Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1131 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> 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.
Simply read "Origin of Species". If Darwin had the wealth of information we
have today, he'd no doubt modify his theories, but it's the best starting
point. The whole point of sexual reproduction is gene mixing as an aid to
rapid evolution.
>
> The more we learn about biology, the more absurd Darwinism appears.
Modern genetics finds its basis in Darwin's work, so the reverse is true.
> It is under attack by both Christians and non-Christians. Below are
> a few fundamental points against Darwinism that none of its supporters
> has yet been able to successfully refute...
It is primarily under attack by fundamentalist Protestants in the United
States (and not outside of there). I admit that I have no idea how
non-christian religions view science.
>
> - The fossil record does not support evolution.
It absolutely does. All current species do no exist throughout the fossil
record, and if they haven't evolved, then they should be there.
>
> - "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. (How do we know that
> the fittest species survived? Because they survived.)
Those with traits that help it survive (huge claws, camofluage,
night-vision, high birth rate, etc.) live to pass on their genes to the next
generation. It's pretty darn simple.
>
> - There is no evidence of a common ancestor of all life on earth.
All you need to do is find a time period when only one form of life existed
and viola! Of course, maybe life evolved in a few different pools that
didn't mix. It's a logical end to have a common ancestor, but it isn't
truly necessary.
>
> - 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.
I take it that mathmeticians have proved such, then, and that information
has appeared in scientific journals. I have never seen such myself.
>
> - Evolution is not "falsifiable." A theory that cannot be proved wrong
> is not a theory. (A theory that explains everything explains nothing.)
You say the fossil record does not support evolution: that would falsify it.
You even use that claim in an attempt to falsify it - you are in essense
refuting the "evolution is not falsifiable" yourself.
>
> I think this fifth point has been discussed some here already - feel free
> to ignore it and try the other four. :-)
>
> 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?) "Writers of
> textbooks commonly used in high schools have resorted to outright
> falsehoods to obscure the crisis in Darwinism." Some examples:
Evolution IS fact. It is not in dispute in the scientific community. All
the dynamics and specifics are in a state of flux, on the other hand.
>
> - 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.
Didn't know "volcanic" was a gas. Which gases did these volcanoes spew?
Were any gases present already?
>
> - The similar embryos depicted to "prove" common ancestry were
> faked over a century ago, a fact known to Darwinist for decades.
Miracle cures are faked all the time - does that prove there is no God? Of
course there are fakes, they prove nothing either way.
>
> - The "Tree of Life" depicted to prove common ancestry has been
> disproved by molecular biology.
Molecular biology is modifying the "tree of life", but that's it.
Neanderthals really do appear to be a dead end, for example. Many
anthropologists felt they were really Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis before
this information, but their genetic line doesn't seem to carry into modern man.
>
> - The photographs of peppered moths used to "prove" natural
> selection were faked.
No idea. It wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.
>
> - 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.
This sounds more like Lemarkian evolution than Darwinism. It's been a long
time since I read "Origin of Species" so I'm not sure what you are refering to.
>
> There's more falsified evidence and fundamental problems, but I'll
> stop with those few examples and get back to David's morality. 8-)
>
> SRC
Bring it on!
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
