The Problem With Evolution

ChronWatch ^ | 09/25/05 | Edward L. Daley

[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.

[general_re]

Attacking a persons character is always a good way to prove your point and win an argument.

LOL. I just asked a question. Interesting that you went there, though - if I were into character assessments, that'd be gold, without a doubt.

[carumba]

1.) M (matter) + T (time) + E (energy) = ABIOGENESIS (the development of living organisms from nonliving matter)

Only the most rabid, frenzied, fevered intellect would wonder if this is false. Anyone who doubts the extrapolations and inferred conclusions of the intellectual giants of science is to be ridiculed as a barefoot bumpkin. To resist the smooth reasoning and self congratulatory smugness of the intelligentsia is a fools errand. The editors of all the important journals can safely dismiss your rambling as loony speculations reminiscent of pre-Darwin churchmen. To persist in a belief in a Creator, Intelligent Designer (Architect of the Universe), Father in Heaven is to be dismissed as someone worthy of consideration. Anyone who holds such a backwards opinion should not be considered for any position in the highly praised, often quoted, obviously correct, speculative areas that contribute to the education of the unwashed masses in the area of biology.

[Mylo]

Sorry bud, but Hitler (a self described Catholic) sold the Holocaust to the German people (mostly Lutheran and Catholic)as revenge for the killing of Christ.

Communists believed in Lamarkian evolution (Lysenkoism) that is as unsupported as a scientific theory as Communism is unsupported as an economic theory.

Eugenics is anti-evolutionary as it assumes that humans and artificial selection know more than natural selection. Eugenics would try to "breed out" or eliminate sickle cell anemia genes, a really BAD MOVE where malaria is endemic and the Sickle cell anemia gene MUTATION leads to NATURAL SELECTION whereby a high percentage of the population is heterozygous for the mutant allele and therefore malaria resistant.

[general_re]

FR says you signed up on the date show above. Is that incorrect?

[Mylo]

100 million -vs- over a billion. Not exactly showing your knowledge of history with that one.

And Communists were as blinded by their ideology into not believing in Darwinian evolution (they liked Lamarkian evolution as put forth by Lysenko) or genes or DNA as Creationists are into thinking that God made a universe that "lies" with long billion light year trails of light in a 6,000 year old universe.

[bigmac0707]

AZConservative,

Can you unquestionably refute the fact that my kitchen microwave created the entire universe 2 minutes ago from nothing, and implanted false memories and fossils?

[Rippin]

Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?
_____________________________________

Probably about 50 million in the 20th century alone.

[metmom]

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of very early atmospheric and oceanic conditions. It seems that there is some disagreement on the oxygen content of the atmosphere and the gravitatioal attraction. From what I've read on these threads lately there are fossils that support both the oxygen rich and oxygen poor atmosphere. There was also the discussion about a flying creature that would have required a denser atmosphere to fly which would have required a stronger gravitational attraction. Aren't there also dinosaurs which would have required less graviation to survive; for example: for the blood to flow up their necks?

[PatrickHenry]

You might be interested in this.

Thanks.

[moog]

Hey!!! My microwave just changed my MAC and Cheese to a black, smoldering orb! I'm sure it could create things too!

[wallcrawlr]

Are you having a meltdown?
Maybe take a break and go for a walk.

[DARCPRYNCE]

Perhaps... either that or I signed up years ago, then forgot all about the place. Either way, I've been posting here regularly for the past several months.

[Mylo]

There are plenty of Biologists who believe in a creator, an architect of the universe, and/or an intelligent designer. They just won't willfully blind themselves to the mechanism whereby genetic diversity is generated (mutation) and how genetic similarity is conserved or beneficial traits are more likely to be passed on(selection).

Saying that the two are incompatible is the primary intellectual fallacy of Creationists.

[moog]

I do believe that different conditions have existed at different times throughout the earth's history. And some of that is confirmed by geological processes. BUT again, things have been different at different times. We just don't know EXACTLY when. With all sorts of flying things now, I don't know about the flying stuff.

[ClearCase_guy]

So your problem with science is that it takes into account new evidence as it becomes available?

That greatly glosses over what evolutionists do.

The conclusion comes first: All life evolved from a common ancestor.

This conclusion is never questioned. That would be sacrilege.

New evidence is found, scientists see that their theory on how evolution "must have worked" is incorrect, so they alter their theory and say evolution "must have worked this way". But then new evidence is found and so the scientists say "Ooops. I guess evolution worked THIS way".

And they say "that's what a good scientist does, we take into account new evidence as it becomes available." I say it's BS. A good scientist checks his premise once in a while. Your premise is your conclusion. And your conclusion is your premise. It's rotten science.

[bigmac0707]

LOL!

[ZULU]

Talk about whipping a dead horse.

This garbage goes on and on ad infinitum. Reading this continuing collection of drivel and misguided nonesense gives me mental indigestion.

Theologians shouldn't be teaching biology.

Biologists shouldn't be teaching theology.

Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in a divine being or the Biblical rendition of creation, unless you are an atheist out to disprove religion, or a religious nut with an ayatollahesque interpretation of scripture.

I submit that society could do better with either of the two last mentioned groups of people who continue to create an issue where there is none and contribute nothing worthwhile to the study of religion or biology.

Evolution rationally explains the development of life on earth. No serious biologist can possibly ignore it.

Evolution has nothing to do with removing the Hand of the Divine Creator from the laws by which it functions.

[RogueIsland]

How many wars were started over Scientific interpretation?

Well, there was the Suez Neutrino Conflict of '72, and of course the Top/Truth Quark Naming Schism which resulted in much bloodshed.

And of course, the Dark Matter Wars smolder even today among the Physics Tribes of Borneo.

[Ace of Spades]

No different fromt he American Indian stories about creation, dealing with Raven laying an egg in the river of life, and turtle comes along and puts the egg on his back, and the egg becomes the universe or some such. Equally nonsense.

Yes, those silly Indians. Why, they should believe that an invisible man in the sky magically created everything in six days. Because, you know, that makes so much more sense.

[DARCPRYNCE]

"No matter how many times you point out to cretards that they can't learn real science by reading a bible tract, they still insist that they know, scientifically, that one of the most well-understood and established theories in science is somehow "in controversy" because their pathetic religious feelings requires them to believe that fact."

You might want to actually take the time to read my article before you suggest that criticising evolution theory makes a person religious. In the first place, Intelligent Design theory has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Secondly, Evolution theory, no matter how well understood you may think it is - and it isn't very well understood by most people - or how well established in the scientific community, it's still NOT FACT, and anyone who suggests otherwise, is an imbecile.