Atlantis Online
November 14, 2019, 12:56:19 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Satellite images 'show Atlantis'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3766863.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues  (Read 392 times)
Trina Prior
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« on: August 25, 2010, 12:59:19 am »

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

Huffington Post   |  Bianca Bosker First Posted: 08-24-10 11:37 AM   |   Updated: 08-24-10 11:37 AM



A new study published in Biology Letters argues that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution may have been wrong.

While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that "living space" is in fact the primary driver. Michael Benton, a co-author of the study, said his team concluded that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution."

"The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals," BBC News explains. "For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst."

Slate describes how PhD student Sarda Sahney conducted her research:

    Using fossils to study evolutionary patterns over hundreds of millions of years of history, Sahney and team found that biodiversity, at least among the land animals that they decided to focus on, matched the availability of living space through time. Living space refers to the particular requirements of individual organisms to thrive and reproduce. It can include several components but primarily describes the availability of food and favorable habitat.

"Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes," Sahney writes in the Biology Letters article co-authored by Michael Benton and Paul Ferry.

Not all have accepted the team's conclusions. According to BBC News, Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns said the interpretation was "problematic." "What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?" Stearns asked.

What do you think of their theory--is it bogus or does it have legs? Weigh in below.
Report Spam   Logged

Trina Prior
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 125



« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2010, 01:04:59 am »

Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land

   1. Sarda Sahney1,*,
   2. Michael J. Benton1 and
   3. Paul A. Ferry2

+ Author Affiliations

   1.
      1Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
   2.
      2Eikonworks, 805 3rd Street, Canmore, Alberta, Canada T1W 2J2

   1. *Author for correspondence (s.sahney@bristol.ac.uk).

Abstract

Tetrapod biodiversity today is great; over the past 400 Myr since vertebrates moved onto land, global tetrapod diversity has risen exponentially, punctuated by losses during major extinctions. There are links between the total global diversity of tetrapods and the diversity of their ecological roles, yet no one fully understands the interplay of these two aspects of biodiversity and a numerical analysis of this relationship has not so far been undertaken. Here we show that the global taxonomic and ecological diversity of tetrapods are closely linked. Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes. Global taxonomic and ecological diversity of this group correlates closely with the dominant classes of tetrapods (amphibians in the Palaeozoic, reptiles in the Mesozoic, birds and mammals in the Cenozoic). These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/4/544.abstract

Report Spam   Logged
archaeologist
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 136


« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2010, 03:54:51 pm »

Quote
While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that "living space" is in fact the primary driver. Michael Benton, a co-author of the study, said his team concluded that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution."

this just shows how ridiculous evolutinists get. first, they cannot prove their own theory correct, then they keep making things up to provide the illusion that they are actually working on the theory.

this idea quoted above is just one side of the coin.  with limited living space, the species, if this theory actually was true, would still have to compete to survive. fighting is one form of competition. but all this article proves is that evolutionists have no clue about their so called theory and thatthey do not know what they are talking about.
Report Spam   Logged

Dever is wrong, archaeology is not an unedited glimpse into the past.
Robert0326
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1156



« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2010, 10:34:04 am »

Just because scientists change their theories on evolution doesn't mean that the theory is bogus.  It's called learning and good science.  Maybe you should actually try learning.  You might be surprised at what you find. 
Report Spam   Logged

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."     Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 -Thomas Jefferson
archaeologist
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 136


« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2010, 03:39:02 pm »

Quote
Just because scientists change their theories on evolution doesn't mean that the theory is bogus

yes it does. it means you do not have a clue what the truth is and will change it to fit your fancy.

Quote
It's called learning and good science

no, it is called bad science because you can't find the truth and those who support evolution do not know what the truth is and cannot be trusted.

Quote
Maybe you should actually try learning.  You might be surprised at what you find. 

personal attack. the Bible never changes that is one reason we know we have the truth. we can have confidence in it information and peace for we do not have to keep searching or changing our beliefs. the truth never changes, what was true 5,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago is still the truth today and modern science cannot do anything about it.

the theory of evolution isjust giving humans a chance to be creators of their own past, a false one, butit makes them feel like they are above God, when they are not.
Report Spam   Logged

Dever is wrong, archaeology is not an unedited glimpse into the past.
Forms of Things Unknown
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2183



« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2010, 04:49:42 pm »

Whew!  Attack of the zealots!  Good luck, Robert.   Shocked
Report Spam   Logged
Rebecca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5201



« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2010, 08:13:26 pm »

Quote
Quote
Just because scientists change their theories on evolution doesn't mean that the theory is bogus

yes it does. it means you do not have a clue what the truth is and will change it to fit your fancy.

No, it means that science isn't as rigid and ideological as religion is.  Of course, the Bible was not meant to be either a science book or a history lesson.
Report Spam   Logged
Robert0326
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1156



« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2010, 11:35:30 pm »

The bible was the first and worst attempt at explaining the natural world and the origins of our species.  Given what we know now I'm not surprised about this study.  If you ask a evolutionary biologist how it all begin, chances are that he or she will say that they don't know.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That is why they continue to learn and change with they thought they knew when they make a new discovery.  Unlike people like you archeologist who would rather bury your heads in the bible and put your hands over your ears going...  LALALALALALALA i CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA!
Report Spam   Logged

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."     Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 -Thomas Jefferson
archaeologist
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 136


« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2010, 01:01:54 am »

Quote
it means that science isn't as rigid and ideological as religion is

it means that secular science does not know what the truth is, for it is the blind leading the blind, and it blows with the whims of those running it. you cannot trust secular science for it is looking for the wrong answers in the wrong places.

At least the Bible gives the correct answers and it is found in the correct place.

Quote
the Bible was not meant to be either a science book or a history lesson.

The Bible does record literal history and provides the origins of all people, the earth and the universe. It also records the history of the Israelite people. Albright said:

Quote
Hebrew national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal and family origins. In Egypt and Babylonia, in Asyria, and Pheonicia, in Greece and ARome, we look in vain for anything comparable. There is nothing like it in the traditions of the GErmanic peoples. Neither India nor China can produce anything sinilar...

Quote
In contrast with these other peoples the Israelites preserved an unusually clear picture of simple beginnings, of complex migrations, and of extreme vicissitudes...

{both quotes are found on page 1 of his bookThe Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra.}

as for science, it does NOT produce what the secular scientists considers science but then the secular scientist makes things up to provide an alternative to the Biblical record. Something they cannot verify nor ever prove true.

Quote
If you ask a evolutionary biologist how it all begin, chances are that he or she will say that they don't know.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That is why they continue to learn and change with they thought they knew when they make a new discovery

Actually there is something wrong with that for we already know how it all began and the evolutionist is wasting time, money and energy following a lie. those things would be better spent helping the less fortunate.

they keep changing their thoery because they are finding out they cannot prove one iota of it. Origins did not happen the way evolutionists want and they are stuck. they keep changing it to look more and more like creation.

Quote
Unlike people like you archeologist who would rather bury your heads in the bible and put your hands over your ears going...  LALALALALALALA i CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA

actually i do not do that. secular science doesn't have the truth and all their work is meaningless. One does NOT change from the truth regardless of what secular scientists or science says. They are not an authority nor the final determiner of what took place in the begining and were NOT there so all their experiments are a waste.
Report Spam   Logged

Dever is wrong, archaeology is not an unedited glimpse into the past.
Robert0326
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1156



« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2010, 09:28:11 pm »

Wrong!!  Present the evidence that the bible is absolutely true when it comes to how everything got started?
Report Spam   Logged

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."     Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 -Thomas Jefferson
archaeologist
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 136


« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2010, 04:16:52 am »

Quote
Wrong!!  Present the evidence that the bible is absolutely true when it comes to how everything got started?

first you present the evfidence that shows i am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.  oh and do so by using independent studies from non-evolutionists and non-scientists.

i gave you the evidence, read genesis 1-11.  you might also want to read te first page of albright's book, 'the biblical period from abraham to ezra. it is quite interesting

secular science is looking for the wrong answers in the wrong places and is too corrupt to trust.
Report Spam   Logged

Dever is wrong, archaeology is not an unedited glimpse into the past.
archaeologist
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 136


« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2010, 04:18:53 am »

while you are at it, visit every nursery for humans, animals, and plants and see that everything goes according to the Genesis record.  there is no evidence for any evolutionary reproduction and there are no fossils showing the appearance or developement of the womb and reproducitve systems.

secular science has nothing.
Report Spam   Logged

Dever is wrong, archaeology is not an unedited glimpse into the past.
Robert0326
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1156



« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2010, 06:04:50 pm »

If the bible is the best evidence you have then you have a lot more work to do than I do.  It's sad that you are relying solely on Iron Age myth and legend to try and back up your claims.  Why are you so afraid of open inquiry into our origins?
Report Spam   Logged

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."     Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 -Thomas Jefferson
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2010, 09:35:39 pm »

Where do you suppose the people who wrote Genesis got their information?  Before writing, stories were handed down over the generations.  Something that was deep and meaningful was likely kept as sacred and everyone was taught this "history".  Seriously, we know that man lived long before the Bible was ever written, so where did the writers get their info?  Obviously from stories that were handed down.  Here's an excellent explanation for Genesis in my opinion.  I like it because it's been researched and makes a lot of sense.

http://ghulamakbar.com/?p=78
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
archaeologist
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 136


« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2010, 04:12:02 am »

Quote
It's sad that you are relying solely on Iron Age myth and legend to try and back up your claims. 

prove they are a myth and only legend. empty declarations like that are not proof of anything.

Quote
Why are you so afraid of open inquiry into our origins?

not afraid, just tired of evolutionists trying to brainwash children with their lies. did you know that not one evolutionary experiment actually replicates the claimed process or declared changes?

Quote
Where do you suppose the people who wrote Genesis got their information

#1 it is not 'people' but Moses. one person

#2 from God.

Quote
Before writing, stories were handed down over the generations

please prove that true. the idea that there was no very early writing comes from an argument of silence not fact.

Quote
Seriously, we know that man lived long before the Bible was ever written, so where did the writers get their info?  Obviously from stories that were handed down

prove it. because some modern peoples, aborigines to name one, could not read nor write in their early days, doesn't mean that the ancestors of the israelites could not.(or other ancient societies)

from your link:

Quote
Many scholars are of the opinion that the initial chapters of the book of Genesis were written in the land of Mesopotamia (present Iraq), in about 1400 BC,

notice the words 'many scholars' and 'of the opinion'  obviously they are selected scholars who do not believe the Bible and may only be 10 in number and they canot prove it true and have no evidence to support that opinion.

Quote
This concept is even older than the pre-historic epoch (i.e. 3200 BC). So obviously the concept of Heavens must have been borrowed from some other nation by the writer of the book of Genesis

in dealing with secularists it is often the case that  they will attribute the wrong source then accuse the biblical writers of something they did not do and that these secularists cannot prove.

the ancient israelites did not have a reputation for copying other nations beliefs BUT the old babylonians did (Mesopotamia and the Bible by Childress and Younger jr., pg. 161-3)

research?

Quote
I have written this series of articles based on my research work for “Pick Me Up” organization

this is simply hearsay and does not prove he actually researched anything and his conclusions are not factual but his misinterpreted andmisapplied ideas.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 04:13:41 am by archaeologist » Report Spam   Logged

Dever is wrong, archaeology is not an unedited glimpse into the past.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy