Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 2012 | Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:41 AM PDT by fishtank

The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many transitional forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct kinds of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. For example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true vertical evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new basic kind.

Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, acknowledged:

It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even evolutionist Ernst Mayr, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who alleged that evolution was a “simple fact,” nevertheless agreed that it was a “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion…it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.1

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct kind to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils—after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.1

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates—the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, researcher Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concluded:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.3

Being committed to total evolution as he was, Orgel could not accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculated that RNA may have come first, but then he still had to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear….investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.3

Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.4

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its hard parts on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate—that is, the first fish—with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.5

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist Niles Eldredge, acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations….6

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of organisms that didn’t change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups….Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner—new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.7

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.8

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either because it contradicts fossil evidence. Anthropologist Roger Lewin notes:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed….The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.9

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.10

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

These negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any vertical changes in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

References

Schwartz, J. 1999. Sudden Origins. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 300. Mayr, E. 2000. Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought. Scientific American. 283 (1): 83. Orgel, L. 1994. The Origin of Life on the Earth. Scientific American. 271 (4): 78. Gould, S. 1999. The Evolution of Life. Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, Schopf, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 9. Long, J. 1995. The Rise of Fishes. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 30. Eldredge, N. 1998. The Pattern of Evolution. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 157. Shubin, N. 1998. Evolutionary Cut and Paste. Nature. 349: 12. Tudge, C. 1995. Human Origins Revisited. New Scientist. 146: 24. Lewin, R. 1998. Family Feud. New Scientist. 157: 39. Takahata, N. 1995. Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 26: 343. Adapted from Dr. Morris’ article “The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part 1” in the December 2000 issue of Acts & Facts. This article is available on icr.org.

* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Morris, H. M. 2012. The Scientific Case Against Evolution. Acts & Facts. 41 (10): 4-5.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Good stuff here.
1 posted on 10/01/2012 8:26:48 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Image from article online.

2 posted on 10/01/2012 8:27:38 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Baloney


3 posted on 10/01/2012 8:30:39 AM PDT by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Good job. Start a fight for no reason. Good boy.


4 posted on 10/01/2012 8:31:28 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

One of the problems with the “fossil record” is the assumption of what it actually is.

If you assume that it corresponds to long periods of time, you’ll interpret it one way,
and if you assume “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth” by a catastropic event, over a period of just a few years,
you’ll interpret it another way.


5 posted on 10/01/2012 8:33:58 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Its so much more in vogue to deny creatonism — this way we do not have to bother ourselves by contemplating the existence of a Being greater than us.

This also means that we do not have to believe in an absolute truth and can accept any erroneous and fanciful theory and concentrate more on me, me, me.


6 posted on 10/01/2012 8:44:45 AM PDT by 353FMG (The US Constitution is only as effective as those who enforce it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I’ve yet to see a scientific argument against evolution that didn’t really boil down to “we don’t yet know.” Then again, I’ve yet to see an evolutionist who could bring himself to admit that there’s a lot we don’t yet know. In exchange after exchange, debate after debate, the evolutionists invariably fall back to ad hominid (hee hee) attacks and appeals to authority. They would be more rhetorically effective if they would occasionally admit they don’t know everything. Not holding my breath on that.


7 posted on 10/01/2012 8:46:04 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Like in quantum mechanics, there must be distinct states that life can attain, called species. There are no transitional states.

I believe in the Prometheus (movie) theory of creation- that a superior HUMAN life created the precursors of all life up until humanity was reconstituted. Once you have humans, you will very soon have the knowledge of life and therefore any sort of evolution will be controlled by humans. God was truly created in our image and we will soon know this. Very soon we will be in complete control over the life forms on this planet, so it would be impossible for others to emerge dominant.


8 posted on 10/01/2012 8:49:28 AM PDT by jimmygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Creationism was invented by people with a peculiar interpretation of Genesis with faith is so brittle it can’t admit any other interpretation.


9 posted on 10/01/2012 8:50:39 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

“...the evolutionists invariably fall back to ad hominid (hee hee) attacks...”

