The Theory of Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Philosopher
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 1003

    The Theory of Evolution

    44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults

    By Michael Snyder, on January 8th, 2014

    The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true.* Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith.* When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank.* When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them.* This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses.* If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution.* Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it.* Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”).* But is what our priest class telling us actually true?* When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true.* And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized.* Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community.* They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale.* They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate.* Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.

    In this day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves.* Don’t let me tell you what to think, and don’t let anyone else tell you what to think either.* Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.* The following are 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults…

    #1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

    #2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…

    “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

    #3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…

    “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

    #4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

    “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

    #5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

    “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

    #6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.* But instead there are none.

    #7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

    #8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

    #9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…
    “It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

    #10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.* In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.* The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

    #11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

    #12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…

    “Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

    #13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves.* It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

    #14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever.* But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones.* This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…

    It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

    In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

    #15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.* The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

    Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

    Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without
    error.

    “Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!
    “To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

    “It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

    #16 How did life learn to reproduce itself?* This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

    #17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth.* Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago.* It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

    #18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago.* But it still exists today.* So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?

    #19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer.* This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff.* The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex.* The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

    #20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

    “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.”

    #21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

    #22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

    #23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

    #24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…
    “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

    #25 Apes and humans are very different genetically.* As DarwinConspiracy.com explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

    #26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal?* No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information.* One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…

    “The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

    #27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers.* This simply is not true at all…
    The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

    #28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly.* This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

    #29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them?* The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

    For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

    #30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

    #31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

    #32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

    #33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

    #34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

    #35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

    When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

    Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

    #36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…
    1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
    2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
    3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
    If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

    #37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

    #38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

    #39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves?* The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…
    Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

    #40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were.* They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed.* And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

    #41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you.* Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    #42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

    “Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

    #43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

    “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

    #44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

    For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way.* My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that evolution is true.

    Perhaps you believe that you are up to the challenge.
    Last edited by Philosopher; 10-29-2014, 10:57 AM.
  • Philosopher
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 1003

    #2
    This is another hot topic. What are your thoughts on the science of evolution?

    Comment

    • vicsinad
      Senior Member
      • May 2011
      • 2337

      #3
      I find it cool how you're creating topics I have degrees in. But I doubt you want to discuss the issue or really read what I post...your mind is made up.


      In response to some of the lies and misleading statements in the article you posted:


      #1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
      "At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving."

      Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka "missing links." Scientists know this claim is false.




      Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

      “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
      This definitely shows a lack of understanding of science. Gould is referring to gradualism evolution. It's probably because he is a bigger fan of punctuated equilibrium or macro-mutation. I think all processes have happened, based on the evidence.

      If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.
      This is up there with one of the most idiotic statements I've read about evolution. A complete misunderstanding of genes and how mutations lead to evolution.

      If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

      Again, idiotic. Evolution happens in several ways, not just gradual.


      Realizing this is pointless, I'll just point to an article that speaks fact and addresses the central lies and misrepresentations in your article.

      A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

      The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

      Evolution has never been observed.
      Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
      There are no transitional fossils.
      The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
      Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

      Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.


      "Evolution has never been observed."

      Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

      The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

      Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

      What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


      "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

      This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

      However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

      The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.


      "There are no transitional fossils."

      A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

      To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

      The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

      Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

      "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994


      "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

      There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

      Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

      Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

      (One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)


      "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

      First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

      Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

      Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

      What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.


      Conclusion

      These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

      But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

      Comment

      • vicsinad
        Senior Member
        • May 2011
        • 2337

        #4
        Let's examine Michael Snyder, the author of the article Philosopher posted:

        Michael T. Snyder is a fundamentalist Christian crank who has started numerous blogs as a testament to his raging insane belief that the world is about to end.
        Huh, Philosopher, it seems you're quick to downplay experts who say that doom and gloom from overpopulation and climate change will occur, but not ones who associate end times with Christianity? Interesting. I like the logic.

        He started with The Economic Collapse Blog in 2007, with constant articles stating how the world is going to hell every single day since the meltdown started in 2007.
        Yes, the world has clearly gone to Hell.

        It seems as though Snyder blames the government for every ill in the world, because without it everything would be great.
        Ahh, now I see. Global warming isn't true because it's a conspiracy to create a world government; evolution isn't true because it's a conspiracy to create a world government...I get your drift.

        Like most doom-sayers, it doesn't seem to faze Snyder one bit that every one of his past predictions of economic collapse were dead wrong.
        Yet, Philosopher believes in his ability to be right just enough to post an article by him.

        He also states very clearly, "I am a Christian, but I believe that most of the churches in America have gotten way off track." Snyder has recently posted a statement of faith[1] in which he states that he believes that the Bible is literally true and that Jesus is coming down in person soon to start the end times to punish all the non-believers.[2] After which Jesus will start his thousand year reign over Earth.
        I wonder if he hangs out with Philosopher and Vangelovski? (Unnecessary, but so necessary.)

        The only ones who will survive are the ones believing in the mantra of 3 G's (Gold, Guns, and God). If you don't have enough of the products to survive the shit hitting the fan, you can always click any of the links at the top of the main page to buy it!
        Hehehe...I like it, the 3 G's. Nice. Profitting off of people's religious beliefs and ignorance with regards to science and history. What's new?

        Michael T. Snyder is an American evangelical Christian crank, wannabe conservative politician, hardcore Donald Trump aficionado and far-right conspiracy theorist/QAnon supporter. Snyder has authored numerous blogs as a testament to his raging insane belief that the world is about to end. He started with The Economic Collapse Blog in 2007, with constant fear-mongering articles stating how the world is going to hell every single day since the economic meltdown started in 2007. It seems as though Snyder blames the government for every ill in the world because without it everything would be great.


        I wonder what else is out there about this guy?

        If you're going to dispute evolution, use science to dispute it, not religion and psychological disorders. Am I going too far, or not far enough?

        Comment

        • Philosopher
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 1003

          #5
          Originally posted by vicsinad View Post
          Let's examine Michael Snyder, the author of the article Philosopher posted:

          Huh, Philosopher, it seems you're quick to downplay experts who say that doom and gloom from overpopulation and climate change will occur, but not ones who associate end times with Christianity? Interesting. I like the logic.



          Yes, the world has clearly gone to Hell.



          Ahh, now I see. Global warming isn't true because it's a conspiracy to create a world government; evolution isn't true because it's a conspiracy to create a world government...I get your drift.



          Yet, Philosopher believes in his ability to be right just enough to post an article by him.



          I wonder if he hangs out with Philosopher and Vangelovski? (Unnecessary, but so necessary.)



          Hehehe...I like it, the 3 G's. Nice. Profitting off of people's religious beliefs and ignorance with regards to science and history. What's new?

          Michael T. Snyder is an American evangelical Christian crank, wannabe conservative politician, hardcore Donald Trump aficionado and far-right conspiracy theorist/QAnon supporter. Snyder has authored numerous blogs as a testament to his raging insane belief that the world is about to end. He started with The Economic Collapse Blog in 2007, with constant fear-mongering articles stating how the world is going to hell every single day since the economic meltdown started in 2007. It seems as though Snyder blames the government for every ill in the world because without it everything would be great.


          I wonder what else is out there about this guy?

          If you're going to dispute evolution, use science to dispute it, not religion and psychological disorders. Am I going too far, or not far enough?
          I do not agree with everything Mr. Snyder writes. In fact, I have strong disagreements with him on a number of issues.

          The article was posted to galvanize discussion on this issue. You are free to attack him and it.

          I have noticed that every time some author is referenced or quoted you feel the need to research him and then attack him.

          You are free to do this of course. But I think it preferable if you would dissect his statements (which you did in your earlier post).

          Also, if I may make a suggestion, you should learn to act more civil and present yourself more civil, as your puerile, if not downright obnoxious manners, are evident to all.
          Last edited by Philosopher; 10-29-2014, 06:09 PM.

          Comment

          • Philosopher
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 1003

            #6
            Here is a article by Babu G. Ranganatham

            June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

            The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

            Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

            Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?

            In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

            The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

            Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

            Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

            The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

            Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.

            Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.

            Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

            The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

            However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

            Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

            Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations.

            Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

            Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

            Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

            Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve did possess such genes.

            All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

            Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

            What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

            Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

            Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

            The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.

            It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.

            Comment

            • vicsinad
              Senior Member
              • May 2011
              • 2337

              #7
              Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
              The article was posted to galvanize discussion on this issue.
              I guess you do understand the point of posting topics in a General Discussions Forum. Or should a discussion not be had because the topic of evolution is heavily politicized?

              I have noticed that every time some author is referenced or quoted you feel the need to research him and then attack him.
              Do you have evidence that every time an author is reference or quoted I research him and attack him? I'll admit, I like to research.

              You are free to do this of course. But I think it preferable if you would dissect his statements (which you did in your earlier post).
              People's intentions can be very showing.

              Also, if I may make a suggestion, you should learn to act more civil and present yourself more civil, as your puerile, if not downright obnoxious manners, are evident to all.
              Ahh, lessons on civility. When you make a joke by lumping me with Eco-terrorists, it's a joke. But when I make a joke, it's childish. I believe that's hypocrisy.
              Last edited by vicsinad; 10-29-2014, 04:40 PM.

              Comment

              • Bill77
                Senior Member
                • Oct 2009
                • 4545

                #8
                Originally posted by vicsinad View Post

                If you're going to dispute evolution, use science to dispute it, not religion
                lol

                Ok then, if evolutionists are going to dispute creation, use the Bible to dispute it, not Science........ It's only fair.

                Am I going too far, or not far enough?
                just a little.

                I never understand why evolutionists get so paranoid and turn unsivilised when they get challenged?
                http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873

                Comment

                • vicsinad
                  Senior Member
                  • May 2011
                  • 2337

                  #9
                  Bill, for all the times I have read fundamental Christians on this site becoming much more paranoid and uncivilized than I have when their beliefs are challenged, I have never seen you suggest they were being paranoid or uncivilized. If you have, I apologize. But if you want to talk about being fair...

                  Evolutionists wouldn't attempt to dispute creationists if creationists weren't suggesting they are using science to dispute evolution. That's the problem. Belief in creationism, go ahead. Just don't try to use science to explain it and cry foul when non-creationists refute that science.

                  Comment

                  • Philosopher
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 1003

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Vicsinad
                    I guess you do understand the point of posting topics in a General Discussions Forum. Or should a discussion not be had because the topic of evolution is heavily politicized?
                    I do not consider the discussion of the theory of evolution a politicized subject, at least not in the same sense as gun control and climate change.

                    Originally posted by Vicsinad
                    Do you have evidence that every time an author is reference or quoted I research him and attack him? I'll admit, I like to research
                    Actually I do:

                    John Coleman
                    Ronald Bailey
                    Michael Snyder

                    Originally posted by Vicsinad
                    Ahh, lessons on civility. When you make a joke by lumping me with Eco-terrorists, it's a joke. But when I make a joke, it's childish. I believe that's hypocrisy.
                    Not accurate at all. Your behavior has been anything other than civil.

                    Comment

                    • vicsinad
                      Senior Member
                      • May 2011
                      • 2337

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                      I do not consider the discussion of the theory of evolution a politicized subject, at least not in the same sense as gun control and climate change.



                      Actually I do:

                      John Coleman
                      Ronald Bailey
                      Michael Snyder



                      Not accurate at all. Your behavior has been anything other than civil.
                      Again, I'll ask:

                      Do you have evidence that every time an author is reference or quoted I research him and attack him?

                      Three doesn't cut it.


                      Please describe how my behavior has not been civil. And compare it to your comments in the topic on Climate Change. Thanks.

                      Comment

                      • Philosopher
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 1003

                        #12
                        Originally posted by vicsinad View Post
                        Again, I'll ask:

                        Do you have evidence that every time an author is reference or quoted I research him and attack him?

                        Three doesn't cut it.


                        Please describe how my behavior has not been civil. And compare it to your comments in the topic on Climate Change. Thanks.
                        That attention to detail problem keeps resurfacing. Naturally, the context of my statement was based on our written conversations, viz., the climate thread and now this one. Unless of course you know of another thread we have been engaging in and I have been quoting scholars from?

                        Comment

                        • vicsinad
                          Senior Member
                          • May 2011
                          • 2337

                          #13
                          You claim I have an "attention to detail" problem. It's not true. But you do. Otherwise, you would have a valid response to why you only listed three authors after stating that every time an author is referenced or quoted I attack him. Either you're missing the details of all the instances I attacked authors, or you're not paying attention to the details in your own sentences that you're constructing.

                          However, it was not just the "detail" comments. It includes the eco-terrorist comment. Please compare my comments to your comments and their civility.

                          Comment

                          • Philosopher
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 1003

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Vicsinad
                            You claim I have an "attention to detail" problem. It's not true. But you do. Otherwise, you would have a valid response to why you only listed three authors after stating that every time an author is referenced or quoted I attack him. Either you're missing the details of all the instances I attacked authors, or you're not paying attention to the details in your own sentences that you're constructing.
                            There appears to be a context problem. Not only did you totally ignore my previous post, you also ignored the context of my original statement.

                            Originally posted by Philosopher
                            I do not agree with everything Mr. Snyder writes. In fact, I have strong disagreements with him on a number of issues.

                            The article was posted to galvanize discussion on this issue. You are free to attack him and it.

                            I have noticed that every time some author is referenced or quoted you feel the need to research him and then attack him.
                            The context is clearly pertaining to our recent conversations, unless of course you are naive enough to believe I was referring to your life on this forum.
                            Last edited by Philosopher; 10-29-2014, 06:10 PM.

                            Comment

                            • Vangelovski
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2008
                              • 8531

                              #15
                              Originally posted by vicsinad View Post
                              I find it cool how you're creating topics I have degrees in.
                              Maybe you can actually try to provide a few answers to some burning questions.

                              For evolution to be true, it would require the continuous creation of new genetic information. How is that even possible? How is it possible for new information to just appear?

                              Let me clarify here, I'm not talking about jumbling up existing information, for example (very basic example), ABC = ACB = BCA etc, or the loss of information, for example, ABC = AC. I'm talking about the addition of new information, such as ABC + D. This is what is required for evolution - the addition of new information. For example, without the addition of new genetic information, a creature would not be able to grow an eye where that genetic information did not previously exist.
                              Last edited by Vangelovski; 10-29-2014, 06:37 PM.
                              If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                              The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X