Subject:
|
Re: "Problems" with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:56:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > As Jennifer says - evolution, in the sense of change and development, is
> > > quite apparent - and I would concur. The absurd part is when Darwin or
> > > whomever claims that one species evolved into another, (a lizard grows
> > > wings and becomes a bird, a cat becomes a dog becomes a horse, or
> > > whatever the precise nonsense is) that all living things "just happened"
> > > by chance, that the earth and everything else "evolved" into the amazing
> > > universe we inhabit somehow without God having created it.
>
> > ...[Let's] concentrate on evolutionary biology, my area of expertise.
>
> <snip>
> > 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.
>
> The more we learn about biology, the more absurd Darwinism appears.
The more we learn about biology, the more sophisticated our understanding
becomes. Why don't Creationists say "the more we know about cosmology, the
more absurd Newton's physics appears"?
> 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...
Dave! and Bruce have given most of the answers I would: there's one or two
things I'd like to add.
> - The fossil record does not support evolution.
See Dave!'s post.
> - "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. (How do we know that
> the fittest species survived? Because they survived.)
"Survival of the fittest" is a shorthand way of saying "those organisms
which are best adapted to their environment will produce the most offspring
which are able to reproduce". So we know that the fittest organisms survive
because they have the most grandchildren, not because they live longer.
> - There is no evidence of a common ancestor of all life on earth.
Nucleic Acid, in particular the RNA-amino acid translation code. Find me an
organism without it, and I'll find you a Nobel Prize.
> - 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.
Which is why evolution is such a powerful theory, since it does explain the
development of such systems.
> - Evolution is not "falsifiable." A theory that cannot be proved wrong
> is not a theory. (A theory that explains everything explains nothing.)
>
> 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:
Science textbooks are notorious for their failure to adequately explain the
scientific process. Almost everything that is not empirical data in a
textbook is a theory, but since they are usually universally accepted in the
scientific community, such theories will be presented as facts. That way
noone will question the black magic that keeps their TV working, and we will
continue to control their minds. Bwahahahah!!!
> - 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'm not sure that throwing some more dirt and some hydrogen sulphide into
the mix would change the results. Has anyone done that? As Dave said, "all"
the Miller-Urey experiment proved was that given conditions similar to what
was thought existed on Earth a few billion years ago, they could produce
simple organic molecules ("building blocks of life" -- no gratuitous Lego
references please -- this is off-topic!).
> - 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.
>
> - 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.
See Dave! and Bruce's replies.
> - The "Tree of Life" depicted to prove common ancestry has been
> disproved by molecular biology.
I would love to see this gross assertion corroborated. The "Tree of life"
shows how all living things on earth could share a common ancestor, based on
their current characteristics (both macro and molecular). The tree metaphor
is complicated by bacteria, the relationships of which look more like a
tangled ball of roots than a stately bifurcating oak, but the basic concept
is fairly well founded: gerbils, geraniums and germs are all made out of the
same stuff.
--DaveL
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