You cracked me up.


10 posted on 10/01/2012 8:52:29 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Darwin’s theory summed up.... some birds evolved longer beaks than other based on environmental factors and geography, this caused mutation on its own. So then lets postulate that there is no God, it was all random chance based on mutations driven by no specific reason or causality. That we must suspend some Laws of Physics to accommodate this Philosophy which was first proposed by a man who early in his career still believed in bloodletting as real medicine. That an astronomical series of events happened, that algae evolved into the Ameoba, the Amoeba evolved into some for of sponge, the sponge avolved into palnkton, plankton to trilobyte, trilobyte to fish, fish to salamander, salamander to lizard, lizard to bird or mammal, to monkey, than ape, than primitive man then us...Here is an illustration of how improbable we evolved from Algae....1 in 153 quadrillion based on the human genome. Now that is something I could get behind../snark. Or you can believe the truth, which was an intelligent creator STARTED the universe and designed it all and us in his own image. Which is a 1 to 1 probability and is consistent with logic and reason.

Evolutionist are a sick deluded bunch and dangerous. I don't want anyone divorced this much from reason and logic doing any teaching or leading. We are seeing the fruits of this now in a avowed evolutionist President.

11 posted on 10/01/2012 8:56:39 AM PDT by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Evolution Is Not Happening Now

Evolution Of Higher, More Complex Life Forms Has Not Been Observed To Be Happening Now


12 posted on 10/01/2012 9:02:27 AM PDT by Iron Munro (US Embassies Come and Go But An Obama Apology Lasts Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Our chickens peck at paint dots. They peck and peck and peck. They believe the dots are food. They are not rational, they just believe. It’s fun to watch them for a few moments, then it just gets sad. Buy hey, they are for laying eggs, not debating finer points of logic.


13 posted on 10/01/2012 9:05:28 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Creationism is the only answer


14 posted on 10/01/2012 9:05:58 AM PDT by small business owner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01

What gets me is the snarky “you’re anti-science” argument that leftists have been trying to use to shut up those who oppose them.

Science involves repeatability, the ability to conduct a controlled experiment, etc.

It’s a little hard to repeat a controlled experiment on the origins of the universe.


15 posted on 10/01/2012 9:11:07 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: small business owner
If the question is how do we defend our peculiar (and relatively new ) interpretation of Genisis.

Creationism is the only answer

16 posted on 10/01/2012 9:11:26 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
Our chickens peck at paint dots. They peck and peck and peck. They believe the dots are food. They are not rational, they just believe. It’s fun to watch them for a few moments, then it just gets sad. Buy hey, they are for laying eggs, not debating finer points of logic.

That was funny!
17 posted on 10/01/2012 9:11:40 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new basic kind.”

Then one must use a different definition of a what constitutes a “species”, say a a slight variation in color or mating habits. There, now new “species” can be found almost at will.


18 posted on 10/01/2012 9:12:21 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

What gets me is the snarky label “leftist” some people use on people who disagree with them.


19 posted on 10/01/2012 9:12:37 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Henry M. Morris has a BS degree in civil engineering, and MS/Ph.D degrees in hydraulic enginnering. He has no formal degree or training in biology, palentology, or any other science that studies the theory of evolution. His opinions are not based upon science, but upon faith.


20 posted on 10/01/2012 9:18:51 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

bookmark


21 posted on 10/01/2012 9:22:26 AM PDT by corlorde (forWARD of the state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve

Wow. Beautifully stated. Summarizes the creationist mindset perfectly.


22 posted on 10/01/2012 9:22:59 AM PDT by ladyrustic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Creationist Ping!


23 posted on 10/01/2012 9:44:33 AM PDT by 2nd Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

You are right F.T.- If evolution is settled science why is there so much hate and anger against any one who brings up simple questions.-A film about scientists who have been driven out of colleges for simply having a different view is called...”Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”... by Ben Stein. This is a well made film discussing the harrassment of those who dare question the left’s new religion of Darwin... I recommend it...

http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-No-Intelligence-Allowed/dp/B0032CRODE


24 posted on 10/01/2012 9:54:21 AM PDT by djone ( ......, fire them in Nov..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I have known colleagues in major universities of high repute as research centers, fully accredited professors, peer review and published, that would not accept the evolutionary model simply on the basis of utter improbability. Of course they did not publicize their unacceptable doubts, since the gateway to tenure in all such educational institutions is controlled by evolutionists.
I would find most interesting an explanation as to the process that produced the first double helix, so essential to so many of the signature processes of the phenomenon called “life.”


