Tweet
Re: Dolphins and Evolution!
This is pretty basic stuff here Snow-Helper. All scientific "theories" start out as testable hypothesis - like "government run schools are the best way to teach science". We can then try to "prove" that hypothesis by running some well formulated tests and if the results come back positive we can then call it a "theory" and act on it. If the results come back negative then maybe the government should not be running the schools. In many cases all it takes is one counter example to question the "theory". I would posit that in this case you could be the counter example of why the government should not run the schools.
Darwin's "theory" of evolution posited that random chance mutation caused changes, and the principle of survival of the fittest would naturally select those changes that were most effective and they would be passed on to the next generation. Darwin then looked around and saw all these fossils and bone lying around and speculated that it took millions of years for these small mutations to accumulate to account for all the variety of life on earth.
The salmon counterexample I cited is only one of many that have been observed, check out the moths in London for another.
Darwin "evolution" has some other problems as well. If you had any critical thinking skills you might wonder how the giraffe came to be. Sure, one "old" style giraffe might have had a slightly longer neck than the rest of them - maybe by chance a couple of inches. Now either the females (or males) might have found it more "attractive" and copulated more often thus passing on the genes, or it just might have been more useful to obtain food. But consider that today's giraffe (if we're considering Darwin here) has a huge heart in order to pump the blood up to its brain. The question is, how did the heart get bigger at the same time that the neck got longer? Darwin's "chance" mutation can't explain that.
Originally posted by Helper
View Post
Darwin's "theory" of evolution posited that random chance mutation caused changes, and the principle of survival of the fittest would naturally select those changes that were most effective and they would be passed on to the next generation. Darwin then looked around and saw all these fossils and bone lying around and speculated that it took millions of years for these small mutations to accumulate to account for all the variety of life on earth.
The salmon counterexample I cited is only one of many that have been observed, check out the moths in London for another.
Darwin "evolution" has some other problems as well. If you had any critical thinking skills you might wonder how the giraffe came to be. Sure, one "old" style giraffe might have had a slightly longer neck than the rest of them - maybe by chance a couple of inches. Now either the females (or males) might have found it more "attractive" and copulated more often thus passing on the genes, or it just might have been more useful to obtain food. But consider that today's giraffe (if we're considering Darwin here) has a huge heart in order to pump the blood up to its brain. The question is, how did the heart get bigger at the same time that the neck got longer? Darwin's "chance" mutation can't explain that.
Comment