Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong

[LUClEN]

I think one would need to be brainwashed to the point of refusing to even look at the facts in order to reject natural selection.

How hard is it to understand that gene pools change over time based on various factors and the genes best suited for survival are the ones that get passed on? It's not even necessary to use science to see this, it just makes sense.

As for no part of evolution being proven, natural selection is. Of course you would have to look at the evidence to know that.

 

[Drew_Ali]

I think one would need to be brainwashed to the point of refusing to even look at the facts in order to reject natural selection.

How hard is it to understand that gene pools change over time based on various factors and the genes best suited for survival are the ones that get passed on? It's not even necessary to use science to see this, it just makes sense.

As for no part of evolution being proven, natural selection is. Of course you would have to look at the evidence to know that.

Let me put it in layman's terms............

The theory of natural selection was developed to support this "tree" diagram of one species becoming many......

New research has shown this diagram to be invalid.............

Also illustrating that natural selection is invalid..................

 

[perspective@100]

I think one would need to be brainwashed to the point of refusing to even look at the facts in order to reject natural selection.

How hard is it to understand that gene pools change over time based on various factors and the genes best suited for survival are the ones that get passed on? It's not even necessary to use science to see this, it just makes sense.

As for no part of evolution being proven, natural selection is. Of course you would have to look at the evidence to know that.

Let me put it in layman's terms............

The theory of natural selection was developed to support this "tree" diagram of one species becoming many......

New research has shown this diagram to be invalid.............

Also illustrating that natural selection is invalid..................

So what you are basically saying is everybody evolved from a different orgin, and those orgins are in no way connected?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine

It also prints speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical.

In January 2009, New Scientist ran a cover with the title "Darwin was wrong". The actual story stated that specific details of Darwin's evolution theory had been shown incorrectly, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.[11] Some evolutionary biologists who actively oppose the intelligent design movement thought the cover was both sensationalist and damaging to the scientific community.[11][12] Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True called for a boycott of the magazine, which was supported by evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and P. Z. Myers.[11]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/28/new-scientist-says-darwin-was/

Pity Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist, which published an issue in which the cover was the large, bold declaration that “DARWIN WAS WRONG“. He has been target by a number of big name scientists who have been hammering him in a small typhoon of outraged private correspondence (I’ve been part of it)

 

[Drew_Ali]

I think one would need to be brainwashed to the point of refusing to even look at the facts in order to reject natural selection.

How hard is it to understand that gene pools change over time based on various factors and the genes best suited for survival are the ones that get passed on? It's not even necessary to use science to see this, it just makes sense.

As for no part of evolution being proven, natural selection is. Of course you would have to look at the evidence to know that.

Let me put it in layman's terms............

The theory of natural selection was developed to support this "tree" diagram of one species becoming many......

New research has shown this diagram to be invalid.............

Also illustrating that natural selection is invalid..................

So what you are basically saying is everybody evolved from a different orgin, and those orgins are in no way connected?

I am saying that everybody was created.......

The origins are connected through that creator.............

 

[Drew_Ali]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine

It also prints speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical.

In January 2009, New Scientist ran a cover with the title "Darwin was wrong". The actual story stated that specific details of Darwin's evolution theory had been shown incorrectly, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.[11] Some evolutionary biologists who actively oppose the intelligent design movement thought the cover was both sensationalist and damaging to the scientific community.[11][12] Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True called for a boycott of the magazine, which was supported by evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and P. Z. Myers.[11]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/28/new-scientist-says-darwin-was/

Pity Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist, which published an issue in which the cover was the large, bold declaration that “DARWIN WAS WRONG“. He has been target by a number of big name scientists who have been hammering him in a small typhoon of outraged private correspondence (I’ve been part of it)

LOL.....

Stupid ass nigga......

The articles in magazines like New Scientist come from peer-reviewed papers published on various subjects......

Such as............

Ahhh where was I ????

Oh Yes...........

"The tree of life (TOL), as an organizing metaphor and concept, has been greatly challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer. While various attempts have been made to preserve the traditional TOL, other efforts are now focused on phylogenetic analysis and evolutionary reconstruction beyond the TOL. The articles in this special thematic series of Biology Direct demonstrate methodologically and conceptually new and constructive ways of working with and thinking about the TOL and its phylogenetic legacy. Whether these approaches modify or ultimately reject the TOL, they show the wealth of insight gained by thinking beyond a central icon of evolutionary biology."
http://www.biology-direct.com/series/tree_of_life

Early evolution without a tree of life?????

Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.

This article was reviewed by Dan Graur, W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene V. Koonin and Christophe Malaterre.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/36

 

[Drew_Ali]

Not to mention, Richard Dawkins' own peers denying the tree of life and common descent in front of his face......

 

[Jabu_Rule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

New Scientist is a weekly non-peer-reviewed English-language international science magazine

It also prints speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical.

In January 2009, New Scientist ran a cover with the title "Darwin was wrong". The actual story stated that specific details of Darwin's evolution theory had been shown incorrectly, mainly the shape of phylogenetic trees of interrelated species.[11] Some evolutionary biologists who actively oppose the intelligent design movement thought the cover was both sensationalist and damaging to the scientific community.[11][12] Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True called for a boycott of the magazine, which was supported by evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and P. Z. Myers.[11]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/28/new-scientist-says-darwin-was/

Pity Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist, which published an issue in which the cover was the large, bold declaration that “DARWIN WAS WRONG“. He has been target by a number of big name scientists who have been hammering him in a small typhoon of outraged private correspondence (I’ve been part of it)

LOL.....

Stupid ass nigga......

The articles in magazines like New Scientist come from peer-reviewed papers published on various subjects......

Such as............

Ahhh where was I ????

Oh Yes...........

"The tree of life (TOL), as an organizing metaphor and concept, has been greatly challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer. While various attempts have been made to preserve the traditional TOL, other efforts are now focused on phylogenetic analysis and evolutionary reconstruction beyond the TOL. The articles in this special thematic series of Biology Direct demonstrate methodologically and conceptually new and constructive ways of working with and thinking about the TOL and its phylogenetic legacy. Whether these approaches modify or ultimately reject the TOL, they show the wealth of insight gained by thinking beyond a central icon of evolutionary biology."
http://www.biology-direct.com/series/tree_of_life

Early evolution without a tree of life?????

Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.

This article was reviewed by Dan Graur, W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene V. Koonin and Christophe Malaterre.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/36

All in your feelings. So reactionary.

New Scientist is not in itself a scientific journal. This doesn't mean that it, like others of its kind, doesn't take from scientific papers and then embellish as which was done here.
http://chrislintott.net/2009/01/23/new-scientist-is-wrong-but-is-this-news/

Even if the article had been 100% true, the problem is this: By splashing the ‘news’ that Darwin was wrong, New Scientist plays up to the idea that evolution can be attacked by attacking Darwin. Of course he was wrong, about many things; he was writing a century or so before DNA was even discovered, for goodness’ sake. As PZ Myers says, It’s a symptom of creationist influence that journals would think that hyping a story that “150 year old theory gets revised!” is newsworthy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18944-levitating-glass-bead-proves-einstein-wrong.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Not to mention, Richard Dawkins' own peers denying the tree of life and common descent in front of his face......

Looks like Dawkins shut him down easily.

But "ChristianityTriumphs" though? Word?

 

[Drew_Ali]

Biologist Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes."

 

[Drew_Ali]

Let me put it in layman's terms............

The theory of natural selection was developed to support this "tree" diagram of one species becoming many......

New research has shown this diagram to be invalid.............

Also illustrating that natural selection is invalid..................

 

[Drew_Ali]

The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms.

 

[Ajackson17]

I was wondering should I purchase Halo 4 or get another RPG game for my xbox. Decisions, decisions, decisions....

