Thread: Science and Darwin

Lets look at his strongest theory to him. Evidence from embryology, Embryonic Recapitulation, the embryo develops it passes through stages that retrace its evolutionary past. He claimed that the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile. Because mammalian embryos never pass through such stages in the first place, Darwin’s “strongest” evidence for evolution turns out to be no evidence at all.:jawdrop:

Originally Posted by freecell

Lets look at his strongest theory to him. Evidence from embryology, Embryonic Recapitulation, the embryo develops it passes through stages that retrace its evolutionary past. He claimed that the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile. Because mammalian embryos never pass through such stages in the first place, Darwin’s “strongest” evidence for evolution turns out to be no evidence at all.:jawdrop:

Darwin came up with a threory which has since been prooved to be (probably about 95%) accurate.

He opened peoples eyes to the posibility by pointing out key areas, which, when investigated with better technology and knowledge, like the discovery of DNA to prove the relations between spieces (that cannot be ignored or explained by any other argument other than that of evolution, unless the argument of "God dun it" is used, but as there is no evedence other than blind belief to prove his existance, that can be ignored) exist.

Therefore he may not have had the exact evbidence needed, but Darwin was the catylist for that evedence to be found.

Comrade

Originally Posted by freecell

Lets look at his strongest theory to him. Evidence from embryology, Embryonic Recapitulation, the embryo develops it passes through stages that retrace its evolutionary past. He claimed that the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile. Because mammalian embryos never pass through such stages in the first place, Darwin’s “strongest” evidence for evolution turns out to be no evidence at all.:jawdrop:

What makes you think that is the strongest evidence for evolution?

Originally Posted by lakeman

What makes you think that is the strongest evidence for evolution?

Read the first sentence. He SAID this was his strongest evidence.

Originally Posted by freecell

Read the first sentence. He SAID this was his strongest evidence.

I notice you ignored my post, which has a genuine argument against what you said. At least you have a good argument stratergy.

Comrade

Originally Posted by freecell

Read the first sentence. He SAID this was his strongest evidence.

1859 was a long time ago. I'm pretty sure one or two scientists since then have filled in the blanks.

Originally Posted by freecell

Read the first sentence. He SAID this was his strongest evidence.

This is the first sentence.

Lets look at his strongest theory to him

I thought those were your words.

That was a long time ago. His theory of evolution is nowhere near the dominant theory today. You can knock the original theory of evolution all you want but not even the evolutionists believe it so what's the point?

I'm assuming freecell got his stuff from here (or something like this anyway):

Probe Ministries - Was Darwin Wrong? A Rebuttal to the November 2004 National Geographic Cover Story

Actually work in genetics and paleontology has further backed up darwin's ideas.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Actually work in genetics and paleontology has further backed up darwin's ideas.

Oh, so you're saying that evolutionary science and discoveries didn't end with the publication of Origin of the Species? And that perhaps proving Darwin incorrect on a couple things doesn't somehow invalidate the theory of evolution? Shocking.