• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Comparing old and new Theories of Evolution

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Darwin's original iteration was the same as today's? No. Originally was Theory of Darwin, Darwinian Evolution. Now it is Synthetical Theory of Evolution.
Darwin's theory was a theory of natural selection. We know of many more mechanisms today, and more details, but Darwin's natural selection stands.
Where are you seeing Natural selection being dropped?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Darwin's theory was a theory of natural selection. We know of many more mechanisms today, and more details, but Darwin's natural selection stands.
Where are you seeing Natural selection being dropped?
And that is mirrored by many other theories. An improved understanding of gravity does not refute Newton. No one at NASA said "Oh! Einstein showed Newton to be wrong. We need to use General Relativity to calculate how to get to the Moon and back!!"
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Darwin original wrote the origin of species. Todays theory is essentially the same but with gaps filled. Science does that.

Darwinian evolution is a derogatory term invented by funimentalists in an attempt to discredit Darwin
Let me repeat then the question:

Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.
Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution through Selection extend the
average lifespan?
The theory of Evolution does not extend life. Nevertheless, it
teaches how to survive. Is this inconsistency hypocritical? Long
life contributes to survival - personal and collective survival. Is long life and immortality not the goal of Evolution?
On the contrary, the only value is the speed of generational change.
Look at the bacilli or cockroaches. By quickly dying, they quickly
adapt to any poison specially invented for them. It was the death
that appeared in the course of Evolution.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I couldn't decipher the incoherent babble of the OP, but evolution is genetic adaptation. i.e. traits that benefit in survival get passed on. An example would be artic mammals with white fur.
This forum has a 'stickied' FAQ that explains this, and should be read instead of making up goofy nonsense in a desperate, dishonest attempt to discredit a scientific theory.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Darwin's original iteration was the same as today's? No.
Originally was Theory of Darwin, Darwinian Evolution.
Now it is Synthetical Theory of Evolution.
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The question is nonsensical.
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.
I going to stick with the established scientific definition, not your silly made-up garbage.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Like about in this video:


Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.
Similar to this video:
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Like about in this video:


Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.
Similar to this video:
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
It's been a while since I read Origin, but I don't recall Darwin arguing for these, except as factors directly contributing to reproductive success. Darwin's argument was that organisms that fit better into their environment, or a particular niche in the environment, tended to generate more offspring, with the trait that conferred the increased fit, thus increasing the trait's incidence in the population. IE: a trait that allows an organism to raise more kids than his neighbors without the trait, the trait will become more common in the general population. That's the gist of Darwin's ToE, and it remains unchanged today.
Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.
I don't see the change. Of course no population can grow perpetually in a finite environment; and of course new genetic patterns must be generated if a species is to adapt to environmental change. Darwin knew that, and we know that. So what's changed?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
a trait that allows an organism to raise more kids
Did you say that such a trait is being selected that allows an organism to raise more kids? It is PRO-LIFE definition. Look: the old Theory of Evolution was PRO-Life, now the new Theory of Evolution is PRO-"Choice".
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Obviously, the fittest to survive is the strongest. So, the survival
of the most suitable to stay alive is the survival of the strongest.
Not only muscles (but physical and mental health, social and
individual skills/abilities) constitute the entire range of
strength of a person: "And from the days of John the
Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being taken by strength"
Matthew 11:12.



Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.


Darwin's original iteration was the same as today's? No.
Originally was Theory of Darwin, Darwinian Evolution.
Now it is Synthetical Theory of Evolution.

The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.

Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution through Selection extend the
average lifespan?
The theory of Evolution does not extend life. Nevertheless, it
teaches how to survive. Is this inconsistency hypocritical? Long
life contributes to survival - personal and collective survival.


Is long life and immortality not the goal of Evolution?
On the contrary, the only value is the speed of generational change.
Look at the bacilli or cockroaches. By quickly dying, they quickly
adapt to any poison specially invented for them. It was the death
that appeared in the course of Evolution.

Obviously the biggest and strongest will
prevail in some circumstances.
"FIT" doesn't always mean biggest/ stronest,
or we'd have giant redwoods in the Arctic,
not moss and lichens.

Do you have any clue why
a tiny creature is more / better
fit than a 20 ft crocodile?
Why not crocodiles, instead of blind feeble tiny
salamanders deep in caves.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Texas_blind_salamander.jpg
 
Top