, is that gods speciate like animals. Huh. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/06/2009 4:59 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/09110 5143710.htm Caught In The Act: Butterfly Mate Preference Shows How One Species Can Become Two ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2009) — Breaking up may actually not be hard to do, say scientists who've found a population of tropical butterflies that may be on its way to a split into two distinct species. The cause of this particular break-up? A shift in wing color and mate preference. In a paper published this week in the journal Science, the researchers describe the relationship between diverging color patterns in Heliconius butterflies and the long-term divergence of populations into new and distinct species. "Our paper provides a unique glimpse into the earliest stage of ecological speciation, where natural selection to fit the environment causes the same trait in the same population to be pushed in two different directions," says Marcus Kronforst, a Bauer Fellow in the Center for Systems Biology at Harvard University who received his doctor's degree at The University of Texas at Austin. "If this trait is also involved in reproduction, this process can have a side effect of causing the divergent subpopulations to no longer interbreed. This appears to be the process that is just beginning among Heliconius butterflies in Ecuador." Heliconius butterflies display incredible color pattern variation across Central and South America, with closely related species usually sporting different colors. In Costa Rica, for example, the two most closely related species differ in color: One species is white and the other is yellow. In addition, both species display a marked preference to mate with butter-flies of the same color. The Ecuadorian population examined by Kronforst and his colleagues shows the same white and yellow variation found in Costa Rica but has not yet reached a level of strong reproductive isolation. The entire population lives in close proximity and individuals of both colors come in contact with -- and mate with -- each other. But, by studying the Ecuadorian population in captivity, the scientists found the two colors do not mate randomly. Despite the genetic similarity between the groups -- white and yellow varieties differ only at the color-determining gene -- yellow Ecuadorian individuals show a preference for those of the same color. White male butterflies, most of which are heterozygous at the gene that controls color, show no color preference. "This subtle difference in mate preference between the color forms in Ecuador may be the first step in a process that could eventually result in two species, as we see in Costa Rica," says Kronforst, who began studies of Heliconius color pattern and behavioral genetics in the laboratory of Professor Lawrence Gilbert at The University of Texas at Austin. Previous studies of species formation have focused on the characteristics of well-differentiated species, and the health and viability of their hybrids in particular, in an effort to identify how the species may have emerged and how they stay distinct. Heliconius provides a model for a different kind of study. The researchers considered species emergence from the opposite end, studying populations that have yet to diverge into separate species in order to identify the role of mate choice in the potential emergence of new species. Having identified color-based mate preference in Heliconius, the researchers used a battery of genetic markers to compare the genomes of the white and yellow varieties, showing that they are genetically identical except for their different colors and preferences. Their work suggests that the genes for color and preference are very close to one another in the genome; the two traits could even be caused by the same gene. Their next step is to identify the gene (or genes) responsible for the differences in color and mate preference. "If we can identify this gene or genes, we can say conclusively how they influence both color and mate choice," says Kronforst. "Subsequent work could elucidate exactly how changes in individual genes can, over long periods of time, lead to novel species." "This study shows the great potential of the genus Heliconius as a model system for integrating genetics, development, behavior, ecology and evolution," says Gilbert, professor in the Section of Integrative Biology. "It is the culmination of diverse contributions of the co-authors involving insectary, field and laboratory research over more than a decade." Co-authors on the Science paper with Kronforst are Nicola L. Chamberlain and Ryan I. Hill, both of Harvard; Durrell D. Kapan of the University of Hawaii; and Lawrence E. Gilbert of The University of Texas at Austin. Their work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/07/2009 7:47 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	those butterfly are not new species , just new race. Would you say a black man is a different species from a white man? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/07/2009 9:52 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You know, of course, that blacj men came first? That white men were the adaptations to territories and climates separating according to those territorial differences just as species emerge as a result of the same adaptation? God was black, you know. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/07/2009 10:27 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	yes but they are THE VERY SAME SPECIES. Just different populations, different group of families, that's all. This does not prove darwin's theory of evolution, that new species came out from old species by chance because of random mutations in DNA. The DNA of each species is very strictly organized to code for charateristic of that species. So humans can be taller or shorter, darker or whiter etc under selective pressure, but selection will never transform a human into a new species. NEVER. Species are archetypal forms prjected by spiritual world into physical world. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/07/2009 10:37 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Of course. You just described the efforts of the genetic replicative algorithm, which seeks to maintain a linear continuity in its replicative process, which further requires control of its environment. The species will then adapt to territory only by being "informed" through various procedures of "invasion", which will take the form of bacterial or viral. The organism then seeks to identify the invader by means of antibodies, which then increases its "library" of defense, and therefore its overall intelligence. The effects are not random, as Darwin believed but actually a coordinated response to a random invader, whose effects are not predictable, making the process appear random. However, the lack of predictability will produce different species capable of adapting to specific territories. This provides for an "intelligently" developed framework of adaptation, but not evidence of an intelligent designer. It simple means that each immune system resits change, attacks it, and is altered ONLY to a necessary degree in order to survive. This is the "mechanism" by which all living species operate. If that is the "template", it would suggest possibility of a creator. I can go into an experiment done along these lines, but it's lengthy. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/07/2009 11:48 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What?? Now immune system and bacteria are the cause of evolution instead of random mutations?? That's even more absurd and again NO PROOF! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/07/2009 11:54 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You have proof of your gods doing this? I never said i believed in random mutations. I just showed a process by which intelligence occurred by the process of genetic alterations. I wouldn;t be talking about proof until you can introduce god to folks. [Reply] [Parent]

		false premise, franco! posted on 11/07/2009 5:23 AM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	NO NEW SPECIES AT ALL IN 5000 YEARS, STARTING FROM BILLIONS OF SPECIES. SO SPECIES DO NOT FORM AS DARWIN SUPPOSED. Dear franco, Well, to be honest, scientists have NOT been continuously observing all of the planet's millions (not billions) of species over the past 5,000 years, and the fossil record is kind of spotty. In fact, scientists are STILL busy cataloging the Earth's species, discovering new ones everyday. NO scientist would claim: "We know exactly how many species existed on this planet 5,000 years ago, and we know exactly how many exist today, and not a single NEW speices has appeared during that period of time." I have thus refuted the basic premise of your argument. You're welcome! Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/07/2009 7:46 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	oh yes sure species evolve only when nobody look at them. To accept a theory you must find PROOF. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/07/2009 1:39 PM by A.I.Lover	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yes Franco you are 100% right ! You have figured it all out ;) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/07/2009 3:47 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Charles Darwin himself stated in his book On the Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been produced by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Biochemist Michael Behe has pointed to irreducibly complex biological systems, such as bacterial flagella (which act as propellers) and cilia (biological sensory antennae). Neither of these could have been the products of gradual evolution because “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Behe 1996). Additionally, Darwinists have never been able to convincingly explain how complex cell machinery developed, nor have they experimentally demonstrated the origin of the first living cell from inanimate matter. [Reply] [Parent]

		false premise, franco! posted on 11/07/2009 4:05 PM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	oh yes sure species evolve only when nobody look at them. To accept a theory you must find PROOF. Dear franco, YES! But, on the other hand, to debunk a theory, you must do MORE than point to a lack of proof! And I re-iterate: You claimed that not a single new species had appeared in the last 5,000 years! You cannot prove that assertion! You should therefore retract that statement. At most, you can point out that no one, in the past ca. 300 years, has yet observed the evolution of one species into another, but that would be a very weak argument against Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Just as claiming that there is no 10-meter-wide crater on Pluto would be a very weak disproof of the existence of meteors in that region of the Solar System; in actual fact, it is merely because no one has yet OBSERVED a 10-meter-wide crater on the surface of Pluto that such a claim could go uncontested, namely because our telescopes are not equal to the task of detecting such small craters. Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/07/2009 4:33 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Biochemist Michael Behe has pointed to irreducibly complex biological systems, such as bacterial flagella (which act as propellers) and cilia (biological sensory antennae). Neither of these could have been the products of gradual evolution because “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.< This is, in fact, not correct. Something can only be called irreducibly complex if its parts have no use by themselves WHATSOEVER. On the other hand, if they were useful for SOMETHING (and that something could be pretty different to whatever function they now serve) irreducible complexity is disproved. It has been shown by Keneth Miller of Brown University, that it is simply a false allegation to say that the component parts of the flagella motor have no other function. Many parasitic bacteria have a mechanism for injecting chemicals into host cells called the TTSS (it stands for Type Three Secretory) apparatus. The TTSS uses a subset of the very same proteins that are used in the flagella motor, only here their function is to bore a hole in a host's cell wall, not for providing rotary motion of a circular hub. Miller himself wrote: "If the flagellum were indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains by definition, nonfunctional. Yet the TTSS is indeed fully functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum". Like all Intelligent Design theorists (which is just another term for Creationist) Behe's pseudoscience is blown away by findings from actual scientists like Miller. The rest of Franco's misunderstandings are too exstenive to make it worth my while going into. Anybody who knows anything about evolution can see he is failing dramatically to grasp how the theory actually works. You cannot say a theory is wrong, if you are wrong about what a theory says. In other words, if you totally misunderstand the basics of any theory (as Franco clearly does with natural selection, as his repeated references to randomness and sheer chance demonstrates) you are simply not in a position to even begin to debunk it. Go and learn about what evolution is REALLY about, before wasting any more of our time! [Reply] [Parent]

		"Not even wrong" - Pauli posted on 11/08/2009 11:51 AM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The rest of Franco's misunderstandings are too exstenive to make it worth my while going into. Anybody who knows anything about evolution can see he is failing dramatically to grasp how the theory actually works. You cannot say a theory is wrong, if you are wrong about what a theory says. In other words, if you totally misunderstand the basics of any theory (as Franco clearly does with natural selection, as his repeated references to randomness and sheer chance demonstrates) you are simply not in a position to even begin to debunk it. Nicely said, Extropia. I would even go one step farther and point out that franco's argumentation is, in some respects, "not even wrong" (Linus Pauli). He fails to "grasp not only how the theory actually works," but also how to use the rules of logic to perceive flaws in his own argumentation. I don't wish to impugn franco or be verbally abusive, but I think that his is a case of "invincible ignorance." What interest me is the fact that, not only here at Mind-X, but also at other forums I've visited, persons such as this attract more attention and are afforded more time and effort by the other forum members than other members whose arguments are less preposterous. Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: "Not even wrong" - Pauli posted on 11/08/2009 12:36 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What interest me is the fact that, not only here at Mind-X, but also at other forums I've visited, persons such as this attract more attention and are afforded more time and effort by the other forum members than other members whose arguments are less preposterous. /quote] Squeaky wheels. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/08/2009 6:47 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You are absolutely wrong. A lack of proof after 150 years of worldwide researches IS enough to debunk a theory, expecially when scientists and text-books let people believe that theory is already proven. Moreover I can add many other debunking FACTS for darwin's theory, like mutations are very rare and each species DNA has very accurate mechanisms to reproduce itself very accurately. Darwin didn't know about DNA and proof-reading molecules and that mutations cause severe illnesses, otherwise he himself would not believe in his theory. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/08/2009 1:51 PM by martuso	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	A lack of proof after 150 years of worldwide researches IS enough to debunk a theory, expecially when scientists and text-books let people believe that theory is already proven. Nonsense. Do you know just how miniscule 150 years actually is? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/08/2009 1:55 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What? Are you joking right? I could say species came out from a vomit of a giant turtle and you will never find a way to disprove it in 100000 years of research. So you must accept this theory? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/08/2009 5:15 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I could say species came out from a vomit of a giant turtle and you will never find a way to disprove it in 100000 years of research. So you must accept this theory? Franco This theory is supported by as much evidence as many other theories that you believe in. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/09/2009 5:23 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Darwin didn't know about DNA and proof-reading molecules and that mutations cause severe illnesses, otherwise he himself would not believe in his theory.< Franco's argument depends upon random mutations to DNA doing nothing but harm. The problem is, this is simply not the case. If it were indeed true that random changes to code is always detrimental, evolutionary programming would be a total nonstarter. Instead, achievements like evolving a memory stick that lasts 30% longer than the best designed effort, shows that nonrandom selection of randomly mutated, duplicated code can indeed produce superior outcomes. If it were true that random changes to code always lead to defective animals and plants, there would be no breeders. No champion horses, no prize-winning fruits and vegetables. According to Franco, mutations in DNA always cause death or disability. How equine sports ever managed to breed thoroughbred racehorses if this was the case is hard to imagine. Finally, even when a mutation has a negative effect, it can actually turn out to be positive depending on environmental conditions. For instance, some people inherit two copies of a mutant hemaglobin gene, one from each parent. Because of this, they have sickle-cell anemia which invariably kills them. If a person carries a single copy of the sickle-cell gene, they have slightly defective hemaglobin. This slight defect protects against the parasite that causes maleria, so if you happen to have the single copy of the sickle-cell gene and you live in an area where you are at risk of catching maleria, you can survive a bout of the disease which might kill someone who lacked the sickle-cell gene. So, while natural selection eliminates copies of the gene in people who carry two copies, it spreads the gene by allowing people with single copies to have children, because it is actually advantageous in regions where maleria is present. Franco's other mistake is to assume that natural selection only has mutations to work on. It does not. All animals we are familiar with use sex, and sex shuffles genes. This gives variety for natural selection to work on. Even in organisms that use asexual reproduction, natural selection has more than just random mutations to go on. In bacteria, a mechanism called horizontal gene transfer (which happens when a virus inserts genes from one species of bacteria into another) swaps and recombines genes, and again this produces variations that evolution can favour in a nonrandom, cummulative fashion. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/09/2009 11:07 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Extropia, your logic is tautologic, you say mutations can evolve superior outcomes because superior outcomes exist. But you have still to prove that superior results came from darwinian evolution and not from an intelligent program materialised from astral world. I think each species is like a mandala, like a SPECIfic fractals which comes from astral (spiritual world) and then becomes a vortex of intelligent energy in our world. This vortex then "call" molecules and atoms around to form the specific DNA and cell needed to produce that species's body. This theory fits to data and fossils we have much better than darwin's theory. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/09/2009 10:57 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No, there is not any evidence to support Darwin's theory. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/09/2009 3:00 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	But you have still to prove that superior results came from darwinian evolution and not from an intelligent program materialised from astral world. No, there is not any evidence to support Darwin's theory. Franco What evidence is there to support the existence of the astral world ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: false premise, franco! posted on 11/09/2009 10:54 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, West Germans as well as East Germans are regularly polled on their stance toward religion. When asked whether they believe in God, most East Germans simply respond by saying: “Nope, I’m perfectly normal.”" [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/09/2009 8:49 AM by billmerit	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	franco, it looks like monkey has disappreared. are you monkey? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/09/2009 11:03 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Monkey disappeared? there are monkeys everywhere, what you mean? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/09/2009 11:07 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	rofl [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/09/2009 11:12 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/roflm ao-41979.jpg [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/09/2009 11:44 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Maybe he wants to spank you. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/09/2009 6:33 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>But you have still to prove that superior results came from darwinian evolution and not from an intelligent program materialised from astral world.< "In whippet dogs, a single base-change makes the difference between a slender and a hulking body. The mutation activates the gene for a signalling molecule that regulates muscle growth. In animals with the gene mutated, muscle growth is uncontrolled for a lack of a "stop signal" (when one copy of the gene is disabled, the dogs are moderately muscled and prized as racers.)- Scientific American. Your proof is published monthly in scientific journals and popular science journals like Sci Am that present such work to a general population. Real scientists study the phenotypic changes caused by gene mutations, as the quote demonstrates. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 5:31 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	what? are you joking? yes of course there are muscolar dogs and skinny dogs, as there are muscualr men and skinny men and this is controlled by few genes. Guess what? This has NOTHING to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. As I already explained there are individual differences inside a species of course and different races. But species DO NOT come out from previous species. From a dog comes ALWAYS a dog and from a shark a shark and from a man a man. Forever. Until you PROVE the contrary. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 6:56 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	If you were to stand at the edge of a continent and watch, you would not see it moving. You have disproved the theory of continental drift! Uh, no. Because the drift is only noticable over stretches of time far beyond that which a person (or generations of people) can bare witness to. Similarly, the genetic drift of nonrandomly selected variations is also too slight be noticed. Every step is an organism that could breed with the generation preceeding it or coming after it, while at the same time if you jump far enough ahead no breeding is possible. We see this with 'ring species'. For instance, the lesser black-backed gull and the herring gull look very different from each other and do not mate, so they are treated as two seperate species. But, take a journey from the North sea and head West, and you will notice the coats of the herring gulls in Canada are subtely different. As you reach Siberia, these slight changes have become quite stark, but still the gull you are looking at is scientifically classified as a herring gull. Keep moving through Asia and into Europe, and all the while the gulls continue to get darker and more yellow-legged. You will find dark, yellow-legged gulls extending even further West, all the way to the North sea where the journey began. Here, these gulls are now classified as lesser-black backed gulls. So the herring gull and the lesser-black backed gull live at two ends of a continuous ring, inside of which all the birds can mate with their immediate neighbours. ALL species are ring species. ALL species are part of a continuum of discrete steps which, if they had not been lost to extinction, would make the whole concept of classifying life into different species wholley impractical. You have to understand this or else you completely fail to understand natural selection. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 10:06 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Your post just confirm my position. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 10:12 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And continental drift theory and darwin's theory are quite different. Continents move like species can change a little under selective pressure, but to say a species becomes a different species by natural selection is like to say continents will fall from earth because they keep on drifting. There are other forces and mechanism at play, so it NEVER happens, continents never fall from Earth and species NEVER fall from their specific DNA, they just "drift" a bit very slowly. Ok? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 10:57 AM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You said earlier that species are a kind of crystallisation of archetypal ideas that exist in an etheric/astral/spiritual world. Now you’re saying that they can drift. I think you’ve just disproved your own theory. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:29 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	no , absolutly. With "drift" I mean different races, as I already stated and of course that is obvious too. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:38 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	no , absolutly. With "drift" I mean different races, as I already stated and of course that is obvious too. Franco If all species are based on archetypal astral ideals then no drift at all could be allowed. I think you need to contact Master Li about this. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 11:01 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Franco, you have some truth to your post. Experients with a species of squirrel several years ago showed that in every observable way, the squirrels were identical, but one existed in a more desert, flatland territory, and used burrows instead of trees, while a neighboring species, identical in every sense except that they climbed trees like thr regular squirrels. Within these two territories, even though it was possible, they never interbred, which made them qualify as different species. The two species wwere mixed together in a laboratory, and over a period of time, began to interbreed. Released back in the wild, however, they gradually began to separate to the species for which each had been originally adapted. Nature did tend to "rule" their behavior from a process that dictated survival benefitted from that original separation. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:34 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No , doojie. Two species are not different when they "don't interbred" but when they "CANNOT interbred". That means they cannot have fertile puppies. Also chinese for centuries have absolutly refused to interbred with black people, and they look different, but they are the very same species. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:37 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Don't" and "can't" are the same to a wise man(or squirrel) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:47 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	no it's not the same. I never did interbreed with anyone but I swear I am human. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:56 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I never did interbreed with anyone <relief> you had us all worried you might ;) but I swear I am human. I keep telling myself this in front of the bathroom mirror every morning, is it working? You are an endless source of amusement Franco, kallisti. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 5:09 PM by Phillippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You are an endless source of amusement Franco, kallisti. As are you, with your no less humorous theories of life, the universe, and everything. Kallisti [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 11:11 AM by thenailman	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	A hypothesis (from Greek ????????; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ?????????? - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory ? although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle. In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Evolution is a theory. I lifted this from The Gaurdian. It seems to me Franco has a hypothesis. I think that he is also repeatedly claiming there is no evidence to support DET, yet there is ample. Here are some examples http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/underst anding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 12:08 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific Nailman If that’s aimed at me then I accept your reprimand and shall endeavour to be more fastidious in future. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 12:22 PM by thenailman	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	pdco68 Not aimed in any way at your comment. I also think that Franco has contradicted himself by using terms central to DET to support his remarks, "Again, I repeat, mutations are always very rare and just produce sick individual that natural selection immediately wipes out from Earth." "The DNA of each species is very strictly organized to code for charateristic of that species. So humans can be taller or shorter, darker or whiter etc under selective pressure..." [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 11:31 AM by Twixly	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Franco always makes me laugh :) I don't know what you're expecting? To suddenly see an ape give birth to a human? http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 Again - there's plenty of information and proof. If you would bother to watch a few clips, maybe a total of 40 min or something, you might be a bit more informed as to what it is you're opposing? I am however taking a wild guess that Franco will ignore this, not look at any videos or dig for information.. and keep japping away about Spirits and Gods etc, because THEY ARE PROVEN beyond doubt as opposed to evolution :D [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 1:20 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Biologists should make the platypus their official mascot and poster child. I don't know how anyone can look at that animal (which has now been shown to to possess fish, reptile, AND mammalian DNA) and say, 'Goddidit'. Only evolution could come up with something as stupid as a platypus ;) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 3:52 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Are you saying God isn't stupid enough to make a Platypus? Some creationists would argue that a platypus defies evolution. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 3:56 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I'm saying that any Divinity that would make such a creature, by any means other than evolution (by snapping fingers and: poof! a platypus), or giving men nipples, would be the retard of God's, and not worth paying attention to. I love the platypus, it's a living example of the crossroads of species. It's simultaneously a reptile, fish (or is it bird?), and a mammal. Unless, like the fossil record, 'god' just put it here to test our faith. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:31 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Nipples but no big breasts to fondle. They're right up theree in front on the other sex, but you can't touch them when you want. That has to be evolution. God wouldn't be that mean, being male and all. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:40 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Why God cannot create platypus? God created a fascinating and amusing universe for us. Do you know what means "krishna"? It means "the most fascinating", and krishna is God. But he doesn't create species directly, angels disseminates species-ideas in astral world, then those "energetic seeds" crystalize on Earth when it's the time. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:44 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Angel insemination. You think one or two of them might have cheated when they planted their seed? Maybe got a little personal? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 5:12 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	no , not cheated, just got fun. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:37 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	No , I don't expect a monkey gives birth to a human suddenly. That's why it's not possibile that we evolved from monkeys. Neodarwinism now adfirms species come out from old species SUDDENLY, you know? THat's why empirical data and honest logic have proven evolution by little steps as Darwin suggested didn't happen, think about the cambrian explosion for example. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:39 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What part of Cambria was that? Southern Cambria? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 4:46 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I never thought I'd see the day when a christian argues in favor of evolution with a <insert whatever the heck franco believes he is> Priceless [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 5:11 PM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	NDEs prove spirits and gods existence. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 5:53 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Only evolution could come up with something as stupid as a platypus< But the platypus is not stupid. It spends most of its life in muddy waters, and it uses its beak to sense prey. There is an airplane that actually looks a bit like a platypus. The Nimrod comes with what looks like a huge bulbous nose, which holds all its radar equivilent. Similarly, that 'daft' beak of the platypus is actually a highly sensitive instrument picking up electric fields. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 5:58 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	beak of the platypus is actually a highly sensitive instrument picking up electric fields wow, I didn't know that, way cool no, I don't think the platypus is "stupid" (hence my: ;) at the end of the comment)...it's just my way of pointing out the ludicrousness of thinking that this animal could have come about by anything but evolution, like male nipples. If anything 'proves' evolution, it's the platypus (as a GLARING example). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/11/2009 5:49 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	it's quite the opposite: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/pl atypus.asp How could Darwin's theory explain the Platypus outcome? Do yoiu think Platypus evolved at same time from 5 different species?? read here: " However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory upside down.9 (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.10 In reality, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that the platypus was ever anything other than a platypus. It is not a living ‘transitional’ form. It is a truly unique creature, and one that continues to baffle those who insist on making it fit into an evolutionary tree." [Reply] [Parent]

		N. American opossum posted on 11/11/2009 11:29 AM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	(Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Dear franco, I find it difficult to believe that there was a time when it was thought that marsupials were exclusive to Australia, i.e, that there was a time when biologists knew of the existence of Australian marsupials WITHOUT knowing of the existence of American marsupials. Europeans discovered and explored America much earlier and faster than they did Australia. Hence, I believe that American marsupials (e.g., the North American opossum) must have been widely known long before Captain Cooke reached Australia (in the 18th Century). I understand that this bit of misinformation is not central to your claim that Darwin's Theory is false. Nevertheless, I felt it necessary to correct you (and/or your source). Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 7:42 PM by mememachine	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	NDE's prove nothing of the sort. Merely that your brain misfires and hallucinates under certain conditions. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/10/2009 7:20 PM by A.I.Lover	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	LOL Franco you never give up [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/11/2009 11:46 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Because it's evident I am right. Darwin's theory is BS. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/12/2009 5:04 AM by Twixly	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Let's see. Does it seem more logical that you are right and all others here are wrong? Or that you are wrong and all the others are right? Sorry Franco you weird looking fish kind of some sort, you are wrong and we all know it. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/12/2009 5:44 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Well when Darwin proposed his theory he was the only one against 3 billions persons. Why he could be right and I must be wrong? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/12/2009 6:54 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Why he could be right and I must be wrong?< Because Darwin spent a decade amassing evidence to support his argument. Because Darwin did not start with a belief and then tried to force the evidence to fit it, but instead came to the conclusion that natural selection happens because that is what the physical evidence from nature pointed to. Because, before he published his opus, Darwin wrote a book about the sex life of barnacles. Why? Because he knew he had to show his expertise in the natural sciences if his peers were to take him seriously. And, mostly, because the theory of natural selection explains 99% of what we know about the natural world (the remaining 1% can be blamed on our own ignorance, not any fault in the theory itself). You say you do not believe in it, but you also demonstrate that you do not understand even the basics, so your opinion counts for very little against beautifully-researched books from Darwin, Dawkins, Jay-Gould, Mannard Smith and other giants of the field. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/12/2009 7:08 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	There is not physical evidence of evolution, Darwin never found intermediate fossils, his theory is not proven after 150 years of research. He just found different races of birds of same species. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Darwin's theory is wrong. posted on 11/12/2009 7:23 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Darwin never found intermediate fossils< And he did not know about DNA. His theory predicted the existence of a mechanism for heredity, just as it predicted the existence of fossils with intermediate traits. That we have now amassed an abundance of such fossils, and have discovered the mechanism for heredity, is testement to the power of evolution. It is a pity that creationsists have been brainwashed into repeating the mantra "no evidence exists" when it does, and how. [Reply] [Parent]