reply to post by kyviecaldges
Not supported by science? how about genetics?
There we go proof that we share a common ancestor.
As far as i have understood the works of Darwin, he never intended his works to serve as a creation theory. If we take a look at the leftwing political establishment , it’s no big secret that they always have despised religion(Christianity in particular). Thus they have been looking for ways and methods to get rid of it ever since. That’s how they eventually hijacked Darwin’s work . They saw it as a tool , and they immediately went to work to modify (and basically re-write it) , so it would function as a theory that explained how everything in the physical world came into being through evolution. They only claimed that this process took millions of years. In this way nobody could really prove it wrong.
reply to post by peter vlar
I am not going to respond to this because you are totally derailing the thread by posting long rambling posts that parse individual paragraphs and sentences.
This is a great way to throw off a thread- so I ask you ONE question.
The same question that I just proposed.
Explain the unexplained exponential evolution toward greater brain mass, greatly increasing cellular complexity and exponentially increasing intelligence, thus making us the creatures that we are today.
Explain the missing link.
Homo Erectus did NOT have a comparable brain size to modern humans. Homo Erectus brain size averages 900 cubic centimeters (cc.) The human/Cromagnon brain averages 1,350 cc. Neanderthal brain averaged slightly larger in the 1,400cc range. Modern Humans/Homo Sapiens/Cromagnon encountered and had successful 'relationships' with Neanderthal, such that fertile offspring resulted. This is why EVERYONE on the planet, with small exception of some Subsaharan Africans that never left Africa, have Neanderthal DNA at roughly 3%. Neanderthals had a brain mass of 1,400 cc. While you could argue that an elephant has a bigger brain than a human, that is a false analogy.
If you buy into this theory of evolution then the LIKE neanderthal, so much like us that we still have 3% of their DNA in our systems, give or take, on a good day, then it stands to reason that they were THAT much more intelligent than we are today.
It sure would take a really strong person with pythagoran-like math skills to build the pyramids, or the many megalithic world sites that are ALL built in perfect astronomical alignments.
Because without it. Your theory doesn't fly.
It is based upon an idea that is completely random and its the randomness that is actually responsible for continued survival. Random cannot be understood, especially when the goal is to create the highest number of random possibilities for continued survival.
Please stop derailing my thread and stick to the topic in readable posts that make this worth my time.edit on 14/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.
There is however no evidence of higher math or any permanent structures period let alone megaliths built by Neanderthal. It would be really amazing if that turned out to be so, but as yet there is nothing to support that hypothesis.
You claim to be a scientist.
But you are confusing the the theory of evolution, which is not debated by scientists as a concept due to the preponderance of the evidence ... with the the mechanism whereby evolution occurs.
Additionally, "social" and "cultural" darwinism are concepts that originated with anthropologists and sociologists and are hotly debated. But right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, they bear no reflection on evolutionary biology. Your original post seemed to imply such. Not the case.
I happen to have a degree in evolutionary biology. It irritates me when people say that they don't "believe" in evolution because they have only the most rudimentary knowledge of the concepts, mechanisms, and terminology.
Believe whatever you want. But if you can disprove evolutionary theory ... publish, submit for peer review, and collect your Nobel prize.
the preponderance of the evidence is not on the side of Darwin.
That is why I continually reference the fossil record. That is the only hard evidence that you have.
Completely backwards. The vast majority of the evidence that supports evolution is genetic evidence. In the complete absence of a fossil record, we would still have enough genetic evidence to support evolution that it would be the dominant explanation for biodiversity by a wide margin.