Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Problem With Evolution
ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE

Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.

However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: animoacids; anothercrevothread; bacterialflagellum; charles; charlesthaxton; code; complexity; creation; creationsim; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; darwinschmarwin; deankenyon; descent; design; dna; doublehelix; embryos; enoughalready; evolution; fable; genetics; genisis; god; homology; id; intelligent; irreducible; jonathanwells; judeochristian; keywordbonanza; legend; macroevolution; michaelbehe; michaeldenton; micromachines; modification; molecule; moralabsolutes; morphology; mutation; myth; natural; needanotherkeyword; origin; paulnelson; phillipjohnson; proteins; selection; selforganization; speciation; species; stephenmeyer; thumpgoesthebible; toomanykeywords; vertebrates; walterbradley; williamdembski; yomommaisanape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341 next last
To: MineralMan

"You haven't seen it? Yet you claim to be able to refute it?"

If it were actual proof, I wouldn't be able to refute it.

121 posted on 09/26/2005 8:06:52 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

Nonsense. The theory of evolution assumes that life began by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then branched out into many different forms from a single organism.

That is not what evolution is about. As MinrealMan has said before, you do not even know the basic definition of evolution. Evolution is the theory that explains how new species emerge and diverge from other species. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. That is a field called abiogenesis. To say evolution concerns the origin of life is another creationist lie. Even Darwin's book was titled "the Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life." Educate yourself before posting creationsist trash.

122 posted on 09/26/2005 8:08:41 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

That's about as false a statement as I've seen recently.

Natural selection is the theory developed to account for observed phenomena. Not the other way around.

123 posted on 09/26/2005 8:10:16 AM PDT by Air Force Brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


"If it were actual proof, I wouldn't be able to refute it."

Proof? You want proof? No, I can't give you that, which is why the TOE is a theory. There's plenty of EVIDENCE, however. That exists in abundance. I offered you some places where such evidence may be viewed with your own eyes.

Show me evidence of YOUR theory. I have not seen it. Which museum may I attend to view the physical evidence of creationism, please? How about ID? I will go there.

124 posted on 09/26/2005 8:13:10 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]


The problem with evolution is that it has become a state funded religion.

125 posted on 09/26/2005 8:17:57 AM PDT by Amish with an attitude (An armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

TOE starts today explains that we evolved from something as a result of our environment and we are to continue to evolve. The facts remain that we can date and reasonably demonstrate the evolution of many species dating back millions of years. Scientifically, I am very confident that at one time, birds were a reptillian species and that mammals were originally born of the see and amphibians bridge some gaps. Curiously, the "missing link" leaves questions and challenges the theory of "HUMAN evolution." I am not Morman (they work to disprove evolution) and I am not cynical or nieve. There are as many scientifically unanswered questions about where we came from and why as there are theoritical ID and/or creationist explanations for the same. Facts are nothing more than overwhelmingly mojority held beliefs. If 99% believe it to be true, then it can be fact. Prove what you want, but try to convince a blind man that an object is red.

Faith begins where proof of fact ends. As such, there will always be room for science and faith. Me thinks that in 2000 years, the unanswered scientific questions will still be proof enough for some that there is an omnipitant being and that his name is God.

I believe in God, therefore I believe God created everything. I do not understand how he did it. But it is good.

126 posted on 09/26/2005 8:22:17 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (Dems: "It can't be done" Reps. "Move, we'll find a way or make a way. It has to be done!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

The complexity of life is evidence enough for some people to believe in creation. And you don't have to go to a museum to see it. It can be found in most research labs. Why do evolutionists not consider that to be a valid evidence for creation but consider the fossilized skeletons of dead animals to be evidence for theirs? Fossils show that something was once alive and now is dead. It's human reasoning that puts them in a certain order and declares that it supports an idea they have.

127 posted on 09/26/2005 8:25:07 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

(you said Evolution but meant Abiogenesis)"assumes that life began by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then branched out into many different forms from a single organism."

hmmm. Seems that quantum mechanics informs us that matter began by random chance, out of matterless energy, and then branched out into many different molecular forms.

Don't get caught up in the fact that the mechanism is random into thinking that it means it is all "by accident". The formation of atomic structure is random, but given the conditions of the universe, formation of matter is inevitable. So how can you say that the formation of matter is "by accident"?

Mutation is random, but given the conditions of life on earth, evolution through natural selection is inevitable. So how can you say that evolution is "by accident"?

During the last European Ice Age, the rabbits all turned white. Now the mechanism of mutation of the genes that supplied color to the rabbit pelt was random, but the outcome was inevitable. Something that is inevitable is not "by accident".

