Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 chronwatch.com ...


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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341 next last
To: Wicket

Perhaps it is more likely that noone believed him because he had no evidence - you said yourself he couldn't propose where the water came from.

Geologists don't assume that the earth forms by a gradual process only. Gradual is the overall theme, but it incorperates local catastrophic events along the way.


201 posted on 09/26/2005 4:00:33 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

Why rely upon logic when a big fat conspiracy theory will do just as well?


202 posted on 09/26/2005 4:07:16 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
The other day I was watching the hummingbirds after the cardinal flowers. The blur of the wings, the angling balance of the tail, the hovering, the fearlessness of humans, moving backwards and downwards like a helicopter...no other bird can do these things. No other bird is so small, or burns so much fuel. So, where's the "in between " bird and hummingbird--? For such differences to emerge, you'd need several "missing links."

Sure and not all missing links will be found. Fossils are rare. Bird fossils are especially rare. But there is recent evidence of hummingbird characteristics in non-hummingbirds in the fossil record:

It's this logical problem that I don't hear addressed, or the question I always ask - how do you evolve an immune system while you're busy trying to evolve a beating heart? And eyes, and the skin...the computer-hormone chemical system that makes an organism's organs all "talk" to one another?

I don't see the problem with different organs evolving in parallel. What would stop eyes evolving at the same time as the heart?

And don't you always need a Mrs. to go with your newly-evolved Mr. Species?

Not if Mr can reproduce asexually.

Why hasn't centuries of breeding livestock, in geographic isolation, not produced a new species of something? If it happens so readily by accident, why can't it be reproduced on purpose?

Why would speciation be more likely to occur in captivity than in the wild? I think the answer is that speciation of animals generally takes a lot of time.

203 posted on 09/26/2005 4:57:39 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
re: Not if Mr can reproduce asexually.)))

LOL! What a silly remark. Obviously the most interesting, complex, and diversified mammals reproduce sexually, and the theory of evolution and speciation is supposed to account for the existence of sexually-reproducing organisms.

IOW---speak for yourself, Mr. ....

My hummingbird was just an example of the problem of "in betweens"--the most obvious "in between" difficulty is mankind.

re: I don't see the problem with different organs evolving in parallel. What would stop eyes evolving at the same time as the heart?)))

The organism would choke and die while trying on contact lenses. Continually silly...

re: Why would speciation be more likely to occur in captivity than in the wild? I think the answer is that speciation of animals generally takes a lot of time.)))

Evos claim that speciation occurs in the wild. If speciation occurs by accident, it ought to be able to be duplicated on purpose. As for time, domesticated animals have been bred to specfication for thousands of years on separate continents. That is, a laboratory of significant history. You'd think, under ideal conditions, that at least one accident would have happened.

Not enough time, eh? Well, that's the stock answer. Billions and billions of years and it'll happen. All these fortuitious accidents in perfect fortuitous order, and not only that....but parallel fortuitous accidents (the lens of the eye) happening with perfect fortuitous cooperation (the circulatory system)...

It's just too absurd for words.

204 posted on 09/26/2005 7:06:07 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
It happens all the time. New species are discovered every day, and new speciation events have been seen in nature and in the lab. They are most commonly seen in plants.
205 posted on 09/26/2005 7:19:36 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
ID does not disregard the fossil evidence. In fact, it explains it better than Evolution does.

Say WHAT?!? Please support this amazing statement. We'll wait.

Which are no different, fundamentally, than the evolution story, which is just as unsupported by the facts.

ROFL! Okay, feel free to support *this* one was well. How did you ever arrive at the ludicrous conclusion that evolution is "just as unsupported by the facts"?

Be sure to explain how, exactly, the massive DNA evidence for evolution (along dozens of independently confirming lines) is, you allege, not actually support for evolution. This should be really amusing.

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.

...because...? Funny, it sure *looks* that way to the people who are most intimately acquainted with the physical evidence -- over 99% of biologists accept the validity of evolution, based on the evidence.

Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

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.

Exactly so, just as the fact that science cannot prove the existence of unicorns doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

206 posted on 09/26/2005 7:27:46 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: DARCPRYNCE
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago

Wow, what a bald-faced lie. Birds are a "major animal group", and they didn't appear before 150 million years ago. Nor did they appear "fully formed" at that time.

Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

And no, dishonestly calling phylum-level taxa "the major animal groups" doesn't fix your lie either, because first, they are not equivalent as you dishonestly (cluelessly?) claim, and second, they hardly appeared "fully formed". Compared to today's "major animal groups", they appear extremely "incompletely formed" -- the earliest verte