In Lieu of Darwinism

Since Darwinism is clearly in shambles, what is an alternative theory which better accomodates the evidence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You might want to prove that first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is, "darwinism" could you please clarify that. I would like a complete accepted description of what you mean by the term. Or is it just one of those made up christian words again?

 

I found your description of darwinism:

Do you know what century this is?

 

What James R said:
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

 

God did it.

 

No, it was the chinese. pfff. I thought everyone knew thaaat!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting choice of words.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How interesting that in 150 years evolution has become the central dogma of biology and not a single of you Woo Woos have been able to lodge it from there with your delusions.

 

b-b-b-b-but it's a conspiracy!






yeah, a conspiracy of the educated...

 

Rather than "panspermia" supposedly being a possiblility of how simple life forms got to Earth, and as there is no real indication that tree shrews morphed into humans, or chimpmunks into horses, why not just note that animals cannot cross syngameon boundries to reproduce, and then concentrate on establishing the limits of the syngameons vis-a-vis extant and extinct creatures, saying that the origin of the syngameons is subject to debate?

Then just leave the Darwinism for the philosophy and religion departments.

 

You just gotta have faith!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Darwinian faith is science, as proponed by mainstream academics, when actually it is just another philosophy or religion, afterall, it does take faith to believe that frogs morphed into birds, and mold morphed into spiders.

 

Because we tried that already and found conflict with whats here on earth. Now we're figuring out that any one organism is able to produce a line of offspring that can become any other organism, given enough time and environmental motivation.

 

Why do you insist on making up an entirely new science (or at least an entirely new viewpoint in science) to argue against, instead of arguing against the real thing? Or is it that you have nothing to argue against within the accepted theories of evolution?

 

Strawmen are far easier for the simple-minded to handle.

 

"Environmental motivation" means natural selection.

 

Only if you are deluded.

 

"Environmental motivation," what a creative choice of words!