FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
What theory do you believe?"
Don’t laugh
I’m of the opinion human dna has been tampered with or humans originated elsewhere, most likely culprit would be a dying mars |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No. Evolution has never been described as one giant step. It's lots of small, incremental steps and it's demonstrably happening right now. Google the Bajau Laut tribe for some illuminating reading. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
What theory do you believe?
Don’t laugh
I’m of the opinion human dna has been tampered with or humans originated elsewhere, most likely culprit would be a dying mars"
I'm not laughing. Anything is possible. We could be a giant mad scientist's experiment. Or a dream. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
What theory do you believe?
Don’t laugh
I’m of the opinion human dna has been tampered with or humans originated elsewhere, most likely culprit would be a dying mars
I'm not laughing. Anything is possible. We could be a giant mad scientist's experiment. Or a dream."
It started by reading a report stating the human body is not designed to survive in our atmosphere, got me thinking how?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's a better theory than the Adam and eve one.
That's not even a theory in scientific terms.
You just have to believe in the sky fairy."
Seen him on Ryanair |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Perhaps you should study what evolution actually is before you decide that it is improbable.
The way you are describing it betrays your ignorance.
Study some actual science books...with the same fervour that you study pseudo science books.
These are written by people who don't properly understand science and unfortunately influence many more people who know even less.
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is an even bigger leap from "wouldn't this be interesting" to "I wholeheartedly believe this".
It seems to me that often "stuff people believe" has no,or flimsy, evidence to back it up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *itty9899Man
over a year ago
Craggy Island |
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?"
We are Aliens, we landed we took ape form, so we could survive the harsh environment and build a better world from where we came from....as you can now see we fucked it up, War, poverty,famine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
What theory do you believe?
Don’t laugh
I’m of the opinion human dna has been tampered with or humans originated elsewhere, most likely culprit would be a dying mars
I'm not laughing. Anything is possible. We could be a giant mad scientist's experiment. Or a dream.
It started by reading a report stating the human body is not designed to survive in our atmosphere, got me thinking how?
"
Been watching ancient aliens by any chance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Slightly ironic that Darwin produced the theory of natural selection when he himself had a chronic illness, believe it's thought to be crohns disease.
It only goes to further the notion that we are all here by complete chance and we don't really understand anything about existence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Darwinism was a massive improvement on creationism. But I think it's beginning to go past its sell by date. There are also aspects of it that seem fallacious... although I'm still umming and ahhing over that  Rest assured what will come next won't be a return to creationism. But it's likely to be much more bizarre. I can't wait!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
What theory do you believe?
Don’t laugh
I’m of the opinion human dna has been tampered with or humans originated elsewhere, most likely culprit would be a dying mars
I'm not laughing. Anything is possible. We could be a giant mad scientist's experiment. Or a dream.
It started by reading a report stating the human body is not designed to survive in our atmosphere, got me thinking how?
Been watching ancient aliens by any chance? "
No I read |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?"
With respect, that question shows you have no clue. Humans didn't come from Apes, we are apes. We have a common ancestor. It isn't an idea or "theory" it's a fact. A scientific theory is not the same as the other word theory which means "idea". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
With respect, that question shows you have no clue. Humans didn't come from Apes, we are apes. We have a common ancestor. It isn't an idea or "theory" it's a fact. A scientific theory is not the same as the other word theory which means "idea". "
I agree with the common ancestor bit but wanted to say a scientific theory isn't a fact it's a credible hypothesis. This means it isn't just some barmy idea, like we normally use the word "theory" for. It's credible. It adds up nicely. Tallies with the evidence. It's relatively robust. But it isn't a fact. The theory of relativity could be shown wrong. As could evolution theory (well only certain aspects of it... the basic notions behind it are irrefutable). But what would replace it would need to work even better with the available evidence. It would need to be an even more credible theory |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
With respect, that question shows you have no clue. Humans didn't come from Apes, we are apes. We have a common ancestor. It isn't an idea or "theory" it's a fact. A scientific theory is not the same as the other word theory which means "idea". "
Cheeky sod
I wasn’t splitting hairs
I was merely trying to ignite your imagination |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It only takes a generation or a prolong period of time say about 10 years for our body to mutate so believably to an extend. If you are thrown in a different climate Antarctica or Africa you will either be force to adapt or die.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Genetics has moved on a lot since darwin.
The human genome has been mapped and theres not enough information to explain all of the varieties out there which is were epigenetics come in.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?"
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events."
What does he suggest? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events.
What does he suggest?"
Life started from viruses brought to Earth via meteorites and space debris and that this process is ongoing.
Sounds far fetched but I have summed it up in one very short sentence the book is quite hard going and a fasinating read.
Before all the knowledgeables on here start spouting Bollox I am not an advocate of either Darwin or Hoyle I am mearly offering an answer to the OP's question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events.
What does he suggest?
Life started from viruses brought to Earth via meteorites and space debris and that this process is ongoing.
Sounds far fetched but I have summed it up in one very short sentence the book is quite hard going and a fasinating read.
Before all the knowledgeables on here start spouting Bollox I am not an advocate of either Darwin or Hoyle I am mearly offering an answer to the OP's question."
The point is that this book like any creation myth just shifts the "blame" for us to another entity in this case to already existing life..
And incidently...it wouldn't be viruses....the only way for a virus to occur is for it to evolve in tandom with it's hosts. And viruses do not seed life...and are not by most definitions alive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The biblical account of creation will stand the test of time, its a simple narrative so that all can comprehend it....
All it needed was two perfect human beings, a male and a female to begin the human race....
The elements formed into a planet, then in successive ordered stages the varied life forms to prepare the way for said pair of humans to live there and propagate their species and take dominion over the planet...
And whats so bizaare or wrong to consider a Benign Creator with an intelligence beyond our wildest ken... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The point is that this book like any creation myth just shifts the "blame" for us to another entity in this case to already existing life..
And incidently...it wouldn't be viruses....the only way for a virus to occur is for it to evolve in tandom with it's hosts. And viruses do not seed life...and are not by most definitions alive. "
I think you're doing Fred Hoyle a disservice there. He was a scientist, albeit something of a maverick. His central hypothesis was that life didn't originate on earth but was seeded from space. This is hardly a creation myth. It's actually a relatively plausible scientific hypothesis, especially now the evidence suggests life appeared on earth during the meteor bombardment and not after as had long been assumed.
I'll ignore your argument over viruses mainly because I get the sense that you probably don't really know what you're talking about. But of course I could be wrong. Try reading the book. It is a work by a scientist, which, whilst not always a great indication of top class thinking, as proven by the works of the likes of Dawkins, is still probably quite thought provoking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?"
If you pop into your local nightclub or high street on a Saturday night you will see that we are actually going backwards, failing that just watch Jeremy Kyle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events.
What does he suggest?
Life started from viruses brought to Earth via meteorites and space debris and that this process is ongoing.
Sounds far fetched but I have summed it up in one very short sentence the book is quite hard going and a fasinating read.
Before all the knowledgeables on here start spouting Bollox I am not an advocate of either Darwin or Hoyle I am mearly offering an answer to the OP's question."
How does this debunk Darwin ? Evolution is still needed. It just moves the first step to another planet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The point is that this book like any creation myth just shifts the "blame" for us to another entity in this case to already existing life..
And incidently...it wouldn't be viruses....the only way for a virus to occur is for it to evolve in tandom with it's hosts. And viruses do not seed life...and are not by most definitions alive.
I think you're doing Fred Hoyle a disservice there. He was a scientist, albeit something of a maverick. His central hypothesis was that life didn't originate on earth but was seeded from space. This is hardly a creation myth. It's actually a relatively plausible scientific hypothesis, especially now the evidence suggests life appeared on earth during the meteor bombardment and not after as had long been assumed.
I'll ignore your argument over viruses mainly because I get the sense that you probably don't really know what you're talking about. But of course I could be wrong. Try reading the book. It is a work by a scientist, which, whilst not always a great indication of top class thinking, as proven by the works of the likes of Dawkins, is stille probably quite thought provoking "
Life is chemical..and all the right chemicals and conditions existed on earth for life to begin without being seeded.
Also the life comes from space thing just side steps a solution to how life actually begins.
And you obviously don't understand what a virus is or you wouldn't have tried to suggest that I don't understand it.
A virus is akin to a very complicated key to a very complicated lock. And it can't make copies of itself without an exactly matching lock. Which it why it is necessary for it to evolve with it's host.
And I wager that nothing this scientist says denies or can come up with a reasonable alternative.
The "theory" of evolution itself has evolved since Darwin's big idea and is the only non hocus pocus mechanism for the beginning of life we have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The point is that this book like any creation myth just shifts the "blame" for us to another entity in this case to already existing life..
And incidently...it wouldn't be viruses....the only way for a virus to occur is for it to evolve in tandom with it's hosts. And viruses do not seed life...and are not by most definitions alive.
I think you're doing Fred Hoyle a disservice there. He was a scientist, albeit something of a maverick. His central hypothesis was that life didn't originate on earth but was seeded from space. This is hardly a creation myth. It's actually a relatively plausible scientific hypothesis, especially now the evidence suggests life appeared on earth during the meteor bombardment and not after as had long been assumed.
I'll ignore your argument over viruses mainly because I get the sense that you probably don't really know what you're talking about. But of course I could be wrong. Try reading the book. It is a work by a scientist, which, whilst not always a great indication of top class thinking, as proven by the works of the likes of Dawkins, is stille probably quite thought provoking "
Life is chemical..and all the right chemicals and conditions existed on earth for life to begin without being seeded.
Also the life comes from space thing just side steps a solution to how life actually begins.
And you obviously don't understand what a virus is or you wouldn't have tried to suggest that I don't understand it.
A virus is akin to a very complicated key to a very complicated lock. And it can't make copies of itself without an exactly matching lock. Which it why it is necessary for it to evolve with it's host.
And I wager that nothing this scientist says denies or can come up with a reasonable alternative.
The "theory" of evolution itself has evolved since Darwin's big idea and is the only non hocus pocus mechanism for the beginning of life we have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And also Dawkins may come across as an arse...and the trend at the moment to hate him is perpetuated by the willfully uneducated creationist numpties.
He actually takes great care to address any questions aimed at him and answer logically...even too long windedly...and he destroys religion easily...as does Hitchins. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events.
What does he suggest?
Life started from viruses brought to Earth via meteorites and space debris and that this process is ongoing.
Sounds far fetched but I have summed it up in one very short sentence the book is quite hard going and a fasinating read.
Before all the knowledgeables on here start spouting Bollox I am not an advocate of either Darwin or Hoyle I am mearly offering an answer to the OP's question.
How does this debunk Darwin ? Evolution is still needed. It just moves the first step to another planet. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Amusingly, there is a particular book (the title of which I’ve forgotten) that promotes creationism over evolution - however, over the years, the editions of the book have been updated and re-edited, so one could argue that it has evolved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Amusingly, there is a particular book (the title of which I’ve forgotten) that promotes creationism over evolution - however, over the years, the editions of the book have been updated and re-edited, so one could argue that it has evolved. "
they would argue the original edition was created by intelligent design ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Amusingly, there is a particular book (the title of which I’ve forgotten) that promotes creationism over evolution - however, over the years, the editions of the book have been updated and re-edited, so one could argue that it has evolved. they would argue the original edition was created by intelligent design ..."
Yes I did think that...but that would require convincing someone that the original author was intelligent...so no worries there.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?"
After looking at some of the blokes I used to work with, I disagree as so many of them seemed to work at the airport. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?"
No doubt,
Evolution is an amazing process, to think how our species evolved over time.
One mutation which made our ancestors stand upright, which reduced the amount of energy need to move, which in turn allowed us to provide more energy for the brain, which allowed them to grow, which then gave us the ability for communication, actual conscious though. Which allowed rudimentary tools, develop technology, and build civilisation.
We see evolution in everyday life, how things get better, not a natural progression mind you. Think about technology. It takes just one change to revolutionise the way we do things.
It’s brilliant!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Amusingly, there is a particular book (the title of which I’ve forgotten) that promotes creationism over evolution - however, over the years, the editions of the book have been updated and re-edited, so one could argue that it has evolved. they would argue the original edition was created by intelligent design ..."
quite possibly, the point being though - it evolved. In a manner of speaking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
No doubt,
Evolution is an amazing process, to think how our species evolved over time.
One mutation which made our ancestors stand upright, which reduced the amount of energy need to move, which in turn allowed us to provide more energy for the brain, which allowed them to grow, which then gave us the ability for communication, actual conscious though. Which allowed rudimentary tools, develop technology, and build civilisation.
We see evolution in everyday life, how things get better, not a natural progression mind you. Think about technology. It takes just one change to revolutionise the way we do things.
It’s brilliant!
"
I read somewhere that the ape like hominids lived in trees on savannah like areas and evolved to stand upright to see over tall grass when moving from one area of trees to another. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And I wager that nothing this scientist says denies or can come up with a reasonable alternative."
Why don't you read it and find out rather than assume you already have the knowledge to debunk it? I'm going to read it
"The "theory" of evolution itself has evolved since Darwin's big idea and is the only non hocus pocus mechanism for the beginning of life we have."
The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
No doubt,
Evolution is an amazing process, to think how our species evolved over time.
One mutation which made our ancestors stand upright, which reduced the amount of energy need to move, which in turn allowed us to provide more energy for the brain, which allowed them to grow, which then gave us the ability for communication, actual conscious though. Which allowed rudimentary tools, develop technology, and build civilisation.
We see evolution in everyday life, how things get better, not a natural progression mind you. Think about technology. It takes just one change to revolutionise the way we do things.
It’s brilliant!
I read somewhere that the ape like hominids lived in trees on savannah like areas and evolved to stand upright to see over tall grass when moving from one area of trees to another. "
What is necessity breeds innovation? Someone said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events.
What does he suggest?
Life started from viruses brought to Earth via meteorites and space debris and that this process is ongoing.
"
Just to give you a heads up, this is nothing to do with darwinism & doesn't refute darwinism. This is abiogenesis. Darwin didn't study where life came from he studied how life adapted & evolved over time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And I wager that nothing this scientist says denies or can come up with a reasonable alternative.
Why don't you read it and find out rather than assume you already have the knowledge to debunk it? I'm going to read it
The "theory" of evolution itself has evolved since Darwin's big idea and is the only non hocus pocus mechanism for the beginning of life we have.
The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life. "
The mechanism of evolution has been at play since molecules (following the laws of physics and hence chemistry) developed, which made copies of each other. Life exists because conditions have been right for those chemical reactions to continue.
Life exists because it can.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lue NarwhalMan
over a year ago
Iceland, but Aldi is closer.. |
So at one point, there was nothing, a void of swirling gasses that became super hot and exploded... The theory of the big bang, the start of everything we see now.
It would seem that almost every solid surface got peppered with organic matter at some point and on planets where life was possible it flourished.
So, it is said, that we all evolved from a primeval slime that at one point covered the earth, simple single cells that absorbed oxygen, farted carbon dioxide and got energy from the sun.
For some amazing reason, cells have it built into them a natural survival mechanism which amends their structure for reproduction so the offspring have a far better chance of survival.
We hear about it all the time with the evolution of drug resistant viruses. This adapt to survive mechanism is what has caused evolution, if that primeval slime hadn't eventually spread and coated the entire inhabitable parts of the planet, the slime never would have mutated into a slime devouring variant, a water borne variant....
Evolution is fairly simple to understand, the whole creation of the universe, life and how the universe is constantly expanding is what makes my head hurt... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I’m sorry but that giant step from ape man to humans is far to huge
Anyone else cast doubts on this theory?
Not personally but Professor Sir Frederick Hoyle's book The Intelligent Universe throws very serious doubt on Darwin's version of events."
Got this book in the post today. I'm going to enjoy reading it. But it is clearly dumbed down for wide readership, as well as highly conjectural in places... as you'd expect from Hoyle 
From a cursory glance I'd say his arguments against Darwinism aren't the strongest I've come across. But they're still thought provoking.
Oh and viruses are nuts! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
