It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Darwins Theories Are Being Abused

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
You know i look around and i see over and over how evolutionary theory is being abused.

Firstly some people tie evolution in with the big bang, lets be very clear, evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe. Then some people tie evolution in with the origins of life, this is yet again another abuse of the theory because it has nothing to do with how life originated. Abiogenises deals with the origin of life, not evolution.

Then i see people conflating evolution and eugenics. Eugenics is a perversion of evolution, it is not the same thing. Then there are the people saying how darwinian evolution leads to war, because it causes everyone to race for resources. Then people like hitler are bought up and they say he was inspired by evolution. Well hitler may have been inspired by it, but he seriously misinterpreted it along the lines of eugenics.

So lets be clear on darwins theory of evolution via natural selection.

The theory does not favour any quality in a being other than the quality that will naturally allow it to adapt to it's enviroment. Notice the word naturally. Humans have created an artificial enviroment where the greedy suceed, this has nothing to do with evolution.

In the past, natural selection would favour those suited to the enviroment, if it were cold then animals with hair and other adaptations would survive. If it were hot then those who were able to regulate body temperature and preserve moisture would survive. If a natural toxin pervaded the land then those with resistance would survive.

I am tired of evolution being abused by it's opponents. These people either don't understand evolution, or they understand it and try to undermine it with false arguements.




posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Very eloquent, thanks.


I would say that both sides are responsible for "hijacking" evolution: those who intentionally want to disprove it, to present creationism as the only viable theory, and try to confuse "we dont' understant this yet" with "this is impossible" and those who use evolution to try to disprove creationism completely and forget to adjust the model as new information comes in.

Another one I really hate is the arguments like "Evolution is no more likely than a tornado blowing through a junk yard and putting a car back together."

It doesn't hold water--we can see evolution taking place around us--so either the statistic is skewed somehow or, just by chance, the one-in-a-billion happened and here we are.

But, I think If everyone steps back from their biases, there's no reason why the two can't exist together.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by asmeone2]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Ye i sometims get annoyed when people try to interfere with nature like for instance if an animal is dying out some organisation around the world will try and save it now dont get me wrong im not the type of person to sit around and let the world die but i think if that type opf animal is dying out then theyre must be a reason for it like its not adapting to this world so its natural for it to die out.

we really shouldnt mess about with nature its more powerful than all of us and its always going to come out on top.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by billyjoinedat2k8
Ye i sometims get annoyed when people try to interfere with nature like for instance if an animal is dying out some organisation around the world will try and save it now dont get me wrong im not the type of person to sit around and let the world die but i think if that type opf animal is dying out then theyre must be a reason for it like its not adapting to this world so its natural for it to die out.

we really shouldnt mess about with nature its more powerful than all of us and its always going to come out on top.


Depends on why it's going extinct though.

For instance Codors are dying out because of pesticide use--it isn't nature taking them out, it's humans because we put the pesticides there.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


We are now the dominant species and the animals going extinct is just a natural by-product of the Homo Sapiens development.

Survival of the fittest. The condors just don't have what it take to co-exist with those advanced primates. It is a shame really.

The worst part about Homo Sapiens is our ego - we actually think we can cause "Global warming" and "kill all the condors" - but we can't...

...You see, when a Homo Sapiens with a Ph.D can't find any condors the rest of the Homo Sapiens think they are either extinct, or going extinct. Such is the extent of our ego.

Example: Didn't we just find 125 000 gorillas that didn't exist until we found them just a few months ago?

Now those gorillas just have Adapt or they will risk falling prey to the Homo Sapiens of Africa, who are afflicted with starvation and disease. Those gorillas could save a million children from starvation for six months.... I hope they do.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
In the past, natural selection would favour those suited to the enviroment, if it were cold then animals with hair and other adaptations would survive. If it were hot then those who were able to regulate body temperature and preserve moisture would survive. If a natural toxin pervaded the land then those with resistance would survive.

I didn't quite get your reference to the past. Does it mean that the process of continuity od species, or the natural selection, no longer works in the present or future?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander
I didn't quite get your reference to the past. Does it mean that the process of continuity od species, or the natural selection, no longer works in the present or future?


What i meant was that humans are no longer under the natural selection that normal animals are. With all out medicine, sanitation and hyper cleaning of everything, we are outside natural selection. Some people still die because of natural factors, but most live through any disability and pass it on.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing i'm just saying that's why i used the words "in the past".

Anyway that isn't what the threads all about really, it's more about darwins theories being tied on to anything that people with an agenda want. Creationists asking people to tie it to the big bang are common.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Anyway that isn't what the threads all about really, it's more about darwins theories being tied on to anything that people with an agenda want. Creationists asking people to tie it to the big bang are common.

What do you think would be the purpose of the Creationists to ask the people to draw a link between Darwin theories and the Big Bang?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Anyway that isn't what the threads all about really, it's more about darwins theories being tied on to anything that people with an agenda want. Creationists asking people to tie it to the big bang are common.

What do you think would be the purpose of the Creationists to ask the people to draw a link between Darwin theories and the Big Bang?


It allows them to point out, an invalid, failing in the theory of evolution, they then use peoples ignorant views and lack of scientific understanding to make the theory look weak. They never, ever, point out the colossal weight of evidence and reproducible effects that backs up Darwins theory.

I've seen creationists say that it's a poor theory because it doesn't explain gravity, it doesn't explain thermodynamics, it doesn't explain how the universe started. Yet, they know damn well that it doesn't purport to explain those things. Those are explained by other laws such as Newtons laws.

Creationists struggle to find failings in scientific theories, so instead have to try and spread dis-information. Scientists then have to waste resources, time and money to counter this dis-information. Resources, time and money which should be spent on research. The sort of research that increases our knowledge and advances mankind. Creationism doesn't do this, it's an intellectual black hole that tries to suck in scientific progress and understanding to allow them to further there own ignorant beliefs.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by zsrgt
 


"I've seen creationists say that it's a poor theory because it doesn't explain gravity, it doesn't explain thermodynamics, it doesn't explain how the universe started."

I've also seen a few creationist sites that try to explain how humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction because we 'shared a niche' and they were 'out competed 'by humans who were better 'fitted' to survive and adapt. And the humans had the support of God
just like the USA.

The last dinosaur was killed by St.George - this dinosaur was able to survive to long because it had evolved in a colder environment in the northern latitudes and had a layer of fat. However, the dinosaur was unable to 'adapt' its scales fast enough to deal with the rapid weapons innovations the Humans were making with their highly evolved brains and with the aid of their God.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by TruthTellist]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

There you go, the fool Ben Stein on Evolution. You will have to skip past the finance stuff for a few minutes, but he says the problem with evolution is:

It doesn't explain how life began.
It doesn't explain Thermodynamics
It doesn't explain Physics and Laws of Motion.

He also says that no one has ever observed evolution.. again utter nonsense!

The man is an idiot!

Note: He also, in a way, blames Darwins Theory of Evolution for the holocaust!

[edit on 22-9-2008 by zsrgt]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zsrgt
Creationists struggle to find failings in scientific theories, so instead have to try and spread dis-information. Scientists then have to waste resources, time and money to counter this dis-information.

Well, I guess you're right. Some say that the cost to fight the Creationists is somewhere between
www.eetimes.eu...
and
blog.luciolepress.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zsrgt
Note: He also, in a way, blames Darwins Theory of Evolution for the holocaust!



That's why i mentioned Hitler in my original post. The creationists love to tie evolution in with Hitler. It was eugenics though, a perversion of evolution that Hitler was espousing, although he didn't even understand that theory properly.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by zsrgt
 


He's an absolute idiot. He doesn't know a thing about evolution. What a fool.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Are they being abused, or are they being followed to their natural conclusions?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


They're being abused. To tie them in to all of the things i listed above is absolutely wrong, misrepresents evolution completely, and is basically lying.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
If one of the most recognized scientists can tie God with the Big Bang
www.leaderu.com...
then no wonder that the Creationists will shoot at will.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


Hawking has also mentioned god, but he's an atheist, creationists use that as well. Everyone can step into an area they shouldn't, he's only human afterall. However if creationists actually read darwins theory of evolution by natural selection, then they wouldn't tie it in. The fact that they do tends to say they havn't read anything about it.

Certain creation scientists know the theory and yet misquote it, those are the ones i dislike the most.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


It's quite common for people to use the word "God" to describe nature - to describe the origins of the universe. As Carl Sagan put it:



The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.


That makes sense to me. Good luck getting your prayers answered by the speed of light, though :-P



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The biggest problem with evolution is that it must stand alone without any ties to the origin of life, the beginning of the universe, and existence. This is why it is flawed. Will stay flawed. And will eventually fade in the light of intelligent design.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join