Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:50:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1159 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > There is a wealth of scientific evidence that supports the current
> > theory of evolution.
>
> I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting
> the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting
> to answer any of the points raised below before you do so though.
First things first. The basics. Humans exist now. There's no record of
humans existing over X million years ago. (No, I'm not a natural historian,
I don't know the dates). There are records of species that aren't alive
today. Like trilobites (or however you spell it). And most of these
creatures have a 'span' of time wherein they were found.
Assumption based on observation:
- Life comes from life. Life does not come from 'non-life'. Obviously,
perhaps you'd disagree, saying that life can come from God instantly,
without some living being creating it (apart from God, if you call him
'alive'-- dunno if I would... but that's another argument)
Canundrum:
How did humans come into existance? (or any other life form of which we can
find no history of beyond a certain point)
Proposition 1:
Humans came to Earth from somewhere else, and have always existed somewhere
else.
Problems with proposition #1:
It seems unlikely, based on what we know about 'somewhere else', and
travelling to any such 'place'. Modes of safe transportation would have to
be big and bulky, and would have to allow humans to survive the journey. And
given that we have never seen such a natural occurring phenomenon that would
allow for this, and our 'intelligence' is the only thing that appears to
make such a thing plausible, one must guess that if this was true, some
intelligent source was behind it. We've seen no evidence of that. And
motivation of such intelligence is something else we can't fathom. Also, it
would have to account for all OTHER types of creatures on Earth. In short,
this theory sounds far fetched, unlikely, and has even remotely to show
evidence supporting the theory.
Proposition 2:
Human beings 'popped' into existence miraculously, via God or pure 'luck'.
Problems with proposition #2:
It violates our assumption that life comes only from other life, but
otherwise, is a lot like proposition #1. There isn't any evidence to support
the theory, nor does it seem particularly likely. It seems far fetched.
Proposition 3:
Some previous creature gave birth to humans, which in turn propogated over
the earth.
At first instinct, this seems similarly far fetched. Could a fox give birth
to a human? Or a stegosaurus maybe? Nah. BUT, the idea of a fox giving birth
to a new fox with no tail, or less fur, or a fox with more toes, longer
claws, bigger teeth, etc, all seem pretty likely. And maybe as time goes on,
the species 'develops' in steps, until we get a new species. Heck, we've
seen evidence in humans of wierd mutations, and even different 'varieties'
of humans all across the planet. Look at Asians vs. Indians vs. Europeans
vs. Native Americans vs. Blacks vs. Arabs, etc, etc. Obviously, humans all
'developed' with respect to region, even by the creationist theory (unless
God created these 'varieties' of humans at some later date)
Anyway, other than evidence to back it up (other than the results by which
the theory has been made upon), this seems like a plausible theory. Just in
need of evidence. That's the tough part. And I don't deny that there isn't
enough evidence to say assuredly that evolution is THE way it happened, but
I WILL say that more evidence has been shown in favor of evolution than in
other theories, and probably most importantly for me, it makes much more
sense than the other two proposals.
> The more we learn about biology, the more absurd Darwinism appears.
Really? Didn't know that...
> It is under attack by both Christians and non-Christians.
Definitely true. It is the nature of science to constantly be under attack,
becuase in the world of science, it IS survival of the fittest. Only the
strongest theories survive and give way to new theories. If a theory is
disproven, it can't give birth to theories based on it :)
> Below are
> a few fundamental points against Darwinism that none of its supporters
> has yet been able to successfully refute...
>
> - The fossil record does not support evolution.
In what way, exactly? I'm not an archaelogist, but I'm not sure what you're
getting at... If you're referring to the lack of 'medium-necked-giraffes'
and such, then you're actually mistaken insofaras there have been
refutations and explanations for such a lack. If you're referring to
something else, please expound...
> - "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. (How do we know that
> the fittest species survived? Because they survived.)
Well, we'd know if we knew more about the situations involved. Basically we
don't have enough evidence to support the theory yet, but provided the
evidence, we could prove it. If we found 1,000,000 fossils of various
species for every YEAR of history, and were capable of examining their
fossils for health, cause of death, etc, we could find out with more surity
if a species was dying for specific reasons (that they hadn't been before),
while other species were living on without common gravity of these problems.
Take mammals surviving while dinos died out-- mammals were small and only
needed very small caches of food to continue, while dinos needed vast
amounts of food to survive. If we could know the availability of food
(roughly), and that dinos were all starving right after an astral collision,
while mammals weren't starving in comparable quantity, that'd be pretty good
evidence to support survival of the fittest. But that's just an example, and
we don't have that evidence. It's currently a theory that's un-backed. BUT,
we also haven't seen evidence to the contrary, so it still holds as a theory.
> - There is no evidence of a common ancestor of all life on earth.
Nor is there really expected to be, I think. I would imagine that any common
anscestor would be both difficult to find, and unlikely to be well
preserved. But then again, I'm an amateur. I don't know at all on this
issue. But even so, this is merely another lack of evidence, not evidence
contrary to the theory. AND, I might add, if evidence WERE found, it would
support the theory, as opposed to creationism, which would appear to have
little or no evidence that COULD support the theory, other than the
ridiculously extraordinary, which (as I imply) is unlikely to be found.
