do you believe darwin theory?

[dasari]

17 minutes ago, Beardman said:

Thanks i will read it, is it available as ebook or online

I dint know...i read that 7 years back in book

[crashnburn]

2 minutes ago, dasari said:

Bro...read my question again...

i am asking who made your god...to ferform all avatars?

human brain. it has supreme imagination, bordering on delusion sometimes.

[crashnburn]

7 minutes ago, dasari said:

Exactly...just like darwin or marx...

mohammad, manu , bible (old and new) making contradicting statements or own theories in their books...

obviously.

but darwin's and marx's were based on scientific observations. so can't compare them.

its not a disco on religion vs darwin dude. that war is long over. religion has lost. move on.

 

[prasadr]

Darwin is BS.

 

We are all descendants of Adum and Evee..

The first two humans, err..I mean bro and sis.

They fked each other other and produced children.

These children, who most definitely are bro and sis, fked and produced more hoomans.

Thee humans who were bro, sis & cousins had a fk fest and produced more hoomans.

 

Jeez man, believe me or I will ola o uber you.

[BetaCat]

59 minutes ago, dasari said:

If Yes - whats your god timeline..? your gods (all) also monkey decedents?

If No - you just write that in your exams to get marks (that's how our education system, we learn things which we don't want to follow)

You don't believe in science, you trust it because it's real. You believe in God, because God is a belief and beliefs need not be real. 

[crashnburn]

religion is on its last legs. leave those poor religious folks alone. chachina paamu.

[DummyVariable]

22 minutes ago, BetaCat said:

You don't believe in science, you trust it because it's real. You believe in God, because God is a belief and beliefs need not be real. 

@BetaCat

Two arguments against Darwin’s theory are

1) Cambrian explosion- inexplicably, within a short period of time (about 6 million years), a lot of species seem to have come out without any predecessor species. This is a very small window compared to more than 3 billion years that life supposedly took to evolve. 
2) Darwin explains small changes, but can’t really explain the big differences in species. I mean you can adapt and change the length of your hair, but can the same adaptability result in a totally different species? 

[BetaCat]

9 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

@BetaCat

Two arguments against Darwin’s theory are

1) Cambrian explosion- inexplicably, within a short period of time (about 6 million years), a lot of species seem to have come out without any predecessor species. This is a very small window compared to more than 3 billion years that life supposedly took to evolve. 
2) Darwin explains small changes, but can’t really explain the big differences in species. I mean you can adapt and change the length of your hair, but can the same adaptability result in a totally different species? 

The amount of evolution it takes place to form the first form of life is obviously a lot more and people have found out that during Cambrian explosion, evolution was 4-5 times faster than the rate of evolution before, it wasn't that sudden as Darwin thought it was. 

Do you think we are the same as the homosapiens that only existed. We are shorter and have lesser physique, we don't have sharp teeth because we eat cooked food, we are even loosing our wisdom teeth as generations pass by, because we simply don't need them for our adapted lifestyle. 

Coming to the point of cross-species, the example of new species that formed more due to man-made intervention than evolution is a mule, a cross between a horse and a donkey. That's how you get new species, through evolution. 

[DummyVariable]

23 minutes ago, BetaCat said:

The amount of evolution it takes place to form the first form of life is obviously a lot more and people have found out that during Cambrian explosion, evolution was 4-5 times faster than the rate of evolution before, it wasn't that sudden as Darwin thought it was. 

Do you think we are the same as the homosapiens that only existed. We are shorter and have lesser physique, we don't have sharp teeth because we eat cooked food, we are even loosing our wisdom teeth as generations pass by, because we simply don't need them for our adapted lifestyle. 

Coming to the point of cross-species, the example of new species that formed more due to man-made intervention than evolution is a mule, a cross between a horse and a donkey. That's how you get new species, through evolution. 

I agree that it might have taken a lot of time for first life to form; however, the Cambrian explosion took place half a billion years ago and nothing like that has happened ever since. Why would something like that not happen again? I mean there is sufficient time for it to happen and life forms have evolved from initial struggles. Was the atmosphere conducive for such an event? Even if the atmosphere was conducive, wouldn’t it be small changes to the existing species rather than entire new species being born? How can population genetics allow such a thing? Creating a new gene naturally takes a lot of time does it not? 

[BetaCat]

27 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

I agree that it might have taken a lot of time for first life to form; however, the Cambrian explosion took place half a billion years ago and nothing like that has happened ever since. Why would something like that not happen again? I mean there is sufficient time for it to happen and life forms have evolved from initial struggles. Was the atmosphere conducive for such an event? Even if the atmosphere was conducive, wouldn’t it be small changes to the existing species rather than entire new species being born? How can population genetics allow such a thing? Creating a new gene naturally takes a lot of time does it not? 

Be my guest, https://biologos.org/common-questions/does-the-cambrian-explosion-pose-a-challenge-to-evolution/

A lot of small changes happening at the same time. Think of it as a point of inflection of a plot. 

[andhra_jp]

2 hours ago, DummyVariable said:

I agree that it might have taken a lot of time for first life to form; however, the Cambrian explosion took place half a billion years ago and nothing like that has happened ever since. Why would something like that not happen again? I mean there is sufficient time for it to happen and life forms have evolved from initial struggles. Was the atmosphere conducive for such an event? Even if the atmosphere was conducive, wouldn’t it be small changes to the existing species rather than entire new species being born? How can population genetics allow such a thing? Creating a new gene naturally takes a lot of time does it not? 

 

Ofcourse it can get repeated,  all it needs is hundreds and thousands of years.. evolution changes does not happen in hours or days..

Even it took 80k years for Computers to arrive if we agree humans migrated from Africa 80k years ago.

As BetaCat said there were lot of middle-species which might have gone in the process of transition from one species to another.

Q : Is Darwin theory for sure 100% correct ?

A: Well as name suggests its only a theory so no one really knows what actually happened but Darwin theory was revolutionary and changed the way we perceive the universe and life.

 

 

[dasari]

5 hours ago, DummyVariable said:

I agree that it might have taken a lot of time for first life to form; however, the Cambrian explosion took place half a billion years ago and nothing like that has happened ever since. Why would something like that not happen again? I mean there is sufficient time for it to happen and life forms have evolved from initial struggles. Was the atmosphere conducive for such an event? Even if the atmosphere was conducive, wouldn’t it be small changes to the existing species rather than entire new species being born? How can population genetics allow such a thing? Creating a new gene naturally takes a lot of time does it not? 

small example...
https://www.sciencealert.com/proof-evolution-you-can-find-on-your-body-palmaris-longus-tendon-video-vox

[DummyVariable]

3 hours ago, andhra_jp said:

 

Ofcourse it can get repeated,  all it needs is hundreds and thousands of years.. evolution changes does not happen in hours or days..

Even it took 80k years for Computers to arrive if we agree humans migrated from Africa 80k years ago.

As BetaCat said there were lot of middle-species which might have gone in the process of transition from one species to another.

Q : Is Darwin theory for sure 100% correct ?

A: Well as name suggests its only a theory so no one really knows what actually happened but Darwin theory was revolutionary and changed the way we perceive the universe and life.

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, dasari said:

small example...
https://www.sciencealert.com/proof-evolution-you-can-find-on-your-body-palmaris-longus-tendon-video-vox

Cambrian explosion happened in a tiny window of 6-10 millions of years about 500 million years ago. Something like that did not happen again. It was not a simple change as well. Many new species came into being in that period. 500 million years is ample time for something like that to happen again- multiple species should have evolved, but haven’t. 

[mca]

8 hours ago, futureofandhra said:

Vishnu avataram will give answer

Fish tortoise n continues

ee sollantha kaani.. darwin ki aa theory seppindi evaro reveal sesei baa.. nee keyboard ninchi vaste aa manishiki value perugutundi..

[futureofandhra]

9 minutes ago, mca said:

ee sollantha kaani.. darwin ki aa theory seppindi evaro reveal sesei baa.. nee keyboard ninchi vaste aa manishiki value perugutundi..

Sollu na ok 

If you have any thing to contradict post it

Sollu Ani oka simple statement tho y escape lol 😂