Skip to comments.New PragerU Video Shows 2 Scientific Reasons to Doubt Evolution
Posted on 10/22/2019 8:18:04 AM PDT by Heartlander
Meyer begins the video by quoting evolutionary biologist and New Atheist Richard Dawkins, who claimed that anyone who does not believe in evolution is either "ignorant, stupid, or insane." By that criteria, many in the scientific community are losing their sanity...
"In November 2016, I attended a conference in London attended by some of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose? To address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwins theory," Meyer recalls in the video. These scientists do not reject the general idea of evolution, but they admitted that the current theory based on Darwin is falling apart
PragerU Video - Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The problem here, which stands out...is that you need a timeline. At the 530 million year point, you have all these species of size to appear, and there’s nothing prior to that...that would stand out and explain where dinosaur ‘x’ came from.
“Darwin’s theory” is natural selection, not evolution itself.
I discount both the christian and the evolutionist theories, and here is why: neither one has anything to do with your life, this very moment in time. Both theories are over a time span that is not cemented in stone, nor in language of that moment.
Believers in the dogmas of climate change and darwinism will never reject their governing paradigm, no matter how much it is falsified or contradicted. They will just ignore awkward data.
“Darwins theory is natural selection, not evolution itself.”
What is “evolution itself”?
You might be right, but I’m unclear about you mean by “evolution itself.”
EVERY LINK IS MISSING
Thanks for the link, I like PragerU stuff and will check it out.
Should be interesting
Darwin’s natural selection ( which actually is more akin to revealing of present but not prominent genetics, not the development of new DNA/genetics) begs that things varied over time as conditions dictated, some things in one area developed attributes to enable survival in that environment while identical forms in differing conditions developed other traits ( new DNA) to enable survival there, leading to specie separation if you will, where differences became so great as to define a distinct species. Never proven, just promulgated.
Evolution itself is that one distinct event horizon that resulted in the “spark” of life on earth from the morass and mixture of swap scum and methane ( ooops, that’s organic!) resulting in “life” The mysterious and chemically/environmentally unproveable basis of spontaneous evolution....
Of course, it becomes a viable theory if you inject the Martians sent a DNA probe to earth to “seed” the pond scum etc etc. That’s way more believable regarding origins ( until one with half a brain asks “so where did the Martians come from)?
Egads, It is a religion! I knew it! And they are more fervent than many of us that believe that an outside Creator made it all with the power of His voice alone! One begs for eons of death via trial and error and non-purpose and the other calls for Life and love and perseverance with a view for eternity. Guess which I chose to set my foundation on?
An omniscient, omnipresent God that created the universe (the "christian theory" you mentioned), yet loves humanity and sent his son to tell the world about him and suffer a brutal death so that we could live with Him in eternity doesn't have "anything to do with your life"?
That, the BIG BANG Theory and Intelligent Design show that science now is providing evidence for a Creator of the universe: God. Science at one time questioned religion wisdom (e.g., Galileo) and now it is coming to its defense.
But there are still people who think the world is flat and that Hillary won the election. They see conspiracy everywhere and this includes Hillary Clinton. Hillary said that Tulsi was a Russian bot. Tulsi should have replied to Hillary: “Lock her up.” Yes, I believe God made the world glorious, but there is willful ignorance and evil out there.
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)", published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org wiki On_the_Origin_of_Species
"These scientists do not reject the general idea of evolution,
but they admitted that the current theory based on Darwin is falling apart
New PragerU Video Shows 2 Scientific Reasons to Doubt Evolution
given to the article is inaccurate.
Although, it could just be a problem of defining evolution it is both contradictory and vague:
It allows for convergent evolution (statistically impossible), stagnant evolution (you mean to tell me that for 500 million years there could be no improvement to the horseshoe crab?), punctuated evolution (everything stays the same for a real long time and then evolution kicks into high gear and it all happens so fast theres no record of it having happened at all), neutral evolution (the blueprints for marvelously useful structures get created in unexpressed DNA by random shuffling, until one day voila, the gene is turned on and the structure appears fully formed). In evolution anything goes and contradictions live in happy harmony with one another. This is science? Its not even a sound religion.Given enough time, luck can happen is not a scientific theory. To quote Behe, Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.
- Laszlo Bencze
My faith in God does not hinge on Darwin being right or wrong no more than my faith hinges on the earth being at the center of a perfect universe.
What I meant by “evolution itself” is speciation- the process of new species being engendered by existing species.
IS it really controversial to say that new species form from existing species?
Humans cultivated fruits and grains, with the current cultivars barely resembling the original species (e.g. the original maize was a perennial with relatively low yields, the original brassica was like rape, and the modern cultivars such as broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, etc- weren’t naturally occurring). Humans domesticated wolves into dogs, aurochs into cows.
Is the controversy one of whether humans evolved directly from primates?
Or is it whether there was a divinely-driven (or otherwise unexplainable) progression of species?
It’s one thing to doubt evolution, but anyone with scientific inclinations is going to ask, “what happened, then?”
But maybe it is a good idea to understand what happened by separating Darwinism from speciation. So that "by itself" = understanding apart from Darwin. After all, whatever happened didn't need Darwin. His theory of natural selection is an experiential explanation , not a causative agent. Thanks for your response. I don't mind making these distinctions--they help me understand.
All “current mythologies”, except Buddhism, since his bones do exist, are shared by an overwhelming number of people on the face of the Earth, including myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.