Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 27033" data-attributes="member: 443"><p><strong>Re: Treeees!!!</strong></p><p></p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div></p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div></p><p> </p><p>Dmitri,</p><p> </p><p>The factual information you present here is absolutely true. As far as your opinion about Dawinism as a nightmare, others can disagree.</p><p> </p><p>The problem I have with your statements is you rant against natural selection and random mutation as if they are the current theories on the origin of species. As you said, these elements do not do the trick and this fact has been recognized by the evolutionists for decades. In fact evolutionists would consider the term Darwinist an insult if applied to them. I first read about the refutation of natural selection of "lucky" mutations in the seventies. I'm not certain how far back this refutation goes.</p><p> </p><p>While it is true that these outdated ideas are currently taught in beginning biology classes, I am more forgiving than you of this practice. I equate it with the way that we learn of the Bohr model of the atom, an artifact with which I am much more familiar than with current evolutionist theory.</p><p> </p><p>Anyone that has watched "Jimmy Neutron" or even the "Jetsons" can envision the atomic model, with it's clusters of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the swarm of electrons in nice regular steady "orbits" around the whole.</p><p>Has anyone ever wondered why the electrons don't just fall into the nucleus? After all, the nucleus has a positive charge (protons) and the electrons are negative. Are they not attracted? Yes they are very much attracted to each other. It is from this odd circumstance that quantum mechanics is born. They don't want to teach you about QM in high school, but that doesn't mean that you can't understand the principles of Bohr's atomic model. The unfortunate consequence of this method is twofold; many people are never exposed to the amazing wonders of QM, though they use it every day; and many people, upon being told about some of the fantastic findings in QM, go into complete denial to the point of ridiculing such ideas.</p><p> </p><p>Similarly with evolution. Natural selection and random mutation work best in beginning biology experiments (anybody out there ever count fruit flies? How about pea plants?) Although Darwinian evolution is as old as QM, the changes in thinking about evolution are much more recent, mostly because it was only relatively recently that we had any good understanding about the nature of genetics. Serious study of evolution in this new paradigm involves study of many different drivers of species variation, and the last time I looked into it, nobody had come up with any specific mechanisms that drive evolution to the degree that natural selection and mutation were originally though to do. The unfortunate consequence of this method of teaching biology is that many people come away from it thinking that the Darwinian model is the only correct one. Why should they not? They have not been exposed to any other valid ideas, only outmoded ones (Lamarck.)</p><p> </p><p>This does not, however, invalidate the idea of evolution. The fact that Darwin was wrong in his specifics is not enough to throw out the idea of natural species variation. There is no other theory out there that does not presuppose some influence "from beyond" in one way or the other. Were we to accept the idea that it is OK to rely on the Great Unknown (God, aliens, some future civilization etc.) to explain the things we see around us (like fire, wind, the moon, the sun, or patterns in the fossil record etc.) then no other explanation for anything would ever be necessary. That would be several steps backwards and a great loss to our species.</p><p> </p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 27033, member: 443"] [b]Re: Treeees!!![/b] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div> Dmitri, The factual information you present here is absolutely true. As far as your opinion about Dawinism as a nightmare, others can disagree. The problem I have with your statements is you rant against natural selection and random mutation as if they are the current theories on the origin of species. As you said, these elements do not do the trick and this fact has been recognized by the evolutionists for decades. In fact evolutionists would consider the term Darwinist an insult if applied to them. I first read about the refutation of natural selection of "lucky" mutations in the seventies. I'm not certain how far back this refutation goes. While it is true that these outdated ideas are currently taught in beginning biology classes, I am more forgiving than you of this practice. I equate it with the way that we learn of the Bohr model of the atom, an artifact with which I am much more familiar than with current evolutionist theory. Anyone that has watched "Jimmy Neutron" or even the "Jetsons" can envision the atomic model, with it's clusters of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the swarm of electrons in nice regular steady "orbits" around the whole. Has anyone ever wondered why the electrons don't just fall into the nucleus? After all, the nucleus has a positive charge (protons) and the electrons are negative. Are they not attracted? Yes they are very much attracted to each other. It is from this odd circumstance that quantum mechanics is born. They don't want to teach you about QM in high school, but that doesn't mean that you can't understand the principles of Bohr's atomic model. The unfortunate consequence of this method is twofold; many people are never exposed to the amazing wonders of QM, though they use it every day; and many people, upon being told about some of the fantastic findings in QM, go into complete denial to the point of ridiculing such ideas. Similarly with evolution. Natural selection and random mutation work best in beginning biology experiments (anybody out there ever count fruit flies? How about pea plants?) Although Darwinian evolution is as old as QM, the changes in thinking about evolution are much more recent, mostly because it was only relatively recently that we had any good understanding about the nature of genetics. Serious study of evolution in this new paradigm involves study of many different drivers of species variation, and the last time I looked into it, nobody had come up with any specific mechanisms that drive evolution to the degree that natural selection and mutation were originally though to do. The unfortunate consequence of this method of teaching biology is that many people come away from it thinking that the Darwinian model is the only correct one. Why should they not? They have not been exposed to any other valid ideas, only outmoded ones (Lamarck.) This does not, however, invalidate the idea of evolution. The fact that Darwin was wrong in his specifics is not enough to throw out the idea of natural species variation. There is no other theory out there that does not presuppose some influence "from beyond" in one way or the other. Were we to accept the idea that it is OK to rely on the Great Unknown (God, aliens, some future civilization etc.) to explain the things we see around us (like fire, wind, the moon, the sun, or patterns in the fossil record etc.) then no other explanation for anything would ever be necessary. That would be several steps backwards and a great loss to our species. Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top