![]() |
|
Evolutionary theory debunked - Printable Version +- Lookism (https://bookism.net) +-- Forum: Lookism Forums (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Shitty Advice (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +--- Thread: Evolutionary theory debunked (/showthread.php?tid=5621) |
RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 24-05-2026 Quote:Remember from biology class: your DNA carries the instructions for building all the proteins your body needs. Those instructions are organised into 46 chromosomes — long threads of DNA wound tightly around scaffolding proteins. The whole bundle lives inside the nucleus, a tiny compartment in the centre of each cell. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 14-06-2026 Abuses of the concept of natural selection abound not only in science news articles but in research papers in major scientific journals as well. It’s time for a remedial course. At best, natural selection allows the fortunate to continue existing. I say fortunate, because a mindless process could not care what exists or not, and there is no guarantee that survivors will represent an improvement over what existed before; the survivors might be lucky bums. At worst, natural selection (hereafter NS) commits the fallacy of personification, ascribing the power of choice to impersonal happenstance. This makes as much sense as speaking of “natural voting.” NS doesn’t care who wins. NS is not a person. Extinction is just as valid an outcome of “selection” as innovating a new organ, eye, or wing. Does Positive Selection Exist? The only kind of selection useful to evolutionists is positive selection, the preservation of alleged “beneficial variations” (usually genetic mutations, which are overwhelmingly deleterious). Sometimes this is called “directional selection” (assuming the direction progresses up the tree of life). Think of the upward steps required to get from bacteria to brain. Evolution needs progress up the tree of life, and for that, it needs voluminous instances of innovation or novelty that might help the organism climb another step on Mount Improbable. Can accidents produce new organs, tissues or body types? Such wishful thinking works in Spiderman and Mutant Ninja Turtles but does not belong in science. The positive selection Darwinists need are innovations that trend upward. All scientists — even the most ardent creationists — accept variation within limits. Examples abound, such as color variations in flowers, wing patterns in butterflies, and size differences in theropods. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - Altruist - 14-06-2026 you are a monkey, op. get over it. there is no amount of 90 iq logical fallacies you can spam itt that will change the fact that denying evolution is about as reasonable and intelligent as denying you will fucking die if you jump off a 500 m cliff, and this is not a hyperbole. but then again, i m not even sure you arent one of those guys who think "theory" = "a bunch of unproven hypotheses". as i said before, the banal fact that your body becomes heavier when you eat something is a very strong hint towards evolution and against religion. funny how you retards are simultaneously using 99.99% of science to ... disprove science by using ... claims of scientists about science. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 14-06-2026 (14-06-2026, 03:19 PM)Altruist Wrote: "theory" = "a bunch of unproven hypotheses"I have never said that, there are many valid scientific theories but evolutionism is not one of them. RE: Evolutionary theory debunked - RuudVanNistelrooy - 14-06-2026 The Most Fundamental Level Evidence from nature is at the heart of the intelligent design argument. As we examine the natural world, multiple levels of design become apparent. At the most fundamental of these we encounter designs that can be fully explained by the universal laws of nature. We’re all familiar with examples, such as exquisite six-sided snowflakes, rainbows across a misty valley, the rosy hues of a sunrise or sunset, or the rhythmic waves of the ocean washing over a sandy beach. Each of these examples of natural design can be fully explained by reference to the forces and laws of nature discovered.
Does explanation by natural cause negate intelligent design? Only if the existence of these prior causes can also be explained naturally. As it is, however, and despite the best efforts of many scientists to explain otherwise, the laws of nature that bring about beautiful instances of natural design have no other scientific explanation than that they just are the way they are. Postulating a designer for the particular suite of orchestrated natural laws that govern our universe has seemed to many scientists a more reasonable conclusion than simply ascribing everything to “dumb luck.”
Designs of Life
Within our world, we also find higher genres of design that cannot be explained by appealing to the actions of natural forces and laws of nature. In every case, these higher levels of design originate from or within living creatures. I address the evidential power of some of these designs in my book, Canceled Science:
Quote: A creature’s instinctive ability to create a structure of functional design prompts us to investigate how this ability could have been brought about. Three questions regarding instinctive designs need consideration:
|