Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I wasn't arguing either way. It has been a long while since I read "On The Origin of Species", but IIRC Darwin's hypothesis holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations and that natural selection {over time} determines which forms will survive.
To my way of thinking and the scope of the argument in relation to the timeline of Earth's history, 150 years certainly doesn't seem to be much 'time' to 'observe' and declare the exactitude or inaccuracy of his evolutionary theories.
MOO.
Richard 
|
I am arguing based upon the DNA science we know today that makes his basic premise moot, observable science, not theory...Darwin was totally unaware of the DNA composite and its protective devices.
For his theory to work the construct of DNA would have to be different, decidedly different.
Darwinists have been trying to prove otherwise for years now, to no avail.
from evolution today
"What about the claim in Chang's article that "the discovery that a continuum of life from a single cell to a human brain can be detected in DNA?" The "continuum of life" through descent with modification from a common ancestor is Darwin's core hypothesis. He sought to support it with evidence from comparative anatomy, fossils, and embryos; but all three of these categories provide as much evidence against the hypothesis as for it. With the advent of genome sequencing, Darwinists hoped to find more reliable support.
This hope has not been realized, though you'd never know it from reading Darwinian propaganda. It takes a review of the scientific literature to learn that even Darwinian biologists no longer think that humans and bacteria are descended from a single ancestral cell. There are just too many inconsistencies in the molecular data.
Even among the major groups of animals, the evidence from genome sequencing has failed to produce a consistent "tree of life." Different results are produced by comparing different molecules, or even by submitting the same molecule to different laboratories. The April 28, 2005 issue of Nature reported that DNA sequence data have failed even to establish whether insects are more closely related to us than they are to roundworms."
To say Darwin knew nothing of genetics would be false...he knew what any good animal breeder knew, you could pass on or strengthen certain traits by reintroducing that trait over and again...basic animal husbandry.
He postulated that basic genetic understanding into a 'tree of life' and grouping dif species as related by basic 'look'...that that same strong trait reintroduced in one species demonstrated an 'evolving' and he extrapolated that we all evolved in that manner not only within the species but crossing species lines.
That does not work in the real DNA world...that is the problem with Darwinism...1850's science applied in the face of what we know today....yet it is still sold as 'science'.....it is actually scientific urban legend.