Thread: New Take On Evolution Vs. Creationism

Seriously this is a bunch of rubbish. A simple comment would be this if Einstein was wrong then all of nuclear physics would be wrong and all the calculation of elements the observation and testing would be wrong. If Einstein is wrong then nearly all the branches of physics would be turned upside down also Einstein general theory of relativity would be wrong. The point is their tons of emprical evidence for relativity for it to be wrong alot of things we tons of evidence and correct prediction would be nonsense.

Now this is never going to happen because Einstein theory is kind of like somebody saying the earth goes around the sun then a idiot says no the sun goes around the earth. Plus mathematically their are some mistakes, however Einstein himself was not that good at mathematics for a better job you should look at mikowashi equation.

Okay, this post wasn't even about Einstein. Who the hell cares if it turned physics upside down? That's no arguement against it, its happened before. Anyway, just leave the stuff about Einstein out of it, okay? Read the name of this thread, that's what I wanted to direct people's attention to...like I said in my post.

lol..that theory sounds hot I have to admit, natural selection does seem to have major holes in it. but is there more evidence with this radical theory? I mean, what evidence do we have that something can survive such radical DNA changes and not die from cancer instead?

its going to take a while to read through all that (night here) and I would like to look at the Einstein ones first, but interesting stuff

Yeah, I know the Einstein stuff is out there, but I didn't really mean to talk about it, even though it is pretty interesting (not saying I believe it or not, just saying it is interesting&#33


juroara - Yeah, I don't really know if there's any other evidence related to this theory. I haven't really researched it. But I thought other people might be interested, seeing as there are a few "creationism vs. evolution" threads going around. I don't believe in it, but I don't think it is false, mainly because I don't know enough about it. Sometime, I'll get around to checking it out.

This is vry intersting, if im gonna be hoent, science isnt my forte, but id like to do further research on this, is there a specific name for this theory?

Imran

Sorry, no idea, I just came across it while surfing the net. It could be total BS, but, then again, there might be something to it. I'll look into this weekend, probably.

Cecil's opinion: Straight Dope

Besides the bit about the reversal of the magnetic field (which is ridiculous in its own right), the article is 100%, unfiltered, moronic BOGUS.
The Index to Creationist Claims even has an entire SECTION dedicated to transitional fossils. Read up.

I typically abstain from posting about evolution/creation nowadays, but when I see something this STUPID, I've got to throw my two cents in.

Nah, I think it's the Best Theory Ever (BTE) and I'm going to Tell Everyone I Know about this Best Theory Ever. I call it Operation TEIKBTE.

And then I will emphatically use "bogus" as a noun. I will yell, "That is SUCH a bogus!" when people call me crazy. The people then will inch away, perplexed and scared, but will be relieved when I point to a device over in the corner used for making counterfeit money.



I kid, I kid!

Intersting subject,

I heard about this magnetic field some years ago. It was proved that the polarity changes sometimes. But the effect of this were unknow. The question is, is it really proved that the field shuts down? Or is it just the author's suggestion?

Let's admit it's true, it is not the author's suggestion.

For me, it will not prove that Darwin's theory is false (in realty the theory is a bit false, but the concept is correct). for me Darwin says, when you reproduce(animals, plants) or duplicate(cells, bacteries, viruses), there is always some "mistakes" in the genes mix/duplication. Each generation will have (at least) a slighty different genome. Sometimes it can affect something, sometimes not.

Everybody is a mutant.

If your mutation allows you to be more efficient in the context where you live, you will have more chance to reproduce. (There is also another factor, because some genes are stronger than the others, this add more luck in the process).

For me, if there is really a "field shut down", it will simply makes a "jump" in the evolution. But this jump, don't prove that Darwin is false.

Note 1: A theory can never be completely truth, it's just a aproximation of the realty. Thus I can say, of course Einsein's one is false, but it's precise enough to predict a lot of things.

Note 2: A prove that Darwin is right (at least not completely false), is that some people have no wisdom tooth (I don't know if it's the right term in english, these are the toots that come around 18 years). It was not the case before. Before we were needing theses tooth to eat, if you don't have them you will just die before having time to reproduce. Now you can easily live without, no wisdom tooth people can reproduce, and because the modified genes are strong, we see this case more and more. Maybe people without theses tooth are more efficient and in many years nobody will have them anymore.

I find this theory very hard to believe for several reasons.

For one I cant see how a monkey with changed DNA can have a human baby. And where did the monkey come form in the first place? How would a monkey take care of a human especially when it is sick? What would the remaining creatures eat? How did the plants survive? I could go on but I think I've made my point.

Look at the results of the two bombs dropped on Japan, Where are the "new species" being born of them?
This Radiation would need to be responsible for life it's self. I doubt thats the case.

There are more loop holes in this theory than Darwin's or creationism combined.

Lame theory. As if no-one carried a watch into india, and noticed it was pretty dark at 11 A.M., and pretty light at 22 P.M. Or something. It seems this theory isn't even attached to a university, is it?

"And where did the monkey come form in the first place?"

This is like, who is the hen which laid the first egg?

We can imagine a theory. This is the "Adam & Eve" theory. One day there was ONE couple of specie A that made a mutant child, who has a different DNA. We can say that this child is of specie B, because it's different.

The child was at least as efficient as his parents, so he has been able to reproduce too. Let's say that the muted genes are strong ones. They will easily take over the genes they are mixing with.

Child B had a good sexual life, he had ten childs, each of them have the muted genes (bcs they were strong, remember?). The ten child will reproduce again and so on... A new specie is born!!

B didn't erased A, B is just living in parralel to A, it's just one more crossroad in the evolution tree. A common mistake is to say that A is parent to B. We sohould they that A is a cousin of B.

For me, this explains that we don't need the "field shut down" to evolve. But who can say that he is sure that the "field shut down" theory is false? We should wait for the next one to see what happen...

Note: Even if I spoke about "Adam & Eve", i'm not religious at all. But the analogy is really good.

Nah, man, don't even worry about it, it's cool, this is the greatest theory anyone has ever seen. I mean, just think about it. Wait for it...wait for it...yeah, that's what I'm talking about. UH! I just dipped yo' ass in chocolate.