25 posted on 10/01/2012 9:59:11 AM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djone
Also, check out Buried Alive.

There is quite a bit unsettled about fossil and I don't trust anyone who claims they are evidence for evolution.

26 posted on 10/01/2012 10:00:03 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ladyrustic

The big difference between Creationist and Evolutionist is that the Creationist will admit his belief in religion. The evolutionist will not admit that evolution is their religion.


27 posted on 10/01/2012 10:00:38 AM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

this stuff appears whenever somone wantst to make FR look like a kook site.

we have an election starting NEXT WEEK, early voting in Ohio.

This can wait for November 7.


28 posted on 10/01/2012 10:09:17 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elsiejay

YES E.J.—”on the basis of utter improbability.”.....I’m told that anything greater than 1 to the 10th power squared is impossible. - so evolution is is 1 to the 20 billion squared...too big an improbability to ignore-—


29 posted on 10/01/2012 10:09:52 AM PDT by djone ( ......, fire them in Nov..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Cherry-picked facts and quotes, strung together with logical fallacies is not “science”.


30 posted on 10/01/2012 10:15:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djone

But evolutionists will either ignore those facts or discount them because “time” is their “allie”. I have come to the conclusion that evolution is nothing more than abiogenesis in new clothes. Creation makes more sense, and the only way to explain the cambrian explosion.


31 posted on 10/01/2012 10:22:50 AM PDT by coincheck (Time is Short, Salvation is for Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Henry M. Morris has a BS degree in civil engineering, and MS/Ph.D degrees in hydraulic enginnering. He has no formal degree or training in biology, palentology, or any other science that studies the theory of evolution. His opinions are not based upon science, but upon faith.

He has an engineering degree, therefore he is not a scientist? I should think that someone trained in an applied science with an advanced degree would possess a sufficient understanding of the scientific method to evaluate a theory (or rather an "undemonstrated hypothesis").

At the very least he has researched the history of evolution and evolutionists in their quest to demonstrate the validity of their theory. It is clear that these evolutionists do not base their positions "on science, but upon faith" in the correctness of the theory, in spite of the lack of evidence to support it. Look who is exercising "faith".

32 posted on 10/01/2012 10:23:49 AM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01

“some birds evolved longer beaks than other based on environmental factors and geography,”

Agree with your final point, but I will point out that this is adaptation, not a supposed evolutionary process.


33 posted on 10/01/2012 10:31:39 AM PDT by Bruinator ("For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things an atheistic question")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
He has an engineering degree, therefore he is not a scientist?

Evolutionists, like Global Warmists, define "scientist" to exclude anyone that doesn't agree.

34 posted on 10/01/2012 11:07:49 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: coincheck

“time” is not their “ally”, it is their magic fairy dust.


35 posted on 10/01/2012 11:10:17 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

bfl


36 posted on 10/01/2012 11:22:56 AM PDT by Democrat_media (China is destroying all our jobs and manufacturing ability. China makes everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Why don’t you ping JR if you think that he wants FR to be an anti-creation, Darwinist site?


37 posted on 10/01/2012 12:43:14 PM PDT by ansel12 (exact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I once had a mathematics professor from a highly respected university tell me that our universe had to exist as it is at some point because of an infinite amount of time. When I asked him what he meant by “time” he rolled his eyes at me, and said something about there having to be time “before the Big Bang”. I don’t think his department is in the same frame of reference as the physics department at that school.


38 posted on 10/01/2012 2:52:19 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting; Labyrinthos

He was the Civil Engineering department head at Virginia Tech for many years, as well.

No slouch.

An engineer is trained to spot fallacies, inconsistencies, and illogical thinking.