> - Biology is incredibly more complex than Darwin knew, and random
> variation is mathematically insufficient to explain the development
> of such systems as DNA and proteins.
Oh? Go study fractals. They're wicked cool. And not random! Although on the
surface, they may appear so. And when ridiculously complex, they are nearly
(if not) impossible to predict. But they aren't random. I expect (although
I'm no biologist) that chaos theory very sufficiently covers the development
of such systems. Really. If you haven't already, check out _Chaos_ by James
Gleick. It really gives some amazing stories and applications of things like
complex systems, although it doesn't really go in depth in any particular area.
> - Evolution is not "falsifiable." A theory that cannot be proved wrong
> is not a theory. (A theory that explains everything explains nothing.)
Sure it is. It would be falsified if:
- mutations didn't happen in births
- ALL species of life eventually were found in past fossil records
- 'somehow' it was shown as to where a species 'appeared' from other than a
pre-existing life form
- a new, complex species of life 'appeared' on Earth by natural means
(although this wouldn't *invalidate* the theory-- just show other theories
would be a lot more likely)
There's probably more... But there's some...
> Although it is a "Swiss -cheese" theory, it's taught in our schools as
> "fact" (I guess it evolved from a theory to a fact?)
True. And although I don't mind because I'm on the side of evolutionary
theory, I do see the problem with that, like teaching ANY theory. Although,
really, I don't see anything 'better' to teach. Teaching creationism
(although still a 'plausible' theory) associates itself with the
Jewish/Christian bible, and instantly gets into a religious debate in
schools, where evolutionary theory doesn't get into inter-religious
conflicts. Just science-religious conflicts.
> "Writers of
> textbooks commonly used in high schools have resorted to outright
> falsehoods to obscure the crisis in Darwinism." Some examples:
Out of curiosity, where did this quote come from? Anywhere I could easily
read? (I.E. I'll probably read it if it's available online or in an email,
but probably not if I have to go to a few libraries to find the book and the
exact passage)
> - The "life-in-a-test-tube" experiment ignores that the earth's early
> atmosphere would theoretically have contained gases that were not
> hydrogen-rich but volcanic.
I can't really comment here, but what's the "life-in-a-test-tube" theory?
I'd comment further on this (About atmosphere questions) but they're
irrelevant without knowing what the "life-in-a-test-tube" theory is...
> - The similar embryos depicted to "prove" common ancestry were
> faked over a century ago, a fact known to Darwinist for decades.
>
> - The photographs of peppered moths used to "prove" natural
> selection were faked.
Well, these don't really matter, really-- if I quoted a fake experiment in
which I 'proved' that water boils at 100 degrees celcius, that wouldn't
disprove the theory...
> - The "Tree of Life" depicted to prove common ancestry has been
> disproved by molecular biology.
Hmm... either I don't know what "Tree of Life" you're talking about, or I
don't know how such a thing was disproved by molecular biology... I think
you'll have to be more specific (or provide some concrete references for
such statements), cause I don't know how to dispute what I know nothing about...
> - Photographs of increased beak size in Darwin's finches (they
> increase in times of drought) used to "prove" natural selection neglect
> to mention that the beaks return to normal when the droughts end.
Actually-- doesn't this prove natural selection all the more? That when the
birds longer beaks weren't needed (that they might have been an obstruction
or somehow detrimental), they went back to normal? Isn't it the theory that
PERMANENT changes in the environment would result in PERMANENT changes in
the species? Actually, doesn't it just say that the species evolves ALONG
WITH changes in the environment, because of increased ability for survival?
> There's more falsified evidence and fundamental problems, but I'll
> stop with those few examples and get back to David's morality. 8-)
Actually, feel free :) Yesterday I was kinda wondering how we got onto this
topic to begin with since my theory in no way is based on Darwin's
evolutionary theory as it applies to species, but instead on the concept of
evolution as it applies to human psyche. I expect that your real problem
with my theory is that you don't think morality changes at all-- neither
from time to time in a person, time to time in a society, or from person to
person. I expect that you think that morality has permanetly been fixed, and
that it is only our interpretation of morality that has changed. You'll
probably hold that our interpretation has improved over time (with respect
to slavery and such), and has gotten closer to the 'true' morality, which
can be found in the Bible. Hence, I expect my real quest will be to show you
that two different moral codes are both valid. And as far as my theory goes,
you'll disagree with me insofar as the development of morality in
individuals, because you'll hold that such a thing isn't actually MORALITY,
but only our concept of it. Hence, just as our concept of mathematics
changes, mathematics itself does not. I'll just disagree and say that
morality is based on individual psyche and is not measurable in such
absolute terms... But I'll be happy to go on debating the specifics there... :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I was being brief, generalizing and sarcastic - I'll be more specific. (...) I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting to answer any of the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
