Is Darwinian Evolution going extinct?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • shootersix

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    4,280
    113
    why yes it is!, considering that we have to "tell" people not to do things, it only means the gene pool with contiue to filled with...how do i say this without offending a certian "type of people"...i guess the easiest way to say it so "they" dont understand, would be to say..."intelectually challenged"...you know...MORONS!

    you have to say things like
    "i know they look good...but dont eat tide pods"
    and
    "i know you think it might be fun...but dont get out of a car while its moving and dance"
    and quite possibly my favorite
    "dont fight with a police officer...it will be your fault if he shoots you"

    being that we have to tell people those things, it only means that "dawins theory" will end...and "idiocaracy" wont be comedy...it'll be a documentary
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    Haven't watched the video, but I will say this just for fun: natural selection isn't evolution. Never was.

    it is the elimination of traits incompatible with survival due to the dying off of genetic lines with those traits, not the development of new traits that enhance survival.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,044
    77
    Southside Indy
    Haven't watched the video, but I will say this just for fun: natural selection isn't evolution. Never was.

    it is the elimination of traits incompatible with survival due to the dying off of genetic lines with those traits, not the development of new traits that enhance survival.

    I'd say they go hand in hand though. By eliminating less desirable traits, that encourages the development of more desirable traits. A kind of refinement if you will.
     

    dsol

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    May 28, 2009
    1,553
    48
    Jeffersonville
    Nature eliminates the stupid. But the stupid breed faster.

    Then government came along and made the stupid a protected species to keep a steady supply of voters.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    I'd say they go hand in hand though. By eliminating less desirable traits, that encourages the development of more desirable traits. A kind of refinement if you will.

    Not really. Nothing new is developed. The genetic lines that are left had the more desirable traits, otherwise they would have died out. The traits were always there. What we see is a higher proportion of animals with the desirable traits because their competition has died out. I would agree that the dying out of those animals with less desirable traits makes way for those with more desirable traits to thrive, but no new traits spring into existence.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,044
    77
    Southside Indy
    Not really. Nothing new is developed. The genetic lines that are left had the more desirable traits, otherwise they would have died out. The traits were always there. What we see is a higher proportion of animals with the desirable traits because their competition has died out. I would agree that the dying out of those animals with less desirable traits makes way for those with more desirable traits to thrive, but no new traits spring into existence.
    But which animals are more likely to develop new traits? Those with desirable traits or those with the weaker undesirable traits? I think it would be the former, if the tendency is toward improvement and increased survivability...
     

    NKBJ

    at the ark
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2010
    6,240
    149
    The process we are going through is more akin to animal husbandry than evolution.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,691
    113
    .
    Charlie codified what we already knew, if you are better than your competitors, you prosper and they don't.

    I'll say it's really hard for a human being to grasp the idea of 70 million years after watching the tape.
     
    Last edited:

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    I love that they explain how chance and probability actually work.

    If I have a 1 in a million probability and 1 million chances, I won't even come CLOSE to guessing the right answer, if all my guesses are random. Now, if your guesses are rational, or planned, or intellectual, then yes, you probably have enough chances.

    It would be like picking a combination lock by rolling dice. How many rolls would you need? The answer is far far more than a million. On a 20 digit, 3 place, combination lock you're looking at needing thousands of TRILLIONS of chances.

    The odds of all this being here by accident are so remote as to be considered impossible. Even if the universe were 1 trillion years old, that still doesn't come anywhere close. Especially as we learn that things are actually MORE complicated than we thought. That just adds another digit to your combination.

    The only rational explanation for origin of anything is that it was planned by a transcendent intelligence, since nothing can be self creating.
     

    Sigblitz

    Grandmaster
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 25, 2018
    14,583
    113
    Indianapolis
    I saw half the video and fell asleep. Thanks. ;)
    What I hear is it's mathematically impossible for Darwin's theory to work. Bird gets longer beak to increase chances of survival.

    Every cell has 23 chromosomes, which are the instructions for which protein to produce. If the instructions in this cell would change, say a mutation in your DNA from smoking or illness, every time the cell splits of, the new cell would be identical.
    Each chromosome is a pair, one from each parent and joined together.
    Each chromosomes is made up from parts of your mother's DNA and father's DNA.
    DNA mutations before birth are passed to the offspring. Everyone has them. What happens when each parent has the same mutation and the DNA strips are paired in a chromosome and put in the cell with the other 22 chromosomes as the recipe for which proteins to produce?

