Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...
Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.
Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...
The fact they exist does not prove creationism.
I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.
Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.
Maybe, lets back up then. What is your belief on how
Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.
The fact they exist does not prove creationism.
Ok, so are you saying the BIg Bang COULD have created life and evolution took over from there? And let be know if you ever find a source that claims evolution created life.
You are free to pick any source you like. Evolutionary theory basically says that DNA alters itself to adapt to the environment. The claim is that evolution disproves the existence of a creator.Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...
So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.
My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.
Fine, just sight one bloody source, any source. There is no source other than fools like you which claim evolutionary theory deals with the creation of life from nothing. You know it now, but refuse to acknowledge your mistake.
Depends on how you look at it. Its an either or question to most people. The masses of people that believe in creationism say god created life as it is. The masses that believe in evolution believe a rock came alive and begin to evolve.You are free to pick any source you like. Evolutionary theory basically says that DNA alters itself to adapt to the environment. The claim is that evolution disproves the existence of a creator.Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.
So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.
My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.
Fine, just sight one bloody source, any source. There is no source other than fools like you which claim evolutionary theory deals with the creation of life from nothing. You know it now, but refuse to acknowledge your mistake.
Some may claim that, I certainly don't claim evolution is incompatible with the idea of a creator. My issue with you is your claim that evolution has been offered as a creator. I've never seen or heard that before you said some intelligent people believe it.
I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...
Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.
Maybe, lets back up then. What is your belief on how
Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.
The fact they exist does not prove creationism.
Ok, so are you saying the BIg Bang COULD have created life and evolution took over from there? And let be know if you ever find a source that claims evolution created life.
A new theory could solve an ancient mystery — and do away with God
No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.
Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.
Maybe, lets back up then. What is your belief on how
Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?
The fact they exist does not prove creationism.
Ok, so are you saying the BIg Bang COULD have created life and evolution took over from there? And let be know if you ever find a source that claims evolution created life.
A new theory could solve an ancient mystery — and do away with God
So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.
Maybe, lets back up then. What is your belief on how
Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.The fact they exist does not prove creationism.
Ok, so are you saying the BIg Bang COULD have created life and evolution took over from there? And let be know if you ever find a source that claims evolution created life.
A new theory could solve an ancient mystery — and do away with God
So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.
Maybe, lets back up then. What is your belief on how
Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.
Ok, so are you saying the BIg Bang COULD have created life and evolution took over from there? And let be know if you ever find a source that claims evolution created life.
A new theory could solve an ancient mystery — and do away with God
So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.Maybe, lets back up then. What is your belief on how
Ok, so are you saying the BIg Bang COULD have created life and evolution took over from there? And let be know if you ever find a source that claims evolution created life.
A new theory could solve an ancient mystery — and do away with God
So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.I dont believe much in a big bang. i believe an engineer created live and evolution took it from there. Here I found this one without much effort.
A new theory could solve an ancient mystery — and do away with God
So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
You're out of your depth.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
Evolution is an observable factSelection... That is the problem. It seems that the choice to use the word selection, has been a large impedance to the understanding of evolution. Selection invokes in the minds of many, the notion that some "choice" has been made. Which simply isn't the case.
No creature ever made a conscious decision to alter its genetic make up. The environment never made a conscious decision, as to which creatures will survive, and which will perish.
A more suitable, and easily understood method of describing how evolution works would be Natural Elimination.
As situations, and conditions change; those who are not suited to survive the change are eliminated from the breeding pool. Leaving all that do remain, suited to their current environment.
It just seems like a poor choice of wordings to aptly describe what really happens in the evolutionary process.
Darwin was not haphazard in his writings, he specifically excluded using the term the orgin of life. Here is a reliable source stating that fact. If you choose to refute this, please provide a source, just as I have to support my position.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.So this suggest that atoms essentially are heated and then arrange themselves into a life form. Are you saying this is what Darwin proposed in his theory of evolution? Darwin, I believe suggested that he preferred the idea of some sort of spontaneous creation of life thru nature, but he specifically did not include any discussion of the origin of life in The Orgin of Species which was his introduction of the theory of evolution.
i will use your own source. Obviously you didnt read it all the way through. I knew this information long ago.Darwin specifi
Darwin was not haphazard in his writings, he specifically excluded using the term the orgin of life. Here is a reliable source stating that fact. If you choose to refute this, please provide a source, just as I have to support my position.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091027101415.htm
Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
Date:
November 2, 2009
Source:
FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Summary:
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the 'Creator' in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team now refutes that idea and shows that the British naturalist did explain in other documents how our first ancestors could have come into being.
Youre out of your mind.You're out of your depth.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.No thats not what I am saying. Darwin didnt even know that genes existed so I'm pretty sure he just got lucky. The word "origin" tells you he believed evolution caused life. Origin means the beginning.
i will use your own source. Obviously you didnt read it all the way through. I knew this information long ago.Darwin specifi
Darwin was not haphazard in his writings, he specifically excluded using the term the orgin of life. Here is a reliable source stating that fact. If you choose to refute this, please provide a source, just as I have to support my position.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.No that just means you found it to be suggestive of what he meant; and you were wrong.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091027101415.htm
Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
Date:
November 2, 2009
Source:
FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Summary:
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the 'Creator' in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team now refutes that idea and shows that the British naturalist did explain in other documents how our first ancestors could have come into being.
"A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that "the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable," gave the researchers their clue.
In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy."
My argument was not if he included it in his book. My argument is that when he said the "origin" he literally mean that. Like I said before if he didnt mean that he would have said the "influencing". I am glad you tried it but I had to cut you down in your attempt.i will use your own source. Obviously you didnt read it all the way through. I knew this information long ago.Darwin specifi
Darwin was not haphazard in his writings, he specifically excluded using the term the orgin of life. Here is a reliable source stating that fact. If you choose to refute this, please provide a source, just as I have to support my position.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.Its more than suggestive and I am right. Origin means the beginning. If he meant something else he would have titled it The influencing of Species.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091027101415.htm
Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
Date:
November 2, 2009
Source:
FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Summary:
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the 'Creator' in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team now refutes that idea and shows that the British naturalist did explain in other documents how our first ancestors could have come into being.
"A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that "the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable," gave the researchers their clue.
In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy."
Thank you. In other words, Darwin wrote in a letter he could IMAGINE that life could arrange itself into evolutionary matter, but he never included it his theory of evolution, and for obvious reasons, there is no scientific evidence. He may have felt, or in his words, imagined it could happen that way, but was never compelled to formally propose it as a theory. Glad we cleared it up. The father of evolutionary theory was not CONVINCED that life began with evolution the same way he was CONVINCED that evolution took place after life existed. Whew...that was exhausting, but now you can see that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory on the beginning of life. Amen.
My argument was not if he included it in his book. My argument is that when he said the "origin" he literally mean that. Like I said before if he didnt mean that he would have said the "influencing". I am glad you tried it but I had to cut you down in your attempt.i will use your own source. Obviously you didnt read it all the way through. I knew this information long ago.Darwin specifi
Darwin was not haphazard in his writings, he specifically excluded using the term the orgin of life. Here is a reliable source stating that fact. If you choose to refute this, please provide a source, just as I have to support my position.Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091027101415.htm
Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
Date:
November 2, 2009
Source:
FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Summary:
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the 'Creator' in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team now refutes that idea and shows that the British naturalist did explain in other documents how our first ancestors could have come into being.
"A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that "the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable," gave the researchers their clue.
In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy."
Thank you. In other words, Darwin wrote in a letter he could IMAGINE that life could arrange itself into evolutionary matter, but he never included it his theory of evolution, and for obvious reasons, there is no scientific evidence. He may have felt, or in his words, imagined it could happen that way, but was never compelled to formally propose it as a theory. Glad we cleared it up. The father of evolutionary theory was not CONVINCED that life began with evolution the same way he was CONVINCED that evolution took place after life existed. Whew...that was exhausting, but now you can see that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory on the beginning of life. Amen.
No, the Neanderthals were not eliminated. They live in many of us. According to '23 and Me' I am 4% neanderthal. So they live on in many of us.Natural Selection is the correct and most descriptive term. "Selection" refers to the species that survived natures trials and by default were "selected" to survive. "Elimination" would refer to the irrelevant species that failed the test. Take for example neanderthals.Selection... That is the problem. It seems that the choice to use the word selection, has been a large impedance to the understanding of evolution. Selection invokes in the minds of many, the notion that some "choice" has been made. Which simply isn't the case.
No creature ever made a conscious decision to alter its genetic make up. The environment never made a conscious decision, as to which creatures will survive, and which will perish.
A more suitable, and easily understood method of describing how evolution works would be Natural Elimination.
As situations, and conditions change; those who are not suited to survive the change are eliminated from the breeding pool. Leaving all that do remain, suited to their current environment.
It just seems like a poor choice of wordings to aptly describe what really happens in the evolutionary process.
Of course it is. What Darwin said was those that were most fit for the environment they existed in would be the most likely to survive.Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.No. It isn't okay.
Educators need to do better.
Propagation of the species by survival of the fittest sounds Darwinian to me.