The world is waking up to the fact that ‘evolution’ is about as ‘scientific’ as “global warming”.


39 posted on 10/01/2012 3:02:56 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Morris, H. M. 2012. The Scientific Case Against Evolution. Acts & Facts. 41 (10): 4-5.

If Henry Morris died in 2006, when was this article written? The latest reference is 2000. Telling people to cite this article as being written in 2012 is dishonest.

40 posted on 10/01/2012 3:19:21 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
“time” is not their “ally”, it is their magic fairy dust.

I've always thought one of the apparent assumptions of the TOE which is highly suspect is that favorable mutation is permanent. Just because a mutation may come along that increases a particular species' likelihood of survival, who's to say that individual wouldn't be killed in some other way? A favorable mutation would not only have to occur, after countless millennia of time, but its carrier would have to survive and reproduce to pass it along!

The silly thought exercise of the million monkeys with a million typewriters producing all the works of Shakespeare is full of assumptions like that:

1) Would a monkey try to type on a typewriter? Who's to say it wouldn't use the typewriter as a stool or a toilet? For each monkey that doesn't use the typewriter as intended, the condition, sooner or later, becomes irreversible.

2) If a monkey did play with a typewriter, instead of actually or effectively ignoring it, who's to say it wouldn't break the typewriter? That condition is irreversible.

3) If the monkey does manage to press some keys on the typewriter, what does it type on? Is it assumed that there is an endless supply of correctly loaded typing paper? ...ribbon? Convenient and powerful assumption, that.

4) Why would a monkey continue to use the typewriter, assuming the first three obstacles are overcome? What causes the experiment to continue? Another assumption?

5) Both the monkey and the typewriter have limited life spans. You only get a finite amount of time for Shakespeare to appear before everyone and everything is dead!

Now, many people would just roll their eyes and explain that I'm not getting it. But that's exactly the point! When you grant an easy out on the ugly details, nearly any absurd idea can "pass!"

All these issues have analogs in relation to TOE which, as far as I know, are not addressed by adherents. Evolution would have to work in the messy, hostile, random Real World. Favorable mutation? Yay! ...oops, dinosaur stepped on it. Start over.

When you factor in the inconvenient realities, I believe even the Magic Fairy Dust isn't powerful enough to bring the dead theory to life.

41 posted on 10/01/2012 3:24:29 PM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pburgh01
No that's not Darwin what you described is what the French naturalist Lamark proposed.
42 posted on 10/01/2012 3:32:17 PM PDT by Reily (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
I’ve yet to see an evolutionist who could bring himself to admit that there’s a lot we don’t yet know.

There's a lot we don't yet know. Happy now?

43 posted on 10/01/2012 6:03:49 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

I’ll let you know when I get over the shock! I feel like I should make a wish or something.


44 posted on 10/01/2012 7:08:03 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Must be getting close to the next freepathon


45 posted on 10/01/2012 7:21:17 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Why don’t you ping JR if you think that he wants FR to be an anti-creation, Darwinist site?

Evolution may disprove particular creation myths if they are taken literally, but it doesn't disprove creation in general. It does describe how creation happened for people who choose not to be ignorant.

46 posted on 10/01/2012 8:36:01 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; longtermmemmory

True, and I do know that there is no problem with us discussing it here.

This is a pro-God site.


47 posted on 10/01/2012 8:50:30 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Please tell what you know of science.

That, BTW, is a perfect description of the theory of evolution.


48 posted on 10/03/2012 11:37:34 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Please tell what you know of science.

To what end do I dedicate a substantial investment in time?

That, BTW, is a perfect description of the theory of evolution.

Your opinion is noted, and held for reference in evaluating future communications.

49 posted on 10/03/2012 11:49:44 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

To what end do I dedicate a substantial investment in time?
It will make you look like you might know what you’re talking about, at least. As it stands, all I see is an “attack dog”.

Your opinion is noted, and held for reference in evaluating future communications
Not a shred of humility in you, eh?

Your opinion is also noted.
50 posted on 10/03/2012 12:09:13 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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