    You know if you marry your cousin in Kentucky, your kids will have webbed feet and their kids will have webbed feet. I knew a family like this. Seen it. It's true. Darwin would say the world needed better swimmers and poof.
    The bird with the longer beak, Darwin would say, poof, it's for survival. No. Bird was born with a longer beak, other birds said check out that sexy ass beak, let's plow. Baby birds born with longer beak, and so on.
    I don't know what them guys in the video have to contribute. Apparently none of them ever married their cousin. Need answers, come to :ingo:
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,162
    113
    North Central
    If the whole evolution this was true, why do so many species not evolve the way monkeys became human, and if monkeys became human why did some not evolve?

    Ah, the mysteries of life, the more man thinks he knows the less he actually does...
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Not really. Nothing new is developed. The genetic lines that are left had the more desirable traits, otherwise they would have died out. The traits were always there. What we see is a higher proportion of animals with the desirable traits because their competition has died out. I would agree that the dying out of those animals with less desirable traits makes way for those with more desirable traits to thrive, but no new traits spring into existence.

    I give you the English Peppered Moth:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27

    This is exactly the topic that was covered in the video and that Darwin admitted was a gap in his theory. Darwin demonstrated how you could find variations within a species and how biological/evolutionary changes would favor certain variations over others. What Darwin acknowledged and what these scientists are pushing is that there was no current reasonable explanation for how life evolved from one species to another.

    Darwin didn't have the tools and data available to fill in these gaps. These three are saying that using additional scientific techniques and data and the simple probabilities around genetic combinations, there is no reasonable way to believe the relatively few viable species in the huge universe of possible genetic combinations was by pure chance.
     
    Last edited:

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    So just why can't this "classic example" of evolution evolve to build a house or drive a car?

    This is adaption, not evolution...

    Who says that they can't or won't ever? Do you know why mammals became the dominant species on the planet?
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    This is exactly the topic that was covered in the video and that Darwin admitted was a gap in his theory. Darwin demonstrated how you could find variations within a species and how biological/evolutionary changes would favor certain variations over others. What Darwin acknowledged and what these scientists are pushing is that there was no current reasonable explanation for how life evolved from one species to another.

    Darwin didn't have the tools and data available to fill in these gaps. These three are saying that using additional scientific techniques and data and the simple probabilities around genetic combinations, there is no reasonable way to believe the relatively few viable species in the huge universe of possible genetic combinations was by pure chance.

    I don't know if it's this basic or not, but the obvious answer seems to be need. If something lives near a large body of water, and it's land based source of food is taken away, forcing it to go into the water to find food, it would seem that eventually that creature will develop traits that would be useful in the water.
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    I don't know if it's this basic or not, but the obvious answer seems to be need. If something lives near a large body of water, and it's land based source of food is taken away, forcing it to go into the water to find food, it would seem that eventually that creature will develop traits that would be useful in the water.

    Dinosaurs supposedly died out when the sun was blotted out by a massive meteor hit causing a major period of lessened light and global cooling. Then why didn't they evolve nice warm hairy coats when they needed them?

    I'm a firm believer in evolution as the primary driver for the variation of life on Earth, but in attempting to be rational, I have to acknowledge that they have a good point. The fact that I don't have a good answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

    Edit: They are using the same probability logic as is used with computer hashing and cryptocurrencies. There is nothing that says that it is impossible to guess someone's crypto private key and steal their funds (think of the private key as a viable species). The *only* thing stopping it is that you have to do the equivalent of finding 1000 particular grains of sand in the entire world by pure guesswork to find one of those private keys. So, hacking someone's cryptocurrency isn't impossible by this means, only highly, highly improbable. These scientists are saying that (1) the range of possible gene combinations is a similar huge universe of possibilities, (2) the vast majority of genetic mutations are neutral or negative for survival and (3) given the pace of random variations, it would take longer than the span of all Earthly life to move from one species to the genetic code for a second species.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom