Skip to comments.The Problem With Evolution
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 chronwatch.com ...
No it's not BS. It's how ALL of science is done. Theories are developed with the information available at hand. The same thing is done in quantum mechanics, gravity, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, etc. As we learn more, the theories are refined. As more is learned, things get changed. With respect to evolution, there is nothing that has refuted evolution and simultaneously has satisfactorally explained things in biology as well as evolution has.
I thought it was the LAW of Gravitation, not the THEORY of Gravition.
"Yet it is still as religious in nature as believing in a creator of all things, because one has to have a certain amount of blind faith in an unproved theory .."
Evolution has a preponderance of evidence available to indicate its an accurate rendition of biological diversity on this planet.
Should you choose to ignore it, its your choice. If, on the other hand, you choose to present a theological perspective in a science course you are doing both disciplines a disservice.
In the U.S.'s current deplorably politically correct environment, we will have to present other theological views of life's origin besides the Bible in science classes also - the Hindu version, the Buddhist version, etc. All of which will create an unnecessary digression from the subject at hand with extraneous subjects.
Science belongs in science classes and theology belongs in theology classes.
If you can reconcile evolution and belief in the Bible, as I and very many other biologists do, all well and good. If you can't that's your choice. But imposing your own particular religious - or non-religious - perspective in the science classroom is wrong. Keep it in the theology classroom where it belongs.
If intelligent design means that God used Evolution to create man, then I can buy it. But again, its theology, not religion. When atheist biologists state man is the product of a mere series of fortuitous accidents and this proves God had no part in man's creation, they are intruding into the theological domain and should be censured and stopped.
The belief - or disbelief - in God, has no place in science.
Furthermore, just because science cannot prove the existence of a creator doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It simply means that human beings have limited abilities to discover the nature of life.
In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist, all know facts about the entire universe would have to be known. We haven't got there yet.
Maybe moog is refreing to things like the dragonflies from the Cambrian that had 2 foot wingspans. It was estimated that the atmosphere may have been as high as 40% oxygen back then. That's the concentration necessary for such large insects to respire and survive.
In fact, I often attempt to have insightful conversations with those whose posting makes them sure in their faith, in order to determine what it is, exactly, that they believe and why. They sometimes provide for enlightening conversations, but they often avoid, obfuscate and skate around the key issues until they give up.
Some times, though, I just greet ignorance with scorn, especially when the same claims "disproving" evolution are made again and again and again.
the basic theory of evolution, as it relates to the origins of life on Earth
The TOE says nothing about the origins of life. But then you and Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith already knew that.
My qualifications are that I am able to read, and that I actually understand what I read. I also have the ability to reason and hypothesize. Tell me, what qualified Charles Darwin, a 19th century geologist, to write a treatise on the nature of complex living systems when he didn't even know what cells were made of?
By the way, if I was ever banned from this place, nobody told me about it, and if they did ban me for some reason as yet unexplained, they certainly seem to have changed their minds.
LOL... Well, what do you expect me to do? Calling it "non-traditional scholarship" would be a bit too subtle, I'd think.
"Yet, the physical evidence does not support the theory that life came about completely by random chance, out of lifeless chemicals, and then evolved into many different organisms. "
You have made the principal error that creationists make regarding the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It deals only with speciation.
The reality is that the origins of the beginnings of life are unknown at this point. Suppositions have been made, but there is no widely-accepted theory regarding this.
By making this most common of errors, you reveal your lack of knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. In doing so, you destroy your entire argument.
You also, in your article, demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the "Cambrian Explosion." This further diminishes your article.
It is very simple. If you believe in the Creation story, as laid out in Genesis, simply say you so believe. Attempting to turn that story into some sort of science is a waste of your time. Just say you are a creationist and be done with it. It is a matter of faith.
If you plan to counter the Theory of Evolution, then more study will be needed on your part, since you apparently don't understand the very basics of the theory. After that, you will need to study the current evidence...not on creationist websites...but from the publications of science. At that point, when you actually become an expert on Evolution, you can begin to criticize the theory.
