Name some flaws in the theory of Evolution.

Name some flaws in the theory of Evolution.

I've heard there are some holes in theory from some of the evolutionist scientists and physician.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The theory is so broad now there's really no 'holes' anymore, just an understanding that it'll involve accepting statistically improbable events occur

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    evolution got debunked by the monkeys in south america. also dinosaurs are fake and gay.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Monkeys in south america?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Be advised that much of what is written in that infographic is total nonsense, anon.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that leftists can't stand it being applied to intelligence or modern humans

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is none, that shit just works.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Darwin himself say there were flaws in his theory?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Darwin was a fraud much like Joseph Smith, they both made up shit to make monkey money.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The flaw with evolution is that it's not predictive.
    There are no good statistical models that tell you how long it'll take to reach a particular form or to grow a certain trait.
    Despite all the attention around Darwin, I'm not convinced evolution is any different from the selection practiced by animal breeders for thousands of years or the 'fall of man' that every culture seems to have. I feel like most people must have intuitively understood evolution, even if the particulars of it hadn't been discovered.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is there any reason why humans haven't "evolved" since our inception?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Humans did evolve, and continue to do so.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How are we evolving?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, some of us are

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            most human populations have adaptations to their specific lifestyle and location that are not universal
            skin color differences, lactase persistence, altitude adaptations, etc.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            White people are not black people, just evolved, it's an adaptation to the sun. If white people move back to Africa without the sunscreen we'd all get skin cancer.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Neither is our current understanding of the universe, which is why "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist.

      The world is complex, and we don't have any good model to predict its next state in any measurable form that is completely accurate.

      The only thing that is predictable is math, and that's because these are comprehensive concepts governed by rules we made up.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Physics is predictive. We have an entire field of chaos theory to describe complex models.
        At the ends, physics runs into issues but biology is definitely more complex and that makes it less 'useful'. If I wanted to create a new dog breed or grow a specific plant, would modern evolutionary theory be significantly more useful than trial and error?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Modern evolutionary theory talks about the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.
          Darwinian evolution is about traits that are inherited, and that, by itself, is rather predictive at its core.
          More bred with specific traits = more of that trait within a species. Whether that happens in a barn or in nature.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure but does evolutionary theory give us tools to more effectively create desirable traits in a way that can't be immediately intuited and put into practice without study?
            This isn't a dig or anything, I'm just genuinely curious since I tried getting a tome titled 'mathematical biology' by Murray, which has a chapter on evolution without a single equation. It's entirely just descriptions of speciation and pictures of some examples.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I guess I get what you mean.
            Darwin saw artificial selection (breeding) done on cattle and dogs, and hypothesized it happens in nature, without human intervention. Thus, natural selection, where the environment does the selection.
            Now, what this process of change can be termed regardless of whether it was artificial or natural? Evolution.

            If anything, creating desirable traits is not something that is relevant to evolution. You can select for more of an existing desirable trait (e.g. larger fruit, more milk from the udders, etc), but I don't think there is a way to knowingly breed some new traits, unless you're aware of the genes that you want to induce to change and know how to change them.
            And to reach such an end goal, at current technological and knowledge level, is not straight forward.

            Genetic studies would be a better fit, but the process from genes to a fully functioning organism is complex, and we practically know as much about it as Galileo knew about the observable universe. If that was figured out, we wouldn't need human or animal studies, we'd just simulate what a drug does accurately within any human body.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm not convinced evolution is any different from the selection practiced by animal breeders for thousands of years
      You should read up on Red Queen theory, made sense to me. Coelacanth hasn't evolved for 300 million years or so, why? Because it had no need to!? Genius. Competition and environmental change might drive evolution, maybe other things, but prob take a shitload of energy and costs a lot in the form of bad mutations that never filter through.
      Also humans are not evolving anymore until a die off, this much I know, so don't even bother trying.

      Humans did evolve, and continue to do so.

      Because the base population is too large for any beneficial mutations to permeate through the larger biomass.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've posted direct genomic evidence of continuing evolution here:

        https://i.imgur.com/V876rnO.png

        https://i.imgur.com/UywEp5p.jpg

        >Competition and environmental change might drive evolution, maybe other things, but prob take a shitload of energy and costs a lot in the form of bad mutations that never filter through.
        I struggle to grasp what exactly you're trying to say here. There is nothing voluntary about de novo mutations. You can't just choose to make your gametes not mutate.
        >the base population is too large for any beneficial mutations to permeate through the larger biomass.
        Are you claiming new alleles new to emerge and spread through the population for there to be evolution? That's not true, a change in the frequency of already extant alleles is sufficient.

        Beside, the size of population does not moron the shifting of the mean value of the trait due to beneficial mutations for long. The spread of such alleles is geometric.
        >Also humans are not evolving anymore until a die off
        You're living in a leftard die-off.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Evolution is as real as L Ron Hubbard's claims. It's all a bunch of phooey that has no evidence.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    genetic algorithms have shown mutation rate is largely irrelevant
    while working on polyworld, larry yaeger discovered that he had forgotten to implement mutation, using crossover alone polyworld had already evolved lifelike behaviors
    separately, a UCLA team found little difference between a mutation rate of 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 when applied to ants
    if mutation is largely irrelevant, how do new adaptations develop?

    the answer is "very slowly", but you might be able to stunlock an idiot with this

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly do not believe in the "random" mutation part of evolution, at least not fully random. It has to be guided in some way.

    https://frontlinegenomics.com/genetic-mutations-may-not-be-random/
    And see, they're already finding evidence to back me up.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, call them stochastic then.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >monkeys and humans, which are supposed to be derived from monkeys, coexist today
    >there is no missing link
    >the giraffe neck
    >the relationship between horses, donkeys, and mules
    >evolution still requires life to start somehow, and for existence to exist somehow, all out of nothingness

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Aren't mules, just the a failed mutation that only perpetuates because of human involvement? Sort of like if you breed a Sun Conure and a Nanday, you get a Sunday, but it cannot in of itself reproduce, only if paired together by humans. The two don't normally mate in nature.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Zoy, I...

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Goi? Onions? Boy?

          I wait in anticipation for your response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3dz3ZcBecQ

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the biggest flaws are that it doesnt take i to account genetic engineering or its unable to predict how an organism will mutate in a given environment.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What flaws, if simple things didn't evolve into more complex things everything would still be a cloud of fundamental particles

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would it be theoretically or scientifically possible for humanity to create a black hole and use it as a form of transport as suggested in the movie "Event Horizon"?

    And if such a notion was possible, would you be willing to take that so called, maiden voyage?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not watching that. sounds stupid. humans already regularly steal energy from the rotation of planetary bodies to greatly reduce the cost (downside is the time it takes) of government agency space missions. creating an entire black hole to do the same sounds more like something waiting for a punchline to finish the joke than it does an actual plan. if you had that much mass and wanted to go somewhere i would suggest using that mass as fuel.
      on the chance that whoever wrote event horizon could be a complete braindead moron (again, no idea what this is), i will add that black holes do not lead anywhere: Imagine you had an exceptionally large collection of socks. You had every sock ever produced. Orders of magnitude more socks than that, in fact, so many socks that the sun was but a small insignificant marble next to your horde. Your socks, being so numerous, collapse into a black hole, a singularity of mass. Where does the sockhole go? Nowhere, morons, it just kills you. It's a collection of mass. It pulls you in and you die. THE END.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *