Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
I'm just glad to see people challenging Darwin whether they're right or not.
Evolution does occur on certain levels, but I just can't believe that there was just a very small group of microbes that evolved into humans. There simply hasn't been enough time. This theory was created by people that didn't believe in God and were desparate to explain how they got here. You guys can keep throwing your facts around, but until the "missing link" is found, sorry, can't believe it.
Oh, and the reason human bodies are flawed, WE CAN'T LIVE FOREVER, WE WOULD RUN OUT OF EVERYTHING, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! So how does that prove we weren't made be an intelligent being?

Yes, there has been enough time...
How do you question evolution by using your own frame of reference for how long it takes things to evolve? How do you know the speed at which things evolve?
You can't negate all the evidence for evolution just by saying "Nope, couldnt happen, not enough time" when clearly there HAS been enough time, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by hippomchippo


Then please show me where are the current apes etc. that have evolved or evolving, because in order to become as so called intelligent as us, they better get a move on.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Then please show me where are the current apes etc. that have evolved or evolving, because in order to become as so called intelligent as us, they better get a move on.

You don't know what evolution is, everything is evolving constantly, it's just too slow for us to go, " LOOK, THAT ANIMAL IS EVOLVING INTO ANOTHER!"

Even though we CAN measure the speed of evolution in lower life forms like bacteria, but I'm sure you'll have a cry about that too, calling it micro evolution and still whining that macro evolution is impossible because you haven't personally seen something turn into something else.


What do you mean where are the current apes? There are all sorts of apes, some are intelligent and use tools, some aren't.

How is this evidence against evolution? Because apes aren't as smart as us evolution doesn't exist?

Evolution is a fact. The only thing that's being debated now are the mechanisms driving evolution.

The strangest thing is, evolution doesn't disprove god, it only disproves that God personally came down and created life.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by Wise Man



My view is Biblical.

You do realize that the bible is allegorical in nature right?

And why the hell is this devolving into a debate about religion?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by grey580]

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by Wise Man



My view is Biblical.

You do realize that the bible is allegorical in nature right?

And why the hell is this devolving into a debate about religion?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by grey580]

Because it has the words Darwin and WRONG in the title.
People don't read the article, and instead go into a tirade about how false evolution is, they then get promptly shot down.

I Read an article on Discovery.com regarding this topic. I think this excerpt says it well:

But even intellectually honest media outlets have proclaimed "Darwin was Wrong" many times over. In reality what they're doing, and what this latest study has done, is point out that Darwin's thoughts on evolution were profound and far-reaching, and while they almost invariably remain true to this day -- surprise! -- in 150 years, scientists have managed to discover a few new things about how evolution works.

news.discovery.com...

Of course Darwin didn't "nail it" with his theory, but he was as accurate as one could be given the tools he had available at the time. As with all sound scientific theories, time and research further refine the theory.

Originally posted by Wise Man

Gene means seed, sperm.
The father carries the seed. Not the mother.

The problem is going way back in human history to try and use Y-DNA from the father would be extremly difficult, but quite easy through the mother.

The whole point of genealogy is tracing the fathers lineage.
This is how people have done it since time.

Yes I understand that, but the ethnical history of the human race cares little to lineages, and though one can follow the father down the Y-DNA tests the mother's mtDNA is passed down by her unchanged, to all children, so this works well in determining the ethnic history of an area.
I guess the bottom line is do you use lineage to figure out where a group came from 10,000 years ago or their unchanged mtDMA?



[edit on 26-8-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by sickofitall2012


We did not evolve from the apes that currently exist. Us and modern apes have a common ancestor that diverged into different species long ago. Humans came from one of these divergent species, while modern apes came from another. Therefore, they are on a separate evolutionary path from us, not only because of different, more recent, ancestors, but also because they live in a different environment from us, thus different traits are needed to ensure the passing on of genetics. This means it is highly unlikely that apes will ever have a brain that has evolved the same way as the hominid brain did.

Originally posted by Wise Man
Show me the DNA your talking about with scanned proof.
You never had any DNA proof? No one on these forums has ever shown me any DNA proof of anything.

This has been done in other threads to refute your "research". Invariably, your reply consists of you saying you don't believe in DNA evidence because it's either not being done properly or the people doing it are party to the big cover up. You've refused to even read peer reviewed papers based on DNA work.

Oh and 2 minutes Google doesn't make you a DNA scientist with hardcore proof. Everybody thinks they can prove DNA science by sitting on Google and not doing any actual DNA tests. Thats a joke. Your not fooling anyone.

No, but basic literacy and a willingness to learn means I can read and comprehend someone else's research. It's like what you do with posting pictures of black heads on coats of arms only, you know... factual.

You know what a black head on a coat of arms meant? It wasn't a representation of the family to whom that coat of arms belonged. It meant they had killed a moor and taken his head. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you're asserting.

reply to post by Wise Man


It's you who has no proof, buddy. All the archaeological, genetic, historical and litteray evidence points to you talking out of your arse. There really isn't any need for us to post endless streams of pictures.

Also, most of what you post is being misrepresented by you. For example, the guy painting the pics is doing just that. He isn't painting over Black people, he is simply painting a picture.

The coats of arms of Henry VIII you posted is false. An outright lie in fact. Also, if Henry VIII was black, why do portraits done at the time show him as a fat, ginger, white man? Why was Elizabeth, his daughter, a fair skinned, ginger woman? Why was his father, who had portraits done, also shown to be a white man?

The pictures of "black" statues are in fact made of a dark wood, so will naturally be dark. No conspiracy there.

Your claims of Normans and Vikings (same culture group) as being Black is false. All contemporary records of the time are repleat with descriptions of these men and they all, without fail, describe them as White.

Your video clip of the drama about Hannibal has been edited. I watched that series myself and I can tell you, hannibal WAS NOT DEPICTED IN THE SERIES AS A BLACK MAN, contrary to what you claim. Also, here is a link to a bust found int he Roman city of Capua, dated well before 1500 by the way!

upload.wikimedia.org...

Certainly not a black man!

In fact, I strongly suspect, as you won't post sources knowing full well it will open you to even more ridicule, that many of the pictures are in fact doctored.

If you could post pictures with information on where they were taken and what of, then we could check your veracity, but you don't. You just post more pointless, unsourced pictures which in all honesty could come from anywhere and mean anything. Using the same logic, I could post close up pictures of a snail and claim Giant, slimy aliens are found in the jungle!

You claim there are no paintings of White men in Europe pre-1500. This is a lie. There are litterally thousands of portraits of Monarchs, nobels and battel scenes from pre-1500 showing White men and women.

Here is one of Edward IV, who died well before 1500.

upload.wikimedia.org...

I'm not going to do what you did, namely post dozens of unsourced, unverifiable pictures. If you really want to convince me or anyone else, may I suggest the next time you feel the need to post some pics, you tell us exactly where they were taken, what they are showing and give us a source link to the image. Not half scanned pages from obviously dubious books or web sites.

Surely, if you are right about all of this, I can independantly verify whether these pictures are real. Like I said, however, I strongly suspect they have been doctored or woefully misrepresented in an attempt to distort the truth. So go on then, put up or shut up.

[edit on 26/8/10 by stumason]

Wise Man has apparently gotten himself banned. That's a shame - he was good for entertainment value, if nothing else.

reply to post by grey580


LOL Darwin may have been wrong, that is naive, Darwin can't be wrong, he had GODLY knowledge and knew everything.

He knew the facts very well, therefore we shouldn't move any forwards because he was a messenger and gained all his info from GOD.

Anyone who questions Darwin's theory, questions GOD. We must not allow it and prosecute those who do.

[/sarcasm]

If that wasn't funny, just read a long.

Originally posted by Parallex
Can't be bothered to let this post stay - this creationist attracting tripe just isn't worth the effort.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Parallex]

...this has nothing to do with creationism...it actually is just a small critique of Darwin, it's not a denial of evolution. rtfa.

Originally posted by yellowcard



...this has nothing to do with creationism...it actually is just a small critique of Darwin, it's not a denial of evolution. rtfa.

But somehow it shakes Darwinism from the root up, because if Darwin can make a mistake then he is not GOD, or at least the messenger of GOD

[/crazyinsanesarcasmoff]

Damn!
Looked at this thread expecting the usual evolution - creationism - ID bollocks and no, it seems it was full of extra special bollocks thanks to Wise Man.
Shame all his posts got deleted.
And it is a shame he has got himself banned, I enjoy diversity and if he had started a thread on the subject, like he should have done instead of derailing this one, it would have been fascinating.

Anyone who knows anything about Darwin's Theory is aware that it is not the finished article and many scientists have since developed and fine tuned it.
There are still many things we need to know in our drive to fully understand mankinds development.
I suspect both 'competition' and 'living space' played a part in our evolution.
As probably did several other things, some of which we may or may not fully understand or know about yet.

reply to post by Freeborn


I'm not surprised Wise Man was deleted a lot of his views were controversial to other members. He's a Black Hebrew Israelite.
en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe this can shed some source on his beliefs.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I understand they were off topic and deserved deleting, just wish I could have read them first and that he could have remained within T&C and started a thread on the subject, I suspect it would have been lively and interesting.

Thanks for the link.

reply to post by Freeborn


Read it and weep! I mead a thread tonight.
www.belowtopsecret.com...

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Good man!

Just wish Wise Man was around to contribute, but that's his look out!



[edit on 27/8/10 by Freeborn]