Science Disproves Evolution

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Pahu, Aug 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pahu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6

    Natural Selection 1

    An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).

    a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

    Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

    Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

    Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood.

    “Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.

    Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    bye bye
    its been a blast
    say hi to the family
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    Are you trying to make a point about natural selection, or about Darwin's alleged scientific borrowing?

    Science does not happen in a vacuum, and no one until Darwin actually put all the pieces together.

    An organism doesn't have a gene pool, a species does. Also, you failed to mention what exactly you think decreasing in the gene pool.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,517
    Mod Hat - Closure and Redirect

    Mod Hat — Done, and done

    No, he's trying to spam us with someone else's writing. Promoting a cause. Just failing—and badly, at that; is uglily a word? you know, an adverb of ugly? as in, "failing uglily"?—in one of those ways that, if it had a real-time equivalent that could be caught on video, would make one of the entertainment shows (you know, the original reality television) replaying footage of people doing spectacularly embarrassing things, and probably win the prize.

    Apparently, communicating with one's own words is apparently blasé.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page