Evolution is wrong

[Edtharan]

An absurd analogy vestigal organs in humans go just like your first paragraph. In the not to distant past there were plenty of organs we didn't understand. An appendix, according to some, we used to be herbivores. Whales uses hips in reproduction. By the theory of evolution, vestigal organs should not exist, why should it be kept if it serves no present function in the environment? What's the big deal about dinosaur fossils?

Actually evolution means that these vestigial organs should exist. They are the "intermedieate forms" that IDers say don't exist. If an organism was designed intelegently, then what would they include something that didn't serve any function? or even was a disadvantage?

 

The big deal with dinosaur fossils is that they are a big problem to IDers (in this context). In other contexts all fossils are important (not just dinosaurs) as it gives us data about what the earth was like in the past, how and why we are the way we are and just for curiosities sake.

 

A similar argument could be put about mould, of what reson could someone decide to grow mould on bread. This kind of curiosity lead to penacilin and other antibiotics. So the study of fossils might lead us to some discovery of importance.

[Dak]

I'd just like to clarify a few things:

 

It's explaination starts with the first living cell. The creator of ToE did not believe in the Genesis account of creation. Seriously, the theory invokes the question.

 

Well... strictly speaking, no.

 

1/ as previously stated, the ToE is valid, reguardless of wether the first life evolved, came from mars, or was made by a god.

 

2/ strictly speaking, evolutionary theory is the mechanisms by which species adapt, change, and by which new species emerge -- the historical order in which this happened is a branch of natural history, and covers evolution, paeleontology, molecular biology etc, and is slightly different from ToE.

 

In other words, ToE describes how cells could evolve into humans; evolutionary history describes the likely path that they took; the two are very closely related and support each other, but are still seperate (as an example of what i mean, if a flaw were found in the ToE, evolutionary history would become suspect; were a flaw found in evolutionary history, then the ToE would still be valid).

 

The "story" includes the creation of everything up until man.

 

again, no.

 

ToE describes the mechanisms of change.

 

evolutionary history attempts to describe the creation of all contemporary lifeforms from the original life form.

 

and that's it. theres no commentry, from either the ToE or evolutionary history, as to how the universe got to the state where the earth, sun, and first life existed, it just assumes (pretty justifyedly so) that, at some point, these things were somehow created.

 

abiogenesis theory attempts to describe how the first life could have emerged from non-life; big-bang theory describes the creation of the universe, and variouse astrophisical stuff plugs in the gaps. as do variouse religiouse theories -- whichever is true is irrelevent to the ToE; that certain things existed is treated as axiomic in the ToE.

 

So... as far as explaining nothingness --> human, no! ToE does not do this.

 

as far as explaining bacteria --> human, no! ToE does not do this. a combination of empirical evidence in the form of paleontology and molecular examination of preserved remains, along with cladistic and phylogenetic analysis, reveal the probably cource of all modern animals evolutionary history. obviously, this relys upon the ToE for validity, but it is still NOT THE ToE.

[Hades]

its amazing with evidence you say its not evidence. oh thats so great.

this is going in my blog along with kevin trudeau and his theories.

[padren]

Honestly as for the Universe, right now, it's a one sided Creation arguement. There are no acceptable non theistic models of the Universe.

 

There are no theistic models for the creation of the universe, just various sets of unsubstantiated theistic statements. There is a big difference between a model that allows us to understand something, and a statement that simply says "it was this way."

[ydoaPs]

It's explaination starts with the first living cell. The creator of ToE did not believe in the Genesis account of creation. Seriously, the theory invokes the question.

Which Genesis account is that? 1 or 2?

[Milken]

There are no theistic models for the creation of the universe, just various sets of unsubstantiated theistic statements. There is a big difference between a model that allows us to understand something, and a statement that simply says "it was this way."

 

Einstein, Sir Fred Hoyle, and A.S Eddingtion completely disagree. All non-theists. Einstein felt so negatively about it he purposely changed the math so the universe wasn't expanding. He called it the biggest blunder of his career.

 

Youdad...,

 

More specific?

[Milken]

Everyone, stop picking on me, I'm only one underdecided Milken. = )

 

All evolution says is that allele frequency changes over time. It says nothing about cells turning into slugs.

 

Common descent isn't part the theory.

 

You can't prove the existence of God. You can use the fossil record to prove that animals have evolved over time.

 

That's a great opening statement Cap since I already said that' date=' brilliant!I would say ____ but I won't, it's irrelevant. The point is, we're not there when it happens. As your buddy Gould would invoke, pressing rewind.

 

I'd suggest you don't dismiss something unless you understand it.

