Is it normal darwin's evolution theory is false ?

31% Normal
17 Comments

An unproven theory, the chromosome levels do not match (In humans, each cell normally contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46. Monkeys, chimpanzees, and Apes have 24 pairs (twenty-four pairs), for a total of 48), most skeleton figures of Ramapithecus were discovered incomplete and some were joined deliberately with human bones to make up the mythical Apeman figure, also they never explain why even 3000 year old mummys in Egypt have similar figure to modern people and why there is little resemblance to them with apes. Darwin never experiments anything and most of those who accept his theory do not have knowledge of biology (at best school level). Many PhD holders in Taxonomy (the branch of Biology that deals with this field) rejects Darwin's theory..

Voting Results
31% Normal
Based on 13 votes (4 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 17 )
  • bigbudchonga
    4 years ago

    You don't need a degree in biology to understand Evolution. It's not an incredibly simple idea, but it's not that complex either to understand on a base level. Basically any change that diverges one species to branch off from another will come from mutation; when you go back further to family and genus then you'll see a greater process of mutation between the more distant ancestors.

    We still have 99% of our DNA similar to chimpanzes, small mutations in the genetic code make for big changes. As to your query about why humans 3000 years ago have similar figures to modern humans that's because in terms of the timescale of these changes then they are modern humans. Homo Sapiens first branched off around 200,000 years ago. We branched off from chimpanzees several million years ago.

    Also, I would doubt your assertion that many serious doctor of taxonomy would disagree with evolution since it's probably the single biggest factor that determines their studies. It's like a doctor of classics thinking Rome and Ancient Egypt were simply a figment of the imagination.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    5
    5
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      4 years ago

      All these are mere unproven hypothesis, that a Chimpanzee has 99 % dna similar to humans, no valid experiment was ever done, humans have insufficient technology, and just like they used to stick human and ape skeletons together to make up the mythical apemans (carbon dating proved most of them are contemporary and are from different times) they would make up all those theories as though they are facts simply because they do not want to rewrite text books, Darwin himself admitted he came up with the theory just because it helps him classify. No skeleton found ever dates back 200,000 years ago. Anyway people denying Jesus are the same bunch than take a mortal like Darwin's words to be divine. Just hypocrisy, but at the end of the day non of these matters, we live, we die.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • bigbudchonga
        4 years ago

        They're not unproven hypothesis. There's copious amount of evidence. We can study the very code of DNA, and have done, and that's how we know that Chimpanzee DNA is 99% similar to human.

        "Darwin himself admitted he came up with the theory just because it helps him classify. No skeleton found ever dates back 200,000 years ago." Darwin's later thoughts on evolution are irrelevant. The theory has been tested again and again and proven correct. Skeletons dating back over 200,000 years have been found for the distant ancestors of humans. I don't mean to sound rude, but the majority of what you're saying it factually wrong, and if you want to actually look up how much we know about DNA you'll find that we're so far on from being able to tell the DNA of a human and chimpanzee that even the damn tomato has been sequenced.

        I know a very simple experiment you can do yourself though, if you're truly open to the possibility that evolution exists? Just apply a certain amount of penicillin to the same generations of bacteria cultures and then you'll find that the penicillin kills off less bacterial cells each time due to it mutating, and gaining resistance from the penicillin.

        You can still believe in the Jesus and evolution, dude. The Bible has good lessons in it. I read it too and think there are good values in it, but it's not meant to be taken literally. I think it's somewhere in Matthew where the disciples eve ask Jesus why he talks in parables.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        2
        2
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          4 years ago

          Nope what you say is factually incorrect. Never has a complete skeleton of any humans been discovered from 200,000 years ago, all that were found are minor parts skulls, bones each different, many have attached different bone samples together to make false complete skeletons (many dinosaur skeletons are incompletely discovered, and have been attached with different samples too). A lot of said apeman were the result of mixing of human and ape skeletons. And the 99 % similarity, humans have conducted various errors in the past, and to not change established books they will try their best not to make the theories appear fragile. It had been claimed for years nothing travels faster than light, yet when a 2011 experiment on the hadron collider showed neutrinos can, so as not to get into trouble of changing established fact they covered it up claiming it was a result of an experimental error. Evolution exists, humans have structurally changed over the years in many ways, however that humans belong to the class of apes, that apes and humans have common ancestors, that is what is incorrect. The 99 % dna resemblance with chimpanzee was done under weak experimental conditions, and there are just too many physical differences. But maybe if someone who actually academically studied genetic engineering (rather than studying these out of curiosity) explained the matter more I would be more convinced..

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          -1
          -1
            -
          • bigbudchonga
            4 years ago

            I never said a homo sapien skeleton was found, complete from 200,000 years ago. You're changing the premise of your argument constantly.

            First you said "No skeleton found ever dates back 200,000 years ago.", then you changed it to "Never has a complete skeleton of any humans been discovered from 200,000 years ago".

            First you said evolution was "An unproven theory", and now you're saying "Evolution exists, humans have structurally changed over the years in many ways,"

            What are you actually arguing against?

            Also, genome mapping is straight forward. Of all the billions of paired bases in DNA there are only four variables, adenine, thymine cytosine and guanine, or A,T,C,G. To make it even easier A always pairs with T and G always pairs with C. We can study the bases of DNA and complete genomic sequences, this idea you have that we don't have the technology to sequence the chimpanzee and human genome is really off the mark. We've been able to sequence genomes for nearly half a century.

            You say we're not even the same class as apes, well what class would you say we are if not mammal and what family if not hominidae?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • GaelicPotato
              4 years ago

              Give it up man, this guy is delusional.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
            • Anonymous Post Author
              4 years ago

              You have strong points I give that. I do not disagree that human structure has changed, what I disagree with Darwin's theory is that humans belong to the class of apes. Humans are of a separate class and human class itself has a variety of species dwarfs,blacks, whites, etc. Our resemblance to Chimpanzees doesn't mean we have the same ancestors as them. We have close dna structures, a lot of fishes have but that doesn't mean every fish belong to the same class. Regardless thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              -2
              -2
  • hauntedbysandwiches
    4 years ago

    You can reject Darwin's THEORY of evolution but we didnt just suddenly appear one day, I don't buy magical crap. Sorry mate. Evolution is real

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • d0esnormalmatter
    4 years ago

    See you have a point no doubt but what are you gonna believe instead? I think it's a lot more believable than the religious hullabaloo people try to replace it with.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
    4 years ago

    youre right is was jesus in the conservatory with a lead pipe all along

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • FromTheSouthWeirdMan
    4 years ago

    IN MY OPINION the biggest problem with science is they do not fund research in things that could possibly change the already mainstream conclusion. Scientists recently said there was no advanced civilization older than 12000 years ago and they called any scientists that disagreed pseudoscientists until they recently found Gobekli Tepe. Scientists sneered at the idea and tried to debunk it and explain it away because it didnt fit their narrative. Now its pretty mainstream that it was 12,000 years ago and but the scientists fought that shit

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • LloydAsher
    4 years ago

    Humans have been effectively out of general evolution since 1950s we can have conditions that are death sentences at any point in history. Though any human from 100 years ago are probably more hearty from the stock that we are turning out now a days.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • whynotnow
    4 years ago

    Evolution as it is currently understood is as much a proven FACT as anything in science. The sheer tonnage of the evidence to support evolution dwarfs the evidence of many things in science accepted as fact by everyone. Also, 3000 years is no time a all. Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 to 300,000 years and some con-generic with us (Homo species) existed up to a million years ago. Many of your assertions sound like a paranoid belief in massive scientific conspiracy.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Aethylfritha
    4 years ago

    It doesnt matter to me, how we got here why some fish have funny fins etc...its not gonna change how i live my life.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • raisinbran
    4 years ago

    no way we came from monkey babbies that what came from frog babbies that what came from fish babbies and so on and so forth.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0