It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If you take a pelican, that lives in an area with shallow water, it will have a smaller beak because it does not need to go that deep to grab fish. But if you stick it in an area with much deeper water, and several generations later, the beak will be substantially larger.
Originally posted by ShadowfluxThe fact that modern science seems to refute many of the assumptions made by Darwinian theory seems to have no bearing on Darwinist's loyalty to their theory. I think that at best Darwinism needs to be revised, but god forbid you mention that to a Darwinist.
Originally posted by Shadowflux
But how many revisions are needed until a theory is proven to be insufficient, negliable, or just flat out wrong.
Occums Razor favors the theory that requires the least amount of revision and hypothetical elements to sustain it as theory.
These "revisions" to Darwinian theory are a posteriori, after the fact, a priori theories should be favored.
Remember, Dawrinian evolution can never be proven as fact for millions of years, until we can compare the creatures of today with the creatures of the next evolutionary epoch
Dark Matter, something which, if ever discovered or detected, would result in the negating of it's existence.
lol, if you think about it, Darwinists are negating Darwinism when applied to the evolution of scientific theories
Originally posted by James the Lesser
Giraffes would eat from a tree, it then grew thorns, so the giraffe grew a longer more flexible tounge, eventually the tree built a new defense, poison. The tree then let out a pheramone that told the other trees to make the poison. So the giraffe grew to know to eat a tree for only so long, then move upwind to continue eating without being poisoned. MACRO evolution.