 

[Drew_Ali]

I was wondering should I purchase Halo 4 or get another RPG game for my xbox. Decisions, decisions, decisions....

GTFOH..........

Fat coon ass nigga beggin for fucking attention...........

 

[Ajackson17]

I need to see which system I want the most the Xbox 720 or the PS4. What do you think @Drew_Ali ?

 

[Drew_Ali]

LOL.....

PS4..........

 

[waterproof]

Go get yourself a microscope. Look at bacteria. Watch it evolve. Disprove your own moron assumptions. Apologize for wasting everyone's time.

I have a degree in Marketing. But I'm not going to say t he Executives at APPLE "were wrong" in how they marketed the fucking iPOD. Why? It would be stupid as the evidence clearly shows they did a good fucking job marketing the iPOD.

I like how you attack Darwin's EVIDENCE yet we are supposed to just take your word for it you're qualified to speak on this subject. NIgga show us your degree. Show us the receipts!

Secondly, Darwin's theory was among the first of it's kind. He didn't have the technology we have today so of course there are going to be discrepancies. HOWEVER, his core principle was absolutely correct. LIVING BEINGS EVOLVE. Simple as that. It's common knowledge. Nobody has time to wait for you assholes to catch up to the fucking 21st Century. Believe your nonsense in another fucking time period. And say hello to Kunte Kente and Chicken George and tell that bitch Kizzy to comb her gotdamn hair. Cuz thats how far you'd have to go to find somebody with an IQ over 125 to believe evolution is somehow a hoax.

There is no legitimate debate. A legitimate debate is when both sides have good points. Anti-Evolution side doesnt pass the "really nigga?" test. A fucking magical Jew who impregnated his own Mother and killed himself but never died yet rose from the death in 3 days (even though Gods never die) created animals in less than a day. REALLY NIGGA?

Evolution was wrong? Even though there's both skeletal remains. MITOCHONDRIAL DNA from our ancestors and fossils that have been carbon dated for accuracy? REALLY NIGGA?!

If you are over the age of 12 and you think a woman was created from a man's rib when you yourself came out of a goddamn woman you need to beat the living fuck out of yourself.

Once again here is the anti-Evolution side in a nutshell: "IM TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE SO I BELIEVE IN MAGICAL-NESS."

Nigga for a smart brother and a brother that have his foot on throats of whitey that have to be one of the stupidest shit i ever heard, the white man done bleached your dome to believe that bullshit is true, you know damn well Mary got seeded by man and Yashua is man he aint god, and who said YHWH created animals in one day, come on now, you know better shit than that..

 

[waterproof]

I know you are not @Bambu......

Because he is I and I am him.........

oh shit nigga,lol......... @DrewAli welcome back from the belly of the beast..........

 

[perspective@100]

I think one would need to be brainwashed to the point of refusing to even look at the facts in order to reject natural selection.

How hard is it to understand that gene pools change over time based on various factors and the genes best suited for survival are the ones that get passed on? It's not even necessary to use science to see this, it just makes sense.

As for no part of evolution being proven, natural selection is. Of course you would have to look at the evidence to know that.

Let me put it in layman's terms............

The theory of natural selection was developed to support this "tree" diagram of one species becoming many......

New research has shown this diagram to be invalid.............

Also illustrating that natural selection is invalid..................

So what you are basically saying is everybody evolved from a different orgin, and those orgins are in no way connected?

I am saying that everybody was created.......

The origins are connected through that creator.............

Well the scientist and the study on that prehistoric creature being wrong does not really change much in science. They will just create another theory on how the spine developed. Seem like you made this thread just to talk about not a whole lot. When you go 350 million years back its not surprising they make mistakes and will never fully know about life in that time. When I was in school Pluto was a planet and the big bang theory was how everything came into existence. Now pluto is a dwarf planet or something and string theory and dimensions colliding created physical matter. Hell they didn't even teach us that a super massive black hole sits at the center of a galaxy.

 

[yeery]

Here's a idea, log off and go play in the sprinklers