 

Such as?

 

I believe most Christians do.

 

Catholocism is debatably not Christian. = ) His influence is very important but scientifically' date=' no. Really, who cares, can't believe I'm wasting typing on this. .

 

Erm. Vestigal organs are kept because there is little to no benefit of them going away. They will eventually, perhaps; don't assume that in this point in time, evolution has stopped and all animals are in their ultimate form. They can still get rid of those hips in a few million years, if it gives them benefits.

 

Fair enough

 

Milken you're the best. = )

[Milken]

I'd just like to clarify a few things:

 

Well... strictly speaking' date=' no.[/quote']

 

How much does it cost to get a break? It was meant to be very simple.

 

1/ as previously stated' date=' the ToE is valid, reguardless of wether the first life evolved, came from mars, or was made by a god.[/quote']

 

Never disagreed here

 

2/ strictly speaking' date=' evolutionary theory is the mechanisms by which species adapt, change, and by which new species emerge -- the historical order in which this happened is a branch of natural history, and covers evolution, paeleontology, molecular biology etc, and is slightly different from ToE.

 

In other words, ToE describes how cells [i']could[/i] evolve into humans; evolutionary history describes the likely path that they took; the two are very closely related and support each other, but are still seperate (as an example of what i mean, if a flaw were found in the ToE, evolutionary history would become suspect; were a flaw found in evolutionary history, then the ToE would still be valid).

 

Well stated.

 

 

again' date=' no. [/quote']

 

again, no? What? I was talking about Creation, not evolution.

[Dak]

How much does it cost to get a break?

 

sorry if it seemed that i was jumping on you, i just wanted to clear a few things up in general

 

again, no? What? I was talking about Creation, not evolution.

 

OK, my bad... thought you were talking about ToE.

 

(also, the 'again no' bit is 'cos i was mentioning something i stated earlyer in the post; not meant to imply that i'd had to repeatedly tell you)

[ydoaPs]

Einstein' date=' Sir Fred Hoyle, and A.S Eddingtion completely disagree. All non-theists. Einstein felt so negatively about it he purposely changed the math so the universe wasn't expanding. He called it the biggest blunder of his career.

 

Youdad...,

 

More specific?[/quote']

are you going to answer? if we are going by the biblical record, we need to know which one.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Common descent isn't part the theory.

So I noticed.

 

 

That's a great opening statement Cap since I already said that, brilliant!I would say ____ but I won't, it's irrelevant. The point is, we're not there when it happens. As your buddy Gould would invoke, pressing rewind.

What is it with you and famous people I don't know?

 

Such as?

The entire physics model.

 

 

Milken you're the best. = )

Mis-quoting me like that could be interpreted as an attempt at trolling, you know.

[Milken]

So I noticed.

 

Common descent isn't part of evolution?

 

What is it with you and famous people I don't know?

 

I don't know' date=' but given this, don't be so quick to think I'd speak from ignorance like with my opinion on the physics model.

 

Mis-quoting me like that could be interpreted as an attempt at trolling, you know.

 

heard of it, but what is it?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Common descent isn't part of evolution?

Evolution is a theory that states that animals change over time.

 

heard of it, but what is it?

Trolling means you are attempting to anger me to get a response.

[abskebabs]

I think everyone should have a look at this.

 

http://www.psrast.org/defknthe.htm

 

Just to point out that our current knowledge of the workings of genetics, evolution and biology in general is nowhere near complete or definite yet.

 

what do ya think?

[john5746]

what do ya think?

 

We don't understand alot about the Brain either, but we are pretty sure there isn't a ghost in there making it all work.

[Ophiolite]

Just to point out that our current knowledge of the workings of genetics, evolution and biology in general is nowhere near complete or definite yet.

Shock, horror, dismay. The work of science .... incomplete!

Uncertainties, irregularities and ambiguities still exist, even though we have been investigating the Universe for at least 5000/13000000000 of its existence.

Why, this means the research must continue, scientists must be trained, and the frontiers of knowledge pushed forward. Where will it end?

[FreeThinker]

I think everyone should have a look at this.

 

http://www.psrast.org/defknthe.htm

 

Just to point out that our current knowledge of the workings of genetics' date=' evolution and biology in general is nowhere near complete or definite yet.

 

what do ya think?[/quote']

 

Do me a favor: Open your arms really wide and imagine that span represents the age of the earth. Your finger nails are the amount of time Homo sapiens have been present on this planet. The slight bit of dirt at the end of your the nails is the age of science. What gives you, or anyone else, the right to expect the ultimate understanding in such a short period of time?

[abskebabs]

Do me a favor: Open your arms really wide and imagine that span represents the age of the earth. Your finger nails are the amount of time Homo sapiens have been present on this planet. The slight bit of dirt at the end of your the nails is the age of science. What gives you, or anyone else, the right to expect the ultimate understanding in such a short period of time?

 

Dude I'm not saying that, and I guess I should have pointed out that we should not make so many assertions about evolution and genetics nowadays, and should be more cautious in its application, as we still lack a good understanding of how basic molecular biological processes work. Also; here's another link that might interest you.

 

http://genoterra.ru/news/view/8/941

[insane_alien]

what we have just now works 99.99% of the time and we are working on the other 0.01% thats good enough for me as long as we're working on learning what we don't know.

[pink_trike]

Dak answered it. Evolution only deals with the first living organism(probaly some single celled organism) to humans. .

Could the earth itself be considered the first living organism?

[Milken]

Could the earth itself be considered the first living organism?

 

 

Highly interesting question but I say no. If it is, then evolution's explaining power is bordering on refutation. They have NO explaination of how the earth naturally came into existence. The inital premise of Evolution is ridiculous, it's a naturalistic explaination that assumes the entire universe, earth, and the first organism was already here, then it "explains" everything else. Then has the nerve to exclude ALL supernatural explainations no matter how much it fits the evidence.

[ydoaPs]

They have NO explaination of how the earth naturally came into existence.

really? iirc, steller evolution is well understood, considering we can see systems begin. we've seen systems(including planets) form.

 

 

The inital premise of Evolution is ridiculous,

how so? you are different from your parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. etc.

 

You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia' date=' facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

 

How far do we have to go unitl we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It's a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with the chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We've hardly started to cross the continent; we're still not hlaf way to the great Rift Valley. The ancestor is staning well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holing her hand an entire chain of her lineal decendants, culminating in your staning on the Somali beach.

 

The daughter that she is holing in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps the other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are decended (or son, of course, but let's stick with females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding the hands of their daughters. ... Daughters would resemble their mothers as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love their daughters, and feel affinity for them as they always do.[/quote']

 

 

 

it's a naturalistic explaination that assumes the entire universe, earth, and the first organism was already here, then it "explains" everything else.

that's just like saying economics is rediculous because it assumes humans already exist.

 

 

Then has the nerve to exclude ALL supernatural explainations no matter how much it fits the evidence.

which supernatural explainations fit the evidence? of those, which ones fit it better than evolution?

 

be sure to check out this and this.

[Dak]

Highly interesting question but I say no. If it is, then evolution's explaining power is bordering on refutation.

 

lucky that no-one trys to explain planetgenesis with the ToE then.

 

They have NO explaination of how the earth naturally came into existence. The inital premise of Evolution is ridiculous, it's a naturalistic explaination that assumes the entire universe, earth, and the first organism was already here

 

on the contrary, the initial premises of evolution are entirely justified.

 

the earth, the universe, and life exist, therefore they must at some point have been created. otherwize they wouldnt be here. quid pro quo.

 

i'll state again that ToE conserns itself with HOW ALLELE FREQUENCIES CHANGE OVER TIME, including where new alleles come from, and, by extention, such things as speciation and adaptation/'improvement' over time.

 

ToE does not make any comments on where the first life or earth came from. using a theory that relys upon the assumption that the creation of life/the earth somehow happened at some point to explain the creation of first life/the earth would be, well, silly.

 

hence -- and i really want to hammer this home -- the ToE can 'plug in' to either abiogenesis theory, green-men-from-marz theory, or divine creation theory, as long as none of them are incompatable by saying, for example, that first life was created last tuesday. when, clearly, it wasnt.

 

speaking of ToE 'plugging in' to other theories -- science has many theories that explain where first life/the earth etc may have come from. the fact that none of these theories are the ToE doesnt majickally invalidate the ToE.

 

 

then it "explains" everything else.

 

very well, and in agreance with empirical evidence

 

Then has the nerve to exclude ALL supernatural explainations no matter how much [str]it fits the evidence.[/str'] they contradict evidence and/or make no sence, and then jebuz cries

 

sorry, i couldnt resist

 

if they fit in with observable evidence and make sence, then they wouldnt be supernatural.

[abskebabs]

what we have just now works 99.99% of the time and we are working on the other 0.01% thats good enough for me as long as we're working on learning what we don't know.

 

Sorry I'm replying so late to this but, the same could pretty much be said about Newtonian and classical physics up until the 20th century.

[insane_alien]

abskebabs: the same can be applied to any scientific theory atm or in the past and most probably all through the future.