Do you understand this?
128 posted on 09/26/2005 8:29:16 AM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; PatrickHenry; Ichneumon; DARCPRYNCE

MineralMan, PatickHenry and Ichneumon, we have the actual author of a ChronWatch article refuting evolution. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up in case you wanted to "play" with him a bit. I realize there are a lot of crevo articles this morning, so, in advance, I understand your reluctance if I don't see you on this thread.

129 posted on 09/26/2005 8:29:25 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: moog

Agreed, but why the utter disdain for those of us that do believe?

130 posted on 09/26/2005 8:32:20 AM PDT by AZConcervative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: doc30

What are you, 12 or 13? The is more historical evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than for Julius Caeser.

131 posted on 09/26/2005 8:35:07 AM PDT by AZConcervative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: All

Does anyone else think that there was life on other plantets in our solar system and that the suns adjustments is the factor that creates and destroys life?

132 posted on 09/26/2005 8:36:02 AM PDT by Fawn (Try not--do or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]


133 posted on 09/26/2005 8:38:30 AM PDT by Kokojmudd (Outsource Federal Judiciary and US Senate to India, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Thanks. Many people believe that a deity created the universe and created life. Many of those same people believe that evolution and other natural mechanisms are why it looks like it does today. There's really nothing barring those who have a belief in a deity from believing in the Theory of Evolution or any of the other sciences which attempt to explain things like Geology.

I have no argument with people's beliefs. My only argument is with the misrepresentation of what the Theory of Evolution discusses and the misrepresentation of the actual physical evidence used to support that theory.

Every religion has its creation story. All involve supernatural events. I, personally, disbelieve in supernatural events and entities, so I treat those stories as mythology. Others believe otherwise. More power to them.

Beliefs, however, are not proper subject for discussion in science classrooms. Such discussions belong in philosopy classes.

134 posted on 09/26/2005 8:44:26 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: bigmac0707

The maturity level on this sight never ceases to amaze me. Believe what you will, but you do not hear the disdain for other faiths coming out of the mouths of TRUE Christians. If you choose to believe that you came from a monkey, fine, that is your choice. But the fact does not change that the bible has over fifty authors, was written over the course of 1500 years and still cannot be disputed. Sure you can come up with something along the lines of your microwave... yadda, yadda, yadda, but really do you find that witty? I will state as I did in a previous post, there is more historical evidence for the life and works of Jesus Christ than Julius Caeser. Feel free to do the research...

135 posted on 09/26/2005 8:45:15 AM PDT by AZConcervative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #136 Removed by Moderator


Picked up a text on evolution, genetics, phyllogeny, etc.

There is convincing fossil evidence for the evolution of horses, elephants, and even human beings in the geological strata with simplier forms advancing to more complex forms.
There are numerous anatomical indicators of close biological relationships which pint to a common ancestor.

As for the article's assertion that other phylla than those currently represented, never existed, I suggest you check out some books on the Burgess Shale fauna. There WERE other creatures living millenia ago which fit into no current category of existing creatures AND some that did.

The problem with "proving" evolution is a difficult one if one were to use customary scientific tools. The time frames involved exceed the mere few thousand years of recorded human history, and certainly far exceed the term of modern science. Consequently one is forced to draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence, as it were.

And that circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

More direct evidence is the case of pathogenic microorganism which evolve from forms which afflcit animals to those which are capable of attacking people - e.g. smallpox from cow-pox, hog influenza into human influenza, and the current concern involving avian flu and the transmission to humans.

There are also cases involving pathogenic organisms which evolve into forms which are antibiotic resistant.

Are these cases of evolution into "new" species? No. But they provide evidence of the potential for mutability of species and traits in response to environmental factors.

137 posted on 09/26/2005 8:52:58 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: AZConcervative

Where do you get that from? There is only 1 marginally account from Josephus that is independent of the Bible. There are historical documents from the Roman Empire supporting the existence of Julius. Aside from the Bible, where is any archeological evidence or historical evidence?

138 posted on 09/26/2005 8:54:46 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

To: Seruzawa

Ahem - we could have a discussion about that...

Creation is very explicitly described in the Puranas and mentioned clearly in the Bhagavad Gita. Evolution of species is definitely not the method explained in the Vedas. According the the Vedic teachings, what evolves in the soul, through transmigration, as the soul is given a chance to inhabit a variety of bodies, until reaching the human form. Then, if the soul uses the increased opportunity in the human form to search out God, he will again get a human form until he fully surrenderes his will with God's in love.

But, if the soul rejects the opportunity afforded by the human form of life and lives an animal-like existence (living just for the satisfaction of the senses and mind), he will be de-volved into a lower type of life form. IOW, the soul will then get born into a lower type of body.

It states in the Puranas very clearly how creation takes place, and evolution is not the method.

140 posted on 09/26/2005 8:56:39 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson