Is the darwin theory no longer relevant?

Question

Is the darwin theory no longer relevant?

Answer 1

Hi

IMHO Darwin's body of work is not only as relevant as ever,but  evolution has become far easier to observe as human life expectancy has increased. Consider  how quickly infections have evolve to become resistant to anti-biotics. Similarly the flu virus frequently evolve in less than 12 months to defeat last years flu vaccine.

The person to ask about evolution is probably the patient suffering from MRSA.

Answer 2

Yes it is still relevant.

Answer 3

It's 150 year old science.  We've moved on since then.  Evolution can be used to explain the origin of the species, but natural selection wouldn't work fast enough.

Answer 4

Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, or descent with modification.

Natural selection is a process in which heritable traits that are favorable for survival and successful reproduction are selected for. Organisms with the traits that make them more likely to live long enough to produce offspring will be the organisms that pass on their traits.

What is irrelevant about that?

You will not find a biologist who doesn't have some kind of religious affiliation yet also says natural selection is irrelevant.

Answer 5

of course like many have said 'if you don't know your history how can you determine your destiny'

Answer 6

It's 150 year old science? So, at what point do Newtons ideas become 'too old'? And at that point, will we all start floating about?

Edit: One thing that really gets to me about the Creationism vs Darwin thing.... Darwin 'proposed a theory' of evolution. That's the beauty and honesty of science - very few scientists will say 'I know this to be fact based on this evidence', it's almost always 'Based on the evidence currently available, this is the most logical theory'. Look at Einstein and Da Vinci as examples: very clever guys with great ideas, but due to advancing technology, modern scientists are able to poke holes in their theories and make them more 'accurate'.

Whereas the Creationism crew have only one argument, that 'It's written in this really old book, so it must be true'. Nonsense.

Answer 7

It's not so much that it's still relevant, which it is, but purely as a "theory" and, apart from "creationism" (and a more recent suggestion of advanced ET involvment), it is the only partially scientific accepted explanation of human origin, even though there is absolutely not one scrap of UNEQUIVOCAL human mediatory (missing link) fossil evidence (out of the mountains of fossils now available), that it desperately needs to support it.

Evolutionists constantly and, more recently, with a 'cult'-like fanaticism, spout dogmatically about the "common ancestor", as their strongest argument for human evolution, but, not only is there no evidence, what-so-ever, of any of these, what should be numerous, "common ancestors", down the line of our pre-history, they can't even give it a name, let alone describe what the 'creature' looked like, or what it was, e.g. half man/half chimp, mostly man with a bit of chimp, or mostly chimp with a bit of man?  The reason they can't add more detail, to this 'figment of their imagination' (which is their vain attempt to MAKE the 'theory of evolution' FIT as if it were now a FACT), is because it opens up an even bigger can of worms.

The latest DNA issues, that evolutionist are desperately grasping onto as PROOF of "evolution in progress", and in another beguiling attempt to 'cloud', 'confuse' and 'cover up' the lack of  "intermediatory" human fossil evidence, is very strongly disputed by "hundreds" of other emminent biologists/scientists, who do NOT agree with the evolutionists, both in the micro and macro fields, many of whom, like myself, are NOT religiously motivated or biased in any way.

Darwin's theory is still "faithfully" believed 'relevant', by those who just won't, or can't admit that it's dead!!!

EDIT

Cheers Plumerboy!!

The RY-GUY

Spoken straight out of the bible of evolutionism. All 'spout' and, as normal, absolutely no indication where, specifically, one could find, amongst all the fossil evidence, the UNEQUIVOCAL "mediatory" proof of human evolution.

So, you say that you're a "real live archaeologist" (as if that makes you infalible), who, typical of followers of the evolution 'faith', throws in the obligatory insults and sarcasm (viz, "everything he's saying is nonsence and that you deserve the 'thumbs down'").  "Real 'live' archaeologist"?  Not every bit of you is live, my friend. Part of you, obviously, did not survive the severe brainwashing that the MOUNTAINS of ambiguous, evolutionistic missinformation has inflicted upon you.!!

50% of the world population accept the 'theory of evolution' as they did when scientists convinced them the world was flat.  We can all see, now, with our own eyes that they were wrong.  I wonder why you evolutionists can't CONVINCE "EVERYONE" that 'evolution' is FACT.  Could it be that you've got nothing convincing enough to 'fool all the people all of the time'?

EDIT II

Hkyson.  

If your 'statement' is true, I think we should ALL be very, VERY CONCERNED !!!

Answer 8

Hey shouldn't you be in the R&S section?

Answer 9

Thanks! I will notify the entire scientific community that the theory is now in question.

I imagine you will be publishing your theory with relevant mathematics to support your claim to peer acceptance.

Congratulations, I imagine you will be getting the Nobel Prize for physics at the next meeting.

Refuting Darwin will be the scientific coups of the year.

How ever did you find the flaw?

Amazing.

Answer 10

Truth Seeker makes a fine arguement for his point of view, and in truth, makes you all look like a bunch of Chimps. Where paper speaks beards are silent.

Answer 11

It's about as relevant and useless as his earthworm theory or better yet his theory about how the Aboriginies of Austrailia are the missing link.  The man was "not to bright".

Answer 12

The Darwin theory is the central organizing principal of biology.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Answer 13

Think about the number of people arguing about Evolution these days. Culturally, it's very relevant. Additionally, being a large area of study (by people working to both bolster and degrade support for it), it's scientifically relevant.

Please note that it is possible to say that the theory is relevant without actually commenting on whether or not you believe the theory is correct or not. This an important part of being a rational, reasoning adult.

And for being a Truth "Seeker," that guy above me sure talks like he's already found it all. Of course, that's beside the fact that everything he's saying is nonsense. As a real live archaeologist, I'm going to need to see some d**n good reasons (as in analysis of some kind, definitely some specifics) to throw out the fossil record that we do have. No half-men-half-chimps in there at all, actually. Where is he getting this stuff? Pre-emptively dismissing your thumbs down ratings doesn't mean you don't deserve them, bud.

Answer 14

No, it's not.

I cannot accept that we, who "were made in God's image", came from apes.

Answer 15

It is a theory and as such is still relevant. Other theories may prove different conclusions but are equally relevant.

Answer 16

very relevant.....just has been modified a little.....the world was NOT created 6000 years ago.

Answer 17

Of course it is,

Answer 18

Darwin's theory of evolution makes one serious omission, which when considered makes it not worth the paper on which it is written. That is that the theory only considers a physical existence and does not take into account a non-physical existence or mind/spirit that underpins it. The proof is in the pudding. There is ample scientific proof of extra-sensory perception and in particular insightful perception, we see it in drugs trials (the reason why relational distancing or double-blinding is used -to stop the patients knowing what the doctors know, ie if they have been given a drug or a dummy & without any sensory information), it is seen in so-called precognition experiments where subject know if a distressing image is ABOUT TO BE shown on a computer screen and it is also seen in a placebo effect and the reason why people do not always get well with a placebo. Because if the doctor has doubts then the patients pick up on it. None of this is possible if the mind was not a non-physical realm and a realm of intelligence. Once you add in intelligence (instead of assigning it as purely human) then the whole landscape changes. Creationism is far more probable.  However the vast majority of scientists are atheists and they have their own prejudices to push. So they criticize anything that doesn't suit the "materialism is all" line and make it sound as if science supports atheism. NOT TRUE! In the light of all this theory of evolution belongs in the trash can.

Answer 19

There really aren't any serious scientists who don't subscribe to the Darwinian theory of evolution. It's been used in all sorts of scientific fields, from human development to cellular mutation and medical developments.

Oh, and if you think that the theory of evolution says we came from monkys, you don't know what the theory of evolution is. We came from a common ancestor: you can't exist together with the species you evolved from 130,000 years later.

Answer 20

Darwinian selection is still operating in the world. This is such a dumb question that I wonder how you cope with your life. You may fall victim (be deselected).