What do you think of Darwinism?

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anne's picture
What do you think of Darwinism?

I think it would be cool if animals could metamorphosise into humans especially flies so that we can see them more clearly.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

David Killens's picture
Anne, turn off your computer,

Anne, turn off your computer, take your medication, lay down and sleep, and go see your doctor tomorrow because your brain has run off the rails.

Do you have the slightest knowledge about genetics and biology in your addled brain??

Algebe's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

It's a troll. It feeds off our reactions. If we all ignore it, its inane and disgusting threads will fall off the radar, and it will fade away.

Cognostic's picture
Darwinism: Darwin published

Darwinism: Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species.

In case you have not noticed, we are now in the year 2019. We have had 163 years to debunk Darwin's basic assumption. Instead, every new scientific discipline in biology has confirmed Darwin's basic assumption. Darwin had no DNA evidence. Darwin had no dating methodologies. Darwin lacked the significant fossil evidence we have today. Darwin lacked all the scientific and biological tools we have today and yet everything we have today supports his theory. At no point in the process of evolution do animals metamorph into humans. No magic involved in evolution. If you want to see magic metomorphing, try reading the Bible. Piles of mud metamorph into human beings. Now there is a fun story.

Cognostic's picture
Darwinism: Darwin published

AR: has been a serious attractor of trolls of late. What are we doing wrong?

Algebe's picture
Cognostic: What are we doing

Cognostic: What are we doing wrong?

Responding. Engaging.

Once it becomes apparent that the poster is a troll, like the "Anne" thing, we should ignore it until its posts drop below the horizon and its tiny little attention span withers and drops off.

arakish's picture
As I said in another thread.

As I said in another thread.

Troll.

rmfr

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
xenoview's picture
Anne should be banned for

Anne should be banned for those sick and twisted op's. She is a sick troll.

arakish's picture
@ xenoview

@ xenoview

She has been. And good riddance.

rmfr

Mutorc S'yriah's picture
Darwinism: It's word used to

Darwinism: It's word used to describe a mechanism by which living things evolve.This mechanism has been much fleshed out since Darwin came up with it, and many of the unanswered questions he had about it when he lived, have now been answered.

rat spit's picture
Now. Just one question for y

Now. Just one question for y’all. Now you’ve got something with a tail like a beaver; a bill like a duck; it lays eggs like a chicken and it gives milk like a cow. Now how did evolution get all them animals together and have sexual intercourse to make the platypus? You tell me. If that ain’t God’s way of showing you Evolution ain’t nothing but sacraligious nonsense, then I don’t know what is! You non-believers are always ignoring the evidence when it’s right under your noses!

arakish's picture
@ rat spit

@ rat spit

Because the platypus is a monotreme mammal. The precursor to modern placental mammals. All animals were egg layers in the more ancient evolutionary "tree" (wish we could come up with a better term than tree, but it still works). Even the first endothermic mammals were egg layers. Eventually, mammals became placental. Just because older evolutionary animals still exist has NOTHING to do with any deity of any kind, regardless of what one may think.

Look at trees. Gymnosperms are an older evolutionary version of the trees. Most, if not all, coniferous trees are gymnosperms. Angiosperms are the latest most evolved version of the trees. Almost all deciduous trees are angiosperms. And you still have the most ancient of plant forms known as pteridophytes and bryophytes.

From a report paper I wrote in college:

Reproductive Mechanisms

Plants can be divided into two categories depending upon their reproductive mechanisms. The largest grouping is the plants that reproduce through seeds. The other group reproduces through spores which includes two major groups:

Bryophytes include the true mosses, peat mosses, and liverworts. Presumably they have never, in geologic history, been very dominant among plant communities, except in localized situations.

Pteridophytes are ferns, horsetails, and club mosses (which are not true mosses). During much of geologic history, great forests of tree ferns, giant horsetails, and tall club mosses dominated continental vegetation, but they are less dominant today.

Plants that reproduce by means of seeds are encompassed in two broad categories:

The more primitive of the two, the gymnosperms (naked seeds), carry their seeds in cones, and when the cone opens, the seeds fall out. (For this reason, gymnosperms are often called conifers.) Gymnosperms were largely dominant in the geologic past; today the only large surviving gymnosperms are cone-bearing plants such as pines.

Angiosperms (vessel seeds) are the flowering plants. Their seeds are encased in some sort of protective body, such as fruit, nut, or pod. Trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, weeds, and garden flowers are angiosperms. Along with a few conifers, they have dominated the vegetation of the world for the last 50 or 60 million years.

One plant that defies both above classifications is the Magnolia. It is an angiosperm in that it is a flowering shrub, but it is also gymnosperm in that it contains its seeds in a cone that does open at the beginning of a cold season and drops individual seeds. However, it can also contain its seeds inside the cone, acting almost like a fruit, dropping like a fruit to later sprout other plants. Additionally, magnolias, although shrubs, can reach heights of 15 meters (≅ 50 feet) rivalling many of the other trees within the same biome.

rmfr

EDIT: repaired HTML entity

Tin-Man's picture
@Rat Spit Re: Platypus

@Rat Spit Re: Platypus

Got a good chuckle out of that one. Thanks. I like that type of slick humor... *chuckle*

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Rat Spit

@ Rat Spit

You are forgetting the Platypus also has leg spurs like a cockerel and venom like a spider....kinda blows the 'intelligent design" nonsense out of the water...more like a 4 year old with a box of left over parts.

Have a great 2019, you and your two invisible friends.

arakish's picture
Old Man: "Have a great 2019,

Old Man: "Have a great 2019, you and your two invisible friends."

Sure you did not mean "inrisible"? ;-P

rmfr

rat spit's picture
Just joking. Believe it or

Just joking. Believe it or not I heard this argument on the radio a few years back. Don’t ask me why I was listening to radical evangelical Christian radio ... I was bored I guess.

Happy new year everyone gal and guy!!!

Grinseed's picture
Strictly and historically

Strictly and historically "Darwinism" is the name for the belief that evolution was driven solely by natural selection.
Darwin went to great lengths to discount this view. He also gave weight to sexual selection and to various processes producing nonadaptive changes from adaptive ones and the deveopment of unselected but profitable functions in evolving organs.
It marks the difference between Darwin and Wallace who could not bring himself to accept natural selection as a process that could have produced the human brain. Wallace abandoned evolution for his biblical creationist god.
In the last edition of 'Origin' Darwin complained how he and his theory had been misrepresented by the group led by Wallace supporting 'Darwinism', finishing with a final declaration that "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification."
Hence Darwinism does not fully represent Darwin's theory of evolution.
Darwinism is essentially an inaccurate theist version.
HTH.

Algebe's picture
@Grinseed: evolution was

@Grinseed: evolution was driven solely by natural selection.

I think that interpretation of Darwin's ideas also spawned the nasty set of ideas known as "social Darwinism", which was one of the inspirations for Nazi ideology.

Grinseed's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe
Yep.
It was Spencer the contemporaneous economist borrowing from Darwin's theory and coining the expression 'survival of the fittest' to describe the rough house nature of capitalism that set the scene for social Darwinism which Darwin rejected.

Wallace bullied Darwin to adopt 'survival of the fittest' in place of 'natural selection', I suspect because the former still allowed for divine intelligence rather than raw natural forces of the later.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
Now I will admit this made me

Now I will admit this made me laugh. Still... Shut the fuck up you fucking pedophile.

Gracias.

Cognostic's picture
Honestly: Every time I hear

Honestly: Every time I hear someone use the word "Darwininsm" I think to myself, "Now there is an idiot." Evolution has 160 years of science supporting it. To take 160 years of research, facts, exploration, progress and human development, and then reduce it down to Darwin's observations, is pure ignorance.

Bill McDonald's picture
Science and God are not

Science and God are not conflicts. If there is another extinction, an octopus group may be the next sentient entity. It is unlikely to be a fly. God (?) evolution will continue just as we get a new flu virus each year. It does not matter. With new genome modification, we could change a human into a fly or enhance people would be leadership and the remainder second class. It is Brave New World; and the potential is here, now. Darwin merely placed a theory at that point is history for consideration. Then everybody debates it; and tests to see if it is possible or needs to be expanded. Which is what was done. As a evolutionary Christian, it is not important for faith. It is best to worship God and not the books.

David Killens's picture
I don't worship books, gods

I don't worship books, gods or anything.

Darwin was the first to popularize a concept, one that has been extensively studied and discussed for many decades. And the theory of evolution has been well supported by theoretical results, as has been in step with genetics as well.

As far as the idea that another intelligent species may replace us is pure conjecture. personally, I hold the belief that it took great odds for humanity to reach such heights of intelligence. The odds that life may exist on other planets is high, the odds that it has evolved into an intelligent species is in doubt.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.