The moment you claim that the TOE attempts to explain life's origin, then you identify yourself as another of the long line of folks who are arguing against something they don't even understand at the definitionary level.
"Evolution has a preponderance of evidence available to indicate its an accurate rendition of biological diversity on this planet."
Really, where is that evidence? I'd like to see it.
I agree with WildHorseCrash. The information in the article is extremely outdated, even by creationist standards. Each point has been clearly refuted and cited by some of the hard core evolution posters here before. It's a rehash of some very outdated and misleading information.
Newton's "Universal Law of Gravitation" is a theory of gravity. It seeks to describe and explain the fact of gravity. It has been superceded/supplanted/augmented (depending on the degree of specificity you desire) by Einstein's work.
"You have made the principal error that creationists make regarding the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It deals only with speciation."
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.
"Really, where is that evidence? I'd like to see it."
You haven't seen it? Yet you claim to be able to refute it? Oh, you have much to do...much to do. I'd start by reading a couple of books on an elementary level regarding the TOE. That would be a good start. You can then read some more advanced material. Follow that up with visits to large natural history museums.
Remember...before you can refute a theory, you must understand that theory. It is clear that you do not. So, it's time to start some serious reading that does not come from creationist or ID sources.
My guess is that the probability of that happening approaches zero.
"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.
No, it does not.
"In order for science to categorically state that God does not exist, all know facts about the entire universe would have to be known. We haven't got there yet."
Which is exactly my point.
Rocks, a whole box of rocks.
Well, thats why I suggested a walk. If you cant handle the fact that evo is not accepted by everyone then maybe the discussion isnt good for you to be a part of. There are plenty of other threads to join in on. Ones that cause you so much stress cant be good for your health.
I seriously doubt your namecalling brings more people into the evo flock.
Your other comment:
No, Evolution is a fact. Just as Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (i.e., the modern synthesis) is the theory that explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is, in the words of the esteemed Prof. Dawkins, "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Let me fix this for you:
No, God created the universe is a fact, just as Jesus came to this earth and died for your sins is a fact. The Holy Bible explains that fact. And anyone who claims not to believe in this is, in the words of God, a fool.
Look it up.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
The problem with evolution is that it has become a state funded religion.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, but why the utter disdain for those of us that do believe?
What are you, 12 or 13? The is more historical evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than for Julius Caeser.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
Darwin thinks we all came from 1 celled creatures, each of us was created from 2 cells (sperm and egg).
Darwin believes in accidental creation, I believe in a guided creation.
Here's a link I find useful. It is a link list to very good websites that explain a variety of creation myths of different cultures and religions. It's worth bookmarking:
Unless God created the scientific laws we use to prove the theories.
There is an evolution but is it accidential or guided?
"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."
I agree with the scientific approach of your belief. But I know that even science fills unknowns with assumptions and theory. Scientist work to prove and disprove theories. Quantum Mechanics is mostly theory as most of it cannot be "proved." There is faith in science predicated on logic. We continue to update the theory of evolution as new artifacts discovered call into question what was previously accepted as scientific fact.
In the end, as humans, we all rely on a level of faith to make sense of the world around us. Through my life experience and wisdom, as well as my education, I believe there is more to our mere existance than happenstance luck. I also believe that our awareness makes us unique in the universe (that may change in the next 2000 years). Faith that something, someone started this whole explains what science never will. The question of why does the universe exist will remain unanswered for eternity for many. I believe that one day I will know. And that knowledge will come from another level of awareness granted by the "supernatural" being that set it all in motion.
Science should only concern itself with whether or not there was evolution and the mechanical aspects by which it occurred.
Theologists and philosophers should concern themselves with whether it was God-guided.
Personally, I think its kind of stretching the laws of chance to say that millions of accidental mutations over millions of years just happened to create human beings. Its like saying you take several million monkeys, give them typrewriters and one of them will kick out a Shakesperian play.
Just like the evidence for evolution, although indirect, is overhwelming, I think the evidence that there was a Divine Guidance leading to the end product, is equally overwhelming.
Only the fool says in his heart there is no God.