Paris Forums ‹ Paris Culture ‹ Philosophy and Religion Forum

[Frodo]

What do you think about Darvin theory?

[Maria]

Majority of different investigations proved that Darvin-s Evolution Theory was wrong, to be more precise, it was declared that his thesis on sexual selection was a mistake. Many obvious things disagree with the theory; what is more, many of the animal behavior features, their origin and mode of transmission cannot be explained at all. Leading biology researchers and theorists gathered for an annual session of the American Association for Advancement of Science to discuss the problem of the Darvin Theory revision.

Biologist Joan Rogarden from the Stanford University told about results of investigations proving that among animals choice of a sexual partner is not restricted with representatives of just an opposite sex, and that animals copulate only with a view of reproduction. Robert Warner from the California University, Santa Barbara, spoke about a fish changing its sex. David Crewes from the Texas University presented evidence of a connection between a genetic sex and behavior. Patricia Gouti from the Georgia University told about a new hypothesis describing how animals select mates for themselves. Paul Vazei from the Letbridge University presented results of his investigations concerning lesbian behavior of Japanese female macaques.

Darvin-s law on natural selection is considered unshakable and standard even among opponents of the evolution theory. The law says that the struggle for existence is continuous among animals, as a result of which the domination of some individuals over others in a population increases or reduces. As a result of this struggle stronger, more disease-resistant and more adapted to the environmental conditions individuals survive and dominate.

However, one item of the Darvin Theory, the one on choice of a sexual partner, was called into question. Darvin-s Theory explains development and strengthening of those physical and behavior features that augment chances of animals for surviving. It means that a cat seeks to choose the strongest tom-cat, a bird chooses the most beautiful and the strongest cock, a cow deer will certainly prefer a deer that won a fight.

On the basis of such observations, Darvin reached a conclusion that female animals are very scrupulous with choice of partners and prefer male animals with the best genes that will be further transmitted to the young.

The Darvin sexual selection theory helped the scientist explain many physiological features and behavior of animals, especially of males that seemed to be unequal to the environment and to the situation. For instance, an enormous wonderful peacock train makes it more vulnerable to beasts of prey, but at the same time it serves an attraction for hens. So, in accordance with the Darvin Theory, it is a female animal that chooses a partner, not a male. But as it turned out, many features in animal behavior disagree with the sexual selection theory.

Paul Vazei describes his observations over Japanese macaques: ?I regularly observed she-macaques desperately rivaling for males. I saw that he-macaques often ignored those she-macaques that sought after copulation with them.¦

Rogarden says: ?There are many evidence disproving Darvin-s principle of partner selection. It is difficult to say how many exclusions from the rule exist, as many experimental results were probably distorted by the Darvin preconceptions. The exclusions are so numerous that they require explanation.¦ Rogarden revealed an amazing number of behaviors that don-t correspond with the rules of the Darvin theory of partner selection. The scientist thinks that the theory of sexual partner selection must be grounded not only upon selection of a sexual partner, but it also must take a social factor into consideration. ?I am sure that selection of a male has much more incentives for a female animal in order to obtain a leading role of a male; at that, it is a stronger stimulus than a stimulus to get just better genes.¦

Anthropologist Sara Hardy studied monkey behavior in the 1980s and understood that female monkeys often copulate with many males. The anthropologist thinks that this is done for protection of their posterity. Dominating male monkeys in ?a harem¦ regularly kill baby monkeys whom they consider not their own; that is why female monkeys protect their babies by spreading the possibility of fatherhood among many male monkeys, and further use the force of many males for protection.

Rogarden also mentioned some other sexual behavior features that are also some kind of a social harem. It can be observed among some animals that dominating strong males gather weak and young male animals around themselves. At that, the former pursues the objective of seizing a territory and gathering a harem of female animals. And the latter must protect the territory from attacks of other strong male animals. For this service the mates of a dominating male animal are rewarded, or even allowed to copulate with some female animals. It is interesting that the strongest animal among the mates succeeds to the position of the leader in the harem when the previous leader dies or becomes too old.

The Darvin theory doesn-t also touch upon homosexual behavior of animals. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingo and he-sheep, can be homosexual. It seems that homosexuality performs a social role among some species. For instance, bonobos (small chimpanzee) easily has intercourse with unisexual partners in order to relax the tension after a quarrel, or to guarantee itself a bigger share of food.

But for some species, including people, homosexual behavior may have no sense at all.

Lesbian behavior of Japanese macaques highly likely develops from a female strategy to make males they wish copulate with them. Lustful female she-macaques induce males (that are unwilling to copulate) and then copulate with them. Despite this fact, from the point of view of evolution development, this homosexual behavior among Japanese macaques is of no value and cannot be transmitted to posterity.

This discovery revealed that copulation of animals may also have some other functions besides reproduction. Besides, some species have not only males and females, they also have asexual creatures (ants, bees wasps), individuals that abstain from copulation (a sort of rodents that live underground in social groups, like bees) and creatures with labile sex (it can be changed depending upon natural conditions or social changes in a group). Sexual distinctions of some species are so much squeezed that it is difficult to classify an individual as a male or a female. Majority of plants and some kinds of fish are androgyne, it means that they can produce spawn and milt at the same time. Some lizards are unisexual (only females); they have no males, but lizards copulate with each other to exchange hormones and cause division of cells.

And some fishes can changes their sex several times (a male can turn into a female and back). For instance, on any coral reef about 25% of fish changed the sex at least once within the lifetime. Over 50 varieties of fiddle-fish, wrasse, a parrot fish and redfish can change the sex this way. Invertebrates, such like shrimps and oysters, can also change their sex.

Change of sex is caused by social conditions in a fish group. When the group lacks species of some sex, other fishes change their sex in order to fill the deficiency. For instance, if we remove a he-wrasse from a harem, or if he dies, a leading she-wrasse will take its place in ten days; it will transform the sex and soon start to milt. This behavior is not conditioned with chromosomes and cannot be transmitted genetically. Some kinds of animals have three distinct sexes.

Rogarden says that an entire context of the Darvin Theory on sexual selection collapses. In some instances, the Theory gives wrong explanations; but what is more important, the theory of sexual selection is wrong even as an approach.¦

Rogarden and Gouti thin that it-s time for a revolution, but still hesitate to make steps to make the revolution. Warner adds that scientists easier take the suggestion to adjust the Darvin Theory, but they refute the idea to give up the outdated ideas.

Thus, many clauses from the Darvin Theory turned to be a mistake, and the evolution theory cannot explain why such behavior types and multi-sexuality arise. Transmission of these features to posterity is impossible, which means that reasons of appearance and improvement of the features are unknown.

This hypotheses gave rise to disputes among evolution biologists, and opponents of the evolution theory hope to shake Darvin-s Theory, the basis that has been unshakable and strong in science since the 19th century. Arguments of the last group are increasing every day.

[Planetman]

Darwin is just a theory and will remain so. And that is because the roots of the universe are still inexplicable.

[mixi]

Hopefully the CERN experiment will reveal the truth behind this interesting question.

[Maximus]

I find Darwin the best ever described theory of human existence. Nobody proved him wrong. If not to believe his theory, whom we shall believe then?

[tulaka]

Maximus, you said nobody can prove his theory to be wrong. I can also say there are 11 more planet lives in the universe. Prove me wrong!

[Planetman]

I find Darwin the best ever described theory of human existence. Nobody proved him wrong. If not to believe his theory, whom we shall believe then?

In fact there is some new scientific research that proved the darwinism to be wrong.

[Elis]

And what was the argument?

[Planetman]

I'm sorry but I can't reember it at the moment. I'll search the net, and tell you later

[Maximus]

Read the following:
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!

We often hear that science has proved Darwin's theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory regarding the evolution model does conflict with the creation model. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept the creation model of origins. Surprised?

Darwin's theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man).The creation model, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. If the creation model is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove the creation model wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found.

Darwin taught that many little changes over a long period of time will add up to big changes. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would either prove or falsify his theory. Darwin realized the difficulty the fossil record (missing links) gave his theory when he said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Today, top evolutionists know that Darwin's predictions of what the fossil record would reveal have failed.

It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin's theory.

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!

Evolutionists tell us in the new "punctuationalist" theory, that, in effect, a lizard laid an egg and out pops a baby bird. Because of the compete lack of missing links, evolutionists now accept as fact what creationists predicted from the creation model all along; namely, that no transitional fossils would be found. Evolutionists that still use Darwin or the fossil record as evidence of their theory in the '90's, are like stubborn and closed minded old country doctors who have not kept up with the latest developments of science. Then there are those who cannot even consider the possibility that there is a creator God. These scientists are so biased that they cannot not see how much better all the scientific data fits the creation model of origins as opposed to the evolution model.

Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted . Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677, "Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary Hypotheses", reported this in 1986, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tend to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds."

Australopithecus or "Lucy", another big star to the evolutionists' stage show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey's never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. With good reason, they considered it simply and extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, "Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89

So Good-bye Lucy! Au revoir Archaeopteryx! R.I.P. Darwin!

Although knowledgeable evolutionists buried most of Darwin's theory over 20 years ago, they still cling to a few parts like "time". Lots of time! Darwin and modern evolutionists still have faith that given long enough periods of time, frogs would evolve into handsome princes. Today they just can't explain how! With enough time the impossible becomes probable! What today's evolutionists lack for hard proof in the fossil record they make up for in blind faith in a magic wand called time. Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?

[ukrberserker]

First of all, it is Darwin, not Darvin. Anyone doubting evolution should read Johansen's " Lucy, the beginnings of Humankind" and other related works.Then read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. Religion doesn't explain how we got here. It only has fairy tales.There is far more scientific evidence supporting evolution, than creationism.Read the Golden Bough by Sir George James Frazier, and you will see where religion came from. Watch the movie " Zeitgeist" on Google video, and you will see where Christianity came from.Religion has always been used as a tool to control the masses. At least if you are going to debate something, learn to